I write these lines not as an academic observer, nor as a professional campaigner paid to speak about peace, but as a human being who has lived long enough to witness the same tragedy repeated under different flags, slogans, and excuses. I am a pianist by profession, an educator by conviction, and a pacifist by necessity. I founded HUFUD—Humanity United for Universal Demilitarisation—because after decades of listening to speeches, attending conferences, and watching wars unfold in real time, it became impossible to ignore a simple truth: peace is not failing because people reject it; peace is failing because militarism is protected.
The Global Peace Index (GPI) is often presented as a neutral, scientific measure of how peaceful the world is. It is quoted by governments, journalists, academics, and peace organisations. Rankings are shared, comparisons are made, and conclusions are drawn. Yet few pause to ask the most important question: what does the Global Peace Index truly measure, and what does it leave untouched?
This matters because measurement shapes policy, and policy shapes lives.
A Culture of Peace Already Exists
Before discussing any index, any ranking, or any dataset, I must state something clearly and without hesitation: a Culture of Peace already exists.
Ordinary people do not want war.
- No one wants bombs falling on their cities.
- No one wants to walk a road fearing landmines.
- No parent wants to send a child to war or receive a coffin in return.
- No soldier wants to obey orders knowing they may never come back alive.
This is not ideology. This is human instinct.
The Global Peace Index does not measure this culture because it does not need to be measured. It is already present, everywhere. What it measures instead are the outcomes of systems that actively suppress this culture through force, fear, and economic dependency.
What the Global Peace Index Measures
The Global Peace Index attempts to quantify peace through a range of indicators, broadly grouped into three areas:
- Ongoing domestic and international conflict
- Societal safety and security
- Militarisation
On paper, this appears reasonable. In practice, it reveals a deep contradiction.
Countries are ranked based on homicide rates, political instability, terrorism impact, incarceration, military expenditure, weapons imports, and similar metrics. These numbers are then aggregated into a score that suggests how “peaceful” a country is compared to others.
But peace is not the absence of visible violence alone. Peace is the absence of systems that require violence to survive.
The Fundamental Flaw: Militarism as a Variable, Not the Cause
The most dangerous limitation of the Global Peace Index is that militarism is treated as one factor among many, rather than as the central engine driving violence, instability, and environmental destruction.
Militarism is not a symptom. It is the disease.
When an index measures:
- military spending as a percentage of GDP
- number of armed personnel
- volume of weapons imports and exports
without questioning the legitimacy of these structures, it quietly normalises them. It suggests that peace can coexist with armed forces, war industries, and military alliances—as long as they are managed efficiently.
This is a fatal illusion.
Why War Persists Despite Peace Rankings
Every year, the Global Peace Index announces whether the world has become slightly more or slightly less peaceful. Yet wars continue. New conflicts erupt. Old ones are prolonged. Arms sales increase. Military budgets expand.
This is not a coincidence.
War persists because:War is economically profitable.
- War sustains millions of jobs in the arms industry.
- War justifies political power, surveillance, and repression.
- War consumes public budgets that could otherwise fund social needs.
In countries like the United Kingdom alone, hundreds of thousands of workers depend on the war industry. Their salaries require continuous production, continuous exports, and continuous conflict somewhere in the world. This reality places politicians in an impossible moral position: even if they personally believe in peace, they are structurally compelled to promote militarism.
No index confronts this truth honestly.
Peace Education Without Demilitarisation Is Theatre
Many peace organisations celebrate the Global Peace Index because it provides data for reports, conferences, and fundraising campaigns. They speak of peace education, dialogue, and awareness
I do not oppose education. I am an educator myself. But education that ignores militarism is not peacebuilding—it is performance.
You cannot teach peace while:
- armies are recruiting in schools,
- weapons are marketed as tools of security,
- military alliances define foreign policy,
- and war industries shape national economies.
The Global Peace Index often becomes a comforting instrument for institutions unwilling to challenge these foundations. It allows them to speak about peace without naming the structures that make peace impossible.
Militarism’s Hidden Costs: Beyond the Battlefield
One of the greatest failures of peace measurement is the narrow understanding of harm. War is not only about dead bodies and destroyed buildings.
