The world's safest countries to live in - amid rising fears of World War Three
The relentless onslaught of global events from war in Europe to a wider conflict emerging in the Middle East can make it feel like few places on Earth are safe - but they are out there
War in Europe, escalating tensions in the Middle East and a reshaping of the post-WWII global order has sparked fears of nuclear war that could end life as we know it, with many wondering what countries are the safest in an increasingly dangerous world.
Russia's war in Ukraine shattered decades of peace in Europe with the UK and allies scrambling to increase defence spending to deter Moscow from further westward expansion. The missiles volleys and air strike exchange between Iran and Israel further highlighted the fragile situation in the Middle East after Tehran was accused of attempting to manufacture enough uranium to make nuclear weapons.
Unsurprisingly, an increasingly dangerous world has shifted leaders onto a war footing with Keir Starmer now looking to purchase at least 12 F-35 stealth bombers to bolster Britain's nuclear deterrence. But across the Atlantic, Americans also fear an emerging conflict with a July 2024 YouGov poll finding last year that 62 per cent of 36,421 surveyed US adults respondents believed a major war would happen "within the next 10 years."
A bleak outlook has no doubt led many people to ponder which countries are the safest in the world, particularly amid fears of a major war. Here are the 10 safest countries in the world, according to the Global Peace Index which measures the relative position of nations based on their apparent levels of peacefulness.
10: Finland
The Nordic country of Finland made the top 10 with an overall score of 1.42 on a scale of 1 to 5, with the lower a score indicating the more peaceful the country. Despite being on Russia's doorstep, the country earned its ranking thanks to a relatively low homicide rate, low political terror scale, low political instability and low violent crime rates.
But Finland was denied a higher ranking due to its comparatively high military expenditure, given its proximity to an increasingly aggressive Russia. This was also a major factor in not giving Finland a lower score as its relations with Russia were considered not peaceful, as Moscow may view its former duchy as ripe for territorial expansion.
9: Slovenia
Slovenia is a small country nestled between regional the European regional powers of Italy, Austria and Hungary. The Global Peace Index gave the former Yugoslavia member state a score of 1.409 based on its low criminality, homicide rate, political instability as well as its overall safety and security.
Following a brief conflict during the collapse of Yugoslavia, Slovenia was recognised as an independent nation and has been a member of the European Union since 1992. It has gone on to have a relatively high-income economy with multiple sectors.
8: Denmark
Denmark has cultivated a progressive image over the decades and has been named on several occasions as the happiest country on Earth with one of the most liveable capital cities, in Copenhagen. The Scandinavian country earned a score of 1.393 due to low criminality, homicide rates and political instability.
It was not all praise from the index though, with the organisation giving it higher marks for its large number of weapons imports and experts as well as its relations with neighbouring countries.
7: Portugal
Portugal might be known as a lovely holiday option for many Brits but it was also praised on the peace index for relatively low crime rates, terrorism impact and its overall safety and security. The Iberian country was awarded a score of 1.371 due to its overall safety.
But a medium level police rate and a comparatively higher political terror scale compared to other top 10 nations saw it fail to find a higher place on the list.
6: Singapore
The Southeast Asian city state of Singapore is the first country to make the list that is outside Europe. The tiny nation underwent rapid economic advancement after WW2 and is considered to be a major power in relation to its size and drew favourable remarks from British politicians who wanted to make the UK post-Brexit appear more like the country in regards to its economy.
It landed a score of 1.357 on the Global Peace Index thanks to a low crime rate, access to firearms as well as its safety and security. But Singapore earned the highest marks, which are viewed as less peaceful, for its weapons imports and higher points for its military expenditure and militarisation.
Joint 4: Austria
Austria was given a score of 1.29 in the index due to low perceptions of criminality, a low crime rate and low impacts from terrorism. The country did get higher scores for its police rate and the population's access to firearms.
Joint 4: Switzerland
Switzerland has long prided its neutral stance in regard to global affairs and is viewed as one of the safest places in the world due to this principle. The country also scored 1.29 on the index due to a low crime rate, political violence and cordial relations with neighbours.
