hu.euronews.com
Global Armed Conflicts Surge in 2024; Palestinian Territories Most Affected
Global armed conflicts increased by 25% in 2024, resulting in 223,000 deaths, with the Palestinian territories identified as the world's most conflict-ridden area, experiencing over 50,000 deaths in the past year; ACLED predicts further escalation in several regions in 2025, exacerbating humanitarian needs.
- What is the extent of the global increase in armed conflicts in 2024, and what are the immediate human consequences?
- Global armed conflicts surged 25% in 2024 compared to 2023, impacting one in eight people, with an estimated 223,000 fatalities, according to ACLED. This represents a doubling of global conflicts over the past five years. The intensity and death toll are also increasing, with a 37% rise in fatalities in the first half of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023.
- What are the key regions identified as high-risk for escalating conflicts in 2025, and what are the potential implications for humanitarian aid?
- Looking ahead, ACLED's 2025 conflict watchlist highlights several regions at high risk of escalating conflict, including Mexico and Colombia in the Americas; Pakistan in Asia; and Sudan, the Sahel, and the African Great Lakes region. The UN estimates that 305 million people will require humanitarian aid in 2025, further strained by ongoing conflicts. The underfunding of humanitarian needs in conflict zones like Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, and Ukraine remains a critical concern, despite international legal obligations.
- Which region is identified as the most conflict-ridden, and what factors contribute to its high level of conflict according to ACLED's analysis?
- The Palestinian territories are identified as the world's most conflict-ridden zone, with 81% of the population affected and over 50,000 deaths in the past year. This is based on ACLED's assessment considering fatalities, intensity, geographic spread, and fragmentation of conflict. The ongoing war in Ukraine remains the deadliest conflict globally, while Myanmar experiences the highest number of armed groups due to internal conflict following the 2021 military coup.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the increase in global conflict as a primarily negative development. While it presents data on rising death tolls and displacement, it does not offer counterpoints or perspectives that might nuance the interpretation of these trends. The emphasis on the severity and scale of conflicts could unduly alarm readers without providing sufficient context or analysis of potential mitigating factors or regional variations. The repeated use of terms like "conflict zones", "crisis zones", and "war" reinforces this negative framing.
Language Bias
The article uses strong and emotionally charged language, such as "leghalálosabb" (deadliest), "válságövezetek" (crisis zones), and repeatedly emphasizes high death tolls. While this reflects the seriousness of the topic, it may lack the neutrality expected in objective reporting. The language used could evoke strong emotional responses in readers, potentially shaping their perception of the issue beyond factual presentation.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the Palestinian conflict and the war in Ukraine, mentioning other conflicts briefly. While it cites the ACLED and other organizations, it omits detailed analysis of the root causes of these conflicts, the specific actors involved beyond broad generalizations (e.g., armed groups in Myanmar), and the geopolitical context influencing these events. The lack of in-depth exploration of individual conflicts limits a comprehensive understanding of the global conflict landscape. The omission of specific examples of human rights violations in various conflicts could also be considered a significant bias by omission.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present false dichotomies, but by focusing primarily on the intensity and scale of conflicts, it implicitly creates a dichotomy between conflict zones and areas of peace. This simplifies a complex issue where many regions experience low-level violence or instability, rather than large-scale war.
Gender Bias
The article lacks gender-disaggregated data and doesn't analyze the differential impacts of conflict on men and women. There is no discussion on the specific vulnerabilities of women and girls in conflict situations, or the role of gender in perpetuating or resolving conflict. This omission constitutes a bias.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a significant global surge in armed conflicts, resulting in increased casualties and displacement. This directly undermines peace, justice, and the effectiveness of institutions in maintaining order and protecting civilians. The rise in conflict intensity, especially in regions like Palestine, Ukraine, and Myanmar, exacerbates instability and hinders the progress of building strong, accountable institutions.