Military activity devastates:
Climate and Environment
- Military training poisons soil and water.
- Weapons testing contaminates land and seas for generations.
- Armed forces are among the world’s largest institutional polluters.
No carbon accounting that excludes military emissions can be taken seriously.
Biodiversity
- Entire ecosystems are destroyed by bombing, manoeuvres, and toxic residues.
- Plant and animal species disappear silently, uncounted by any index.
Public Health
- Chemical exposure, unexploded ordnance, and infrastructure collapse leave lasting scars on civilian populations.
Economic Dependency
- Countries in the Global South are pushed into arms purchases instead of investing in health, education, and housing.
- Debt increases. Dependency deepens. Sovereignty erodes.
The Global Peace Index mentions some of these consequences indirectly, but it does not confront militarism as the structural cause behind them.
Europe: Peace Rankings and Arms Profits
Europe often ranks relatively high on the Global Peace Index. Yet Europe is one of the world’s largest exporters of weapons. Refugees cause millions in losses, as governments that receive them have to pay for their upkeep, give them homes, educate the children, etc.
How can a continent profit from war abroad while congratulating itself for peace at home?
The answer is simple: peace is being outsourced.
Violence is exported. Refugees are imported. Profits remain local.
An index that allows this contradiction to stand unchallenged does not describe peace; it disguises injustice.
Africa and Latin America: Measured Instability, Ignored Origins
Countries in Africa and Latin America often rank poorly on peace indices. They are described as unstable, violent, or insecure.
Rarely are the origins of this instability acknowledged:
- colonial borders enforced by force,
- decades of military dictatorships supported from abroad,
- arms flooding fragile regions,
- extraction of resources protected by violence.
The Global Peace Index measures outcomes without fully addressing responsibility. It records the symptoms while ignoring the suppliers.
The Global South and the Illusion of Security
In the Global South, militarism is often justified as “security” or “modernisation.” Fighter jets are purchased while hospitals lack equipment. Tanks are acquired while schools collapse.
This is not security. It is economic distortion.
When a country diverts public funds to weapons, it is not choosing defence; it is choosing dependency on the global war economy.
Peace cannot be indexed meaningfully while this system remains intact.
Why Traditional Peace Organisations Fail
I say this without pleasure and without malice: many peace organisations fail because they refuse to confront militarism directly.
They prefer:
- symbolic actions over structural change,
- fundraising narratives over uncomfortable truths,
- dialogue with power rather than opposition to it.
By celebrating tools like the Global Peace Index without questioning their assumptions, they help maintain the illusion that peace is compatible with armies, weapons, and war industries.
It is not.
What Peace Measurement Should Look Like
If we were serious about peace, we would measure:
- reduction in arms production and exports,
- dismantling of military bases,
- conversion of war industries to civilian use,
- elimination of standing armies,
- restoration of damaged ecosystems,
- redirection of military budgets to social needs.
Until then, peace indices will remain partial, cautious, and politically safe.
Universal Demilitarisation: The Only Viable Path
HUFUD exists for one reason: to state what others avoid.
There is no peaceful version of militarism.
There is no humane war industry.
There is no sustainable armed force.
Universal demilitarisation is not utopian. It is practical, necessary, and urgent. Every alternative has already failed.
Why the Global Peace Index Still Matters
Despite its limitations, the Global Peace Index matters because it reveals cracks in the narrative. It shows correlations between militarisation and instability. It provides data that can be used—if honestly interpreted—to argue for systemic change.
But only if we refuse to stop where the index stops.
The numbers must lead to questions, and the questions must lead to courage.
A Call to Action Rooted in Reality
I do not ask for donations to feel good about peace. I ask for commitment to dismantle the systems that profit from war.
Support HUFUD if you are ready to:
- challenge militarism openly,
- reject armed forces as inevitable,
- advocate for the end of the war industry,
- work toward universal demilitarisation without compromise.
Peace is not an abstract ideal. It is a concrete choice.
The Global Peace Index can tell us where we stand. Only demilitarisation can move us forward.
And the responsibility belongs to all of us.