The landlocked country did earn higher scores for its police rate, access to small arms and weapons exports.
3: New Zealand
The first, and only country, to make the list from Oceania is New Zealand. Despite having endured one of the deadliest terror attacks in recent history in 2019, the country has earned a reputation of being a safe country.
The Global Peace Index gave New Zealand a score of 1.28 due to a low crime and homicide rate as well as political violence. It did earn higher scores due to a higher level of weapons imports and perceptions of crime.
2: Ireland
Despite recent tensions around the rate of immigration and protests around it the country has earned its spot on the index with a score of 1.26. While perceptions of criminality and the police rate remain high, the incarceration and homicide rate in Ireland is relatively low.
Access to firearms remains does remain higher than it does with other nations on the list but low terrorism fears and good relations with neighbours see it remain in the second spot.
1: Iceland
It is no surprise that an island far away from most countries is considered one of the safest places on Earth, particularly amid fears of a nuclear war. Iceland holds an enviable score of 1.10 on the index and has been widely praised for its approach to egalitarianism as well as equality for its citizens.
The country also benefits from a incredibly low crime rate, access to firearms and political violence. General perceptions among the country's citizens is that is is a safe place to live.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's gamble has failed. Now Reeves will crucify the middle class
Don't believe the denials, the hubristic promises to fight on, the chest-thumping from deep down in the Number Ten bunker. It's all over for Sir Keir Starmer, a hollow husk of a Prime Minister stripped of his last vestiges of authority and credibility. His final, doomed showdown with his MPs over his plan to trim incapacity benefits will only expose his impotence and lack of strategic nous. His premiership, not even a year old, is already on borrowed time. He will have to surrender again, or suffer total humiliation. He is now beholden to Labour MPs, and survives only on their say-so. There are, for the first time, whispers that he could be ousted as early as after the May local elections. I'm not so sure: I suspect that Rachel Reeves, his beleaguered Chancellor, is likely to be sacrificed first. She has certainly failed disastrously. She convinced herself that her supposed technocratic brilliance and moral superiority meant she could manage Britain's broken economy and welfare state more competently than the Tories. She sought to combine a few cuts with a massive increase in overall expenditure in a crude attempt at 'triangulation'. She lied about Tory 'black holes' and repeatedly broke the spirit of her party's election promises, jacking up National Insurance. Her staggering arrogance has caught up with her. The deficit is too high, and gilt yields have surged. She hasn't fixed housebuilding or anything else. Her tax rises have vandalised the economy. Britain will lose 16,500 millionaires this year, on top of 10,800 last year, according to Henley and Partners. We are now home to just 156 billionaires, down from 165 in 2024. The rich are taking jobs, spending and tax receipts with them. The number of children in private schools is down 11,000; Labour expected its hateful VAT raid to force just 3,000 children to move to state schools. The irony is that Labour MPs still see Reeves as too Right-wing, even though she is the most Left-wing Chancellor since Denis Healey. Her Personal Independence Payments reforms would save £4.5 billion a year by 2029-2030; working-age health and disability spending would still increase by £15.4 billion between 2024-25 and 2029-30. These are not cuts, merely slightly slower spending growth, and yet even this has proved too much. Labour isn't in the mood for nuance, for being sensible. They want to revolutionise Britain, and damn the consequences. Starmer can't pass the buck. The activists who backed him for Labour leader liked his 2020 personal manifesto. He wasn't Jeremy Corbyn, for sure, but neither was he another Tony Blair. He promised to maintain Labour's 'radical values' and hailed 'the moral case for socialism'. His foreign policy proposals explains his choice of Lord Hermer as our worst ever Attorney General. Starmer demanded 'no more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales.' His other ideas have yet to be implemented. He called for an 'increase [in] income tax for the top 5 per cent of earners', the dismantling of Universal Credit and an 'end [to] the Tories' cruel sanctions regime'; the abolition of tuition fees; massive labour market regulations and powers to the trade unions; a defence of 'free movement'; the lionisation of the 'green deal'; the nationalisation of utilities; and the end of NHS outsourcing. This is what Labour thought they would get when he became Leader, and they are determined Starmer should deliver at least some of this agenda as PM. They accepted he had to pretend to be somebody he wasn't at the election, to fool centrist voters, but