Fund for World Peace

Nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam.
Endless money forms the sinews of war

Mankind spent USD 1.8 trillion on military power in 2018, presumably to keep the peace. It's a tragedy that we're presumably keeping the peace against each other, but there's another interesting thing about this sum:

A tiny fraction of it would probably suffice to create world peace at least between states if reallocated to solely this purpose.

I present you the

Fund for World Peace

The nations of the world pay 1% of their military spending into this fund. Within a few years, the fund grows to well over € 100 billion.

A country under attack would receive as much interest-free credit (due in rates after ten to 20 years) from the FWP as needed for its defence whenever the U.N. General Assembly or the UNSC (disregarding vetoes) condemn a country for a direct or sponsored aggression against another country. All U.N. member countries are required to allow arms exports (save for a couple technologically too sensitive categories) to the defending country.

Still, attacked countries might succumb under assault by an aggressor. The United Nations General Assembly may authorise the use of force to liberate such a country, as happened in the case of Kuwait. The FWP would then offer a bounty for the liberation of the country (costs plus 50%). It would also provide a loan for a credible effort (at negotiated conditions).

The fund would accept emergency loans from countries (at their ten-year bond rates, repayable in ten years) if its liquidity is insufficient to meet its mission.

The effect would be that even great powers such as Russia or the U.S. would be deterred from many potential military aggressions because even small powers would suddenly have the economic means to defend themselves or to liberate nearby occupied countries.

It wouldn't be perfect. The decision-making could be flawed, powers could try to exploit the rule set and some powers might not fear countermeasures because they can threaten the use of nuclear munitions. Still, it would be a powerful deterrent - for a tiny fraction of the current annual expenses.



  1. What a beautiful idea but i wonder more and more with the years if we both live in the same world with the samen human race on it ? NEVER would even a fraction of the worlds country agree to such an fund. Never.

    1. Development aid is steady above EUR 100 bn p.a., this proposal is about EUR 15...20 bn p.a..

      The IMF was founded and has in excess of EUR 500 bn.

      I suppose the relative smallness of the contribution (1% of military spending, NOT 1% of GDP) would give it a chance. The challenge would not be about overcoming selfishness, but about addressing mechanic concerns regarding unintended consequences.

  2. stratum lapide infernum bona voluntate

  3. I am afraid your citizens would all get raped and murmured before the paid liberators could buy weapons and go free them.

    1. That's an irrelevant concern. The way to decide if a proposal is an improvement of not is to compare it to the status quo.
      A 1% reduction in military spending is extremely unlikely to prevent war or defeat in war, so there's a negligible downside.
      A 100+ billion € fund would have multiple times as much financial power as most countries under threat or under attack can spend on military power. There's thus a substantial upside of the proposal.

  4. What a naive and silly proposal.
    No one will ever agree to such measures.
    The example you brought up regarding the Kuwait is invalid, the US wasn't there to "liberate" it, it was there to set up bases all around the gulf region and set up the logistical infrastructure necessary to eventually invade and destroy another one of Israel's enemies thus facilitating the Greater Israel project.

    1. Well, you didn't read attentively. The Kuwait example was an example of a technical move of the U.N.. It's 100% valid because that line is about a mechanism.

      I'll ignore the rest of your comment as an opinion devoid of argumentation.

    2. I need not present any arguments against such a poorly thought out proposal.
      Why would the US to agree to such measures?
      There are no gains to be made from "world peace" from the perspective of the Judeo-American empire at least (the current global hegemon).
      You are operating under the assumption that world peace is desirable by the current dominant empires.
      Care to present evidence to back up that naive assumption?

    3. The U.S. isn't the world and might feel compelled to follow suit if others lead by example.

      Moreover, there's much support for reduced military spending among Democrats, and they might very well be in control of WH + Congress by 2021.

      Besides, many people world-wide think of the military as being tasked to secure, not as tasked to go to distant continents and blow up people and buildings. That's actually a tiny minority's view.

