Videos or incentives: how best to end conflict

We often hear war correspondents say that they undertake their gruelling assignments so that others will come to realize the horror of armed conflict. I don't doubt their sincerity, nor their bravery in embedding themselves in military campaigns and recording the carnage that is the outcome of man's inhumanity to man. I do, however, doubt whether widely disseminated graphic reporting is the best way, or even an effective way, of bringing about an end to war. They may be the best we have come up with so far - but they have done nothing to end violent political conflict. Their graphic reports, pictures and (especially) videos probably inflame conflict more than they defuse it. 

Piling up weapons, unfalsifiable 'deterrence' doctrine, peace talks, talks about talks: these are roundabout methods of addressing our tendency to destroy others of our species and a big chunk of the natural environment too. They lack even the grim entertainment value of the reporters' images and commentary. Here's a question: if we are truly serious about ending armed conflict, why don't we reward the ending of armed conflict rather than the tried, tested and failed means of preventing it? Incentives matter, and the current incentives are all for arms merchants to sell more arms, for bureaucrats to engage in endless talks, for fanatics and governments to inflame aggressive religious and nationalistic passions. 

Humanity would benefit if there were countervailing financial incentives. The wish that almost everyone has, when we are not reacting to propaganda or provocation, to live in peace, has not been monetised and so, sadly, counts for very little when set against the interests of the weapons manufacturers, bureaucrats and ideological zealots. 

Which is where the Social Policy Bond concept, applied in the service of world peace, could make a contribution. Under a bond regime targeting a combination of such metrics for reduction as numbers of people killed and made homeless, people would be rewarded for the achievement of sustained periods during which wars are reduced or eliminated. 

World Peace Bonds would channel the market’s incentives and efficiencies into ending all violent conflict. Ideally, governments, institutions, the billionaire class and anyone else with a genuine interest in peace would contribute to a fund that would be used to redeem the bonds, which would create a coalition of interests with a powerful incentive to reduce the level of violent political conflict. Initial funding could be There would be difficulties defining peace and quantifying for targeting purposes the level of conflict. It would probably be more realistic to begin by issuing Nuclear Peace Bonds, which would entail rewarding, say, 30 years during which no nuclear device would be deployed and detonated in any sort of conflict - a more readily verifiable target than reducing the level of conflict in the world, though hopefully a stepping stone in that direction. For my recent book on World Peace Bonds, please see here, and there are more links to my work on conflict reduction here.