will no longer tolerate any deviation from what they believe was the plan all along. Britain is becoming ever more polarised. Some 25 per cent of the public believe taxes on top incomes are too high, close to the highest support for that enlightened position of the past 35 years; 24 per cent think the level is about right, the British Social Attitudes Survey notes. But 44 per cent think they are too low, up from 27 per cent in 2006. The Right is becoming sounder, but the Left is becoming ever more extreme, which is bad for Labour. Whatever it does is never good enough. Today's average activist is a graduate with quasi-communist economic ideas who wants to rejoin the EU, implement woke radicalism, believes in open borders, hates Israel and is soft on crime. They are not happy that Starmer is buying F-35A jets able to carry nuclear warheads. They do not support spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence (including 'resilience' expenditure), as agreed with Nato. They are shocked that Palestine Action is being categorised as a terrorist group. They are ideologically and sociologically similar to the young, prosperous, uber-credentialed New Yorkers who picked the woeful 'democratic socialist' and 'anti-Zionist' Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic Mayoral Primary. The coup de grâce for Starmer will come if a new Left-wing party is launched. If it were led by Jeremy Corbyn, such a venture would attract 10 per cent of the electorate, a poll for the New Statesman suggests, cutting Labour's share to 20 per cent. In alliance with the Greens, a Corbynite party – absorbing the pro-Gaza independents – could poll 15 per cent, overtaking the Lib Dems, and doing to Labour what Reform did to the Tories. To buy time, Starmer will need to concede to the Left on everything. He will start defaming Israel again. He will push through his Employment Rights Bill. He will task Reeves with one final mission: raise even more taxes at a kamikaze Autumn Budget to pay for defence commitments, the U-turns and to splash out even more on Labour's client groups. She will surely freeze tax thresholds, dragging millions more into higher bands. She may impose the first increase in petrol duty since 2010-11. She will slap more taxes on gambling. Such 'soft' measures won't be sufficient. She may also target pension tax relief, or increase inheritance tax, or raid Isas, or revalue council tax, or mull nationwide road pricing, or even consider the nuclear option, a wealth tax. It will be tantamount to declaring total war on the aspirational, on anybody who wants to work, save and improve their lives. The Left will lap it all up, but Britain will never recover.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Three committees complain of ‘inadequate consultation' over welfare reforms
Concerns about 'inadequate consultation' on the UK Government's controversial welfare reforms have been raised by parliamentary committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A letter to Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall also said there had been a 'lack of robust data' to allow parliamentarians in the three areas to 'effectively scrutinise' the potential impact of the changes. The letter, sent by the Scottish Parliament's Social Justice and Social Security Committee together with the Equality and Social Justice Committee of the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly's Committee for Communities, comes as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is facing a rebellion from Labour MPs against the proposed changes. A Commons vote on the plans to squeeze sickness and incapacity benefits is due to go ahead on Tuesday, despite 120 Labour MPs having publicly backed a move to block the legislation. Meanwhile, the Work and Pensions Secretary was told there are 'significant concerns' about the Government's changes. The letter from the three committees told how the 'economic backdrop' for many of those claiming disability benefits is 'already extremely challenging'. And the committees added that the payments people receive 'are not symptomatic of a 'broken' system, but make a significant contribution to their health and wellbeing'. They told Ms Kendall they were 'agreed that inadequate consultation and engagement by the UK Government with stakeholders and the devolved institutions has contributed to this sense of concern'. Representatives from the committees added: 'In addition, the lack of robust data and jurisdiction-specific impact assessments presents significant challenges for our three committees to effectively scrutinise potential impacts.' Here they insisted they have been 'constrained by the lack of quality information'. They added: 'Our committees fully support the stated ambition that 'no-one should be consigned to a life on benefits just because they have a health condition or a disability, especially when they're able to and want to work with the right support in place'. 'However, in order to contribute meaningfully to the reform process, committees and citizens must be fully informed and offered every opportunity for meaningful engagement.' The UK Government has been contacted for comment.