      I suspect the most widespread reaction to the proposal would be belief that it might be a really good thing for peace, but disbelief in political feasibility. Which leaves it to but a few people in the right offices to test that scepticism by actually proposing it at the highest levels.

    4. Peace is not profitable.
      Peace doesn't help achieve the Greater Israel project (an important project in the eyes of Americans ruling elite).
      And the "world" is not a democracy.
      Not every single country gets a vote.
      What truly matters is what the big players have to say (US, China, Russia).
      These are the countries whose opinion count for something.
      It is politically feasibile to employ such a measure but none of the great powers would agree to it.
      And the American democrats are just as imperialistic as their republican counter parts, they just differ on domestic and social issues.

      PS: I apologize if I came off as overly aggressive in my previous comments, I didn't mean to.

    5. Seriously, your conspiracy theory isn't all that interesting or convincing.

      It's generally pointless to discuss a proposal for change with someone who's insisting about rigidity of the status quo and not interested in thinking about the pro and cons of the proposal for change. The status quo usually seems way more stable than it is.

    6. "Conspiracy theory"?
      There is nothing conspiratorial about the "Greater Israel" project.
      You liberals tend to dismiss anything that goes against your narrative as "silly conspiracy theories" since you are incapable of debating your opponents.
      Furthermore, you have yet to present any evidence for the assumption upon which your argument stands.

    7. "the Greater Israel project (an important project in the eyes of Americans ruling elite)"

      You have no way to prove that, so it's a conspiracy theory.

      I don't see which assumption of mine would require further elaboration.

    8. Disclosure: I deleted two anonymous replies that followed. They were nothing but the compeltely predictable stuff, devoid of any actual evidence for the quoted claim itself.

  5. But the argument of him is valid: none of the great powers has anything from such an fond, but to an opposite, such a fund would be a problem for such big powers to enforce their will with violence as it is usual for them in many cases.

    They would pay to weaken themselve and as this is against logic, they would not agree to such an idea and would prevent it.

    Also: most countries in the world are neither democracies nor peaceful, nor has their elites the wellbeing of the people as their target. The majority of all world leaders act not in the interest of the people and this is even true in most democratic countries.

    1. You're making an assumption that's unproved: You assume that great powers see their interests best-served in applying force.
      Moreover, you assume that great powers believe they end up winning if great powers oppose each other.

      That's a fashionable way of thinking among anglophone right wingers, as it's become fashionable among them to not pay attention to any win-win policies or cooperation in general.

      The promise of the fund proposal is to deter (some) aggressions. This means more stability, and less expenses in pursuit of the same end. Moreover, Western great powers don't think of themselves as the aggressor, so they are not very likely to think of themselves as facing the financial power of the fund in the future.

      Great powers can expect great benefits from a peaceful world order. This is especially true of China, which would have the fund as a vessel to secure overseas investments against Western aggressions and against petty conflicts between small powers.

      Besides, it's completely untrue to claim that most countries are not peaceful. Don't bring fantasyworld stuff into a discussion here, please.

  6. "You assume that great powers see their interests best-served in applying force."
    Economic and diplomatic pressure can only take you so far.
    An empire cannot do without it.

    "Moreover, Western great powers don't think of themselves as the aggressor, so they are not very likely to think of themselves as facing the financial power of the fund in the future."
    In most cases, they objectively are.
    So, if they decide to make an exception for their aggression, than such measures would not be agreed upon by other powers (Russian/China).
    What are you are proposing is essentially imperialism that wraps itself with a veil of legitimacy.
    It's only aggression when small actors do it, it's just "saving oppressed minorities and women" when I do it.
    We already have that.

    1. No, you didn't pay attention. Look at the proposed mechanism for releasing the aid. It's hardly reconcilable with some imperial scheme.

    2. "Moreover, Western great powers don't think of themselves as the aggressor, so they are not very likely to think of themselves as facing the financial power of the fund in the future."

      Keyword here is "see".
      And what do you define as an "attack"?
      Is the US currently attacking Syria.
      Or is it simply supporting the oh so oppresed Kurds?

    3. Keyword here is "think".*