Transcending identity geopolitics: Conflict Reduction Bonds

Gideon Rachman asks:

What is it that causes some tragedies and conflicts to command the world's attention and others to pass almost unnoticed?

The tragedies of Ukraine, Gaza and Israel all get far more attention than wars and humanitarian calamities in the rest of the world. ... [L]ast week the UN warned that "Sudan will soon be the world's worst hunger crisis" with 18mn people facing acute food insecurity. It highlighted an ongoing conflict that involves "mass graves, gang rapes, shockingly indiscriminate attacks in densely populated areas" and more than 6.5mn displaced people. War and the rise of identity geopolitics, Gideon Rachman, 'Financial Times', 27 March

The answer appears to be something Mr Rachman calls identity geopolitics. But for my purposes, the 'why' doesn't really matter. A higher priority is, I believe, to target for reduction all deaths and depredations caused by human conflict, impartially; that is, without regard to people's identity, beliefs, or where they live. We have limited conflict reduction resources, and they should be deployed where they can relieve the most human suffering. When thinking rationally and compassionately, I believe most of us would agree. 

One way of doing this would be to issue Social Policy Bonds to target conflict and the results of conflict. The bonds could target conflict in a particular region (the Middle East, for instance), or the entire globe, or (simpler to monitor), nuclear conflict specifically, depending on the source, magnitude and interests of those funding the bonds. I will admit that the idea of issuing bonds targeting something the ancient Greeks and others have deemed an inescapable aspect of human nature seems overly idealistic at first sight. But incentives can direct our goals and behaviour in unimaginably varied directions. Financial incentives, as offered by the bonds, aren't the only way of influencing our behaviour but, if they are sufficiently large and embedded in a very long-term vision, they could attenuate some of the more negative human traits that lead to deadly conflict. If that sounds far-fetched, consider the power of financial incentives to foment conflict: without weapons at every level of sophistication, tragedies of the scale at which we are seeing today would simply not occur. Manufacturers supply weapons in such copious quantities precisely because of the financial incentives on offer. 

The links in the previous paragraph lead to pieces explaining how the bonds would work. In my view, issuing bonds with the goal of peace sustained for several decades would have two huge benefits:

• They would bring about more more efficient allocation of conflict-reduction resources, so minimising the human suffering that conflict brings about, including that measured in terms of deaths, injury, or homelessness.

•  For that reason, people would be more inclined to invest in conflict reduction, in all its aspects, many of which will be innovate and that we cannot anticipate. 

Greater effectiveness of peace making, and more resources devoted to peace making: I think it's worth a try.