Daily Mirror
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
NATO chief red-faced as he battles fierce backlash after calling Trump 'Daddy'
Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General, referred to Donald Trump as 'Daddy' as he praised the US president's approach to the Iran-Israel ceasefire in reference to Trump's F-bomb tirade on live TV NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has come under fire after referring to Donald Trump as 'daddy' during the alliance's annual summit as he was forced to defend his campaign of Trump flattery. The comment triggered widespread backlash and raised fresh concerns over the politicisation of the organisation's leadership. The former Dutch Prime Minister made the remark while praising Trump's approach to the Iran-Israel ceasefire, saying: 'Sometimes daddy has to use strong words'. Rutte spoke in reference to the US President's expletive-laden tirade outside the White House when the president shouted, 'They don't know what the f*** they're doing,'** in reference to the Iran-Israel ceasefire fiasco he claims to have masterminded. Asked about the 'Daddy' comment, Trump later said: 'He likes me, I think he likes me. If he doesn't, I'll let you know. I'll come back, and I'll hit him hard, OK? Very affectionate.' The exchange capped off a volatile summit dominated by Trump's demands, vague promises, and escalating attacks aimed at both allies and adversaries. The US President declared victory after securing a pledge from alliance members to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP, calling it a 'very historic milestone.' 'It's a monumental win for the United States, because we were carrying much more than our fair share,' Trump said. 'It's been a big win to Europe and for Western civilisation.'But within hours, Trump turned his attention to Spain, threatening to impose punitive trade tariffs unless Madrid meets the new target. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez had suggested Spain might seek an opt-out. 'I think it's unfair they're not paying,' Trump said. 'I'm going to negotiate directly with Spain… I'm going to do it myself. You know what we're going to do, we're negotiating with Spain on a trade deal… we're going to make them pay twice as much.' Trump also acknowledged that his long-standing claim to resolve the war in Ukraine within 24 hours has fallen short. 'It's more difficult than people would have any idea. Vladimir Putin has been more difficult,' he admitted, adding that he'd had 'some problems' with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the past. Still, Trump described a meeting with Zelensky on the sidelines of the summit yesterday as cordial, saying it 'couldn't have been nicer.' When asked by a Ukrainian journalist if he would send Patriot missile systems to protect Ukraine from Russian airstrikes, Trump did not commit. 'We'll see if we can make some available,' he told a reporter, whose husband is a soldier. 'That's rough stuff... I can see it's very upsetting to you. Say hello to your husband for me.' Trump also issued a full-throated defence of the US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, after intelligence leaks suggested the damage inflicted may have been significantly less than the White House initially claimed. 'I got a call from pilots on the planes, they were devastated because [the media] was trying to minimise the attack… they have real scum come out and write reports that are as negative as they could possibly be,' Trump said. He insisted that Iran's Fordow nuclear site, one of the primary targets, had been 'obliterated.' 'The whole thing is collapsed, and a disaster. And I think all of the nuclear stuff is down there, because it's very hard to remove,' he claimed. Trump then walked away from the podium, as he was pressed further, handing the stage to his Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News presenter. Hegseth backed up his boss. 'So if you want to make an assessment of what happened at Fordow, you better get a big shovel and go really deep, because Iran's nuclear programme is obliterated and somebody, somewhere, is trying to leak something…' Hegseth boasted. Not all of NATO's heads of state were impressed by Rutte's handling of Trump. Sources told the Mirror that European leaders were increasingly frustrated with Trump's increasingly unilateral tone. The decision to reduce the summit's official communiqué to a single page and shorten the meeting to just three hours was a deliberate attempt to prevent one of Trump's signature blow-ups. But the view of Rutte's deference - particularly in referring to Trump as 'daddy' - amplified concerns about the Secretary General's impartiality. Critics say toadying comment undermined NATO's credibility while highlighting a deeper shift in the alliance's power dynamics. Rutte was forced to deny that his campaign of flattery aimed at Donald Trump was 'demeaning'. The Nato secretary-general told a news conference: 'It is a question of taste.' As Trump departed The Hague, declaring 'a big win for America', the unease among European leaders was apparent.
