Humanitarian Intervention Index
With the likelihood of Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction being found anywhere other than the mind of our Prime Minister, the rationale for the invasion of Iraq has shifted to that of human rights (there have been commentators who have argued this from the start).Of course anti-war types then usually say, 'but if Iraq, why not China'. Pro-war advocates then say, not unreasonably, that it would be a very difficult war to win, and anyway China is reforming on its' own.
The second argument is hard to measure, but clearly the first argument obviously has much merit for China, but what about other countries? And so I launch my new 'Humanitarian Intervention Index'. This takes the Observer's handy guide to countries' human rights' record (from 2000) and divides by the number of billions of dollars spent on defence. Hence it combines the desirability of armed intervention and the likely ease of doing so.
Now, remembering this is based on 2000 human rights' data, you can see the results in an Excel file (if it asks for a password just press cancel).
For those without Excel, the top 5 with their HII rating are:
Gambia (5,000)
Sierra Leone (2144)
Guinea Bissau (1964)
Liberia (1282)
Somalia (906)
Now since the Observer data was published things have happened in Sierra Leone and Liberia. So, on the basis of this, the most sensible candidates if you believe in humanitarian military intervention are Gambia, Guinea Bissa and Somalia (followed by Tanzania and Burundi). These have appalling human rights' records and they don't have much military to speak of. Iraq incidentally is 54th, with an HII rating of 13, between Peru and Croatia. China is 79th with an HII of just 0.3.
Obviously the index is a bit rough and ready, and I need some measure of the prospect for the country reforming without outside intervention. But for now I think it is a handy guide to warbloggers everywhere.
posted by Matthew @ 12/13/2003 11:13:00 PM
Comments: 0
