"Getting one hundred ninety-five countries to agree costs billions and takes forever.".
No. Getting countries to *implement* things costs billions.
Getting them to *sign papers* is surprisingly cheap. Humans love signing papers.
It makes them feel important. What Treaties Actually Cost. N.G.O.
campaign budgets are rarely disclosed publicly, because nonprofits guard their finances the way dragons guard gold.
But we know enough to establish something surprising: treaty campaigns run on pocket change.
The Ottawa Treaty banning landmines took fourteen months. It started with one staff member, Jody Williams, who grew a coalition
to over a thousand organizations across sixty countries. Canada committed one hundred million Canadian dollars over ten
years; international donors added one hundred sixty-nine million dollars in nineteen ninety-seven for mine action.
One hundred twenty-two states signed. She won the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Cluster Munitions Convention took about two years. A coalition of N.G.O.s backed by a core group of seven governments
got ninety-four states to sign and over a million stockpiled munitions destroyed.
The Arms Trade Treaty took a decade but started with just three supporting governments.
The Control Arms coalition, led by Oxfam and Amnesty International, published more than fifty reports and built support
until one hundred thirty countries signed. The Nuclear Ban Treaty also took a decade of campaigning.
ICAN ran the entire operation with five staff in a Geneva office, coordinating four hundred sixty-eight partner organizations.
One hundred twenty-two states voted yes. Another Nobel Peace Prize.
Pattern: One woman with a phone convinced one hundred twenty-two countries to ban landmines.
Five people in a Geneva office won a Nobel Prize. The N.G.O.
costs are a few million dollars per year. Government conference costs add ten to thirty million dollars.
Total to get a treaty signed: fifteen to fifty million dollars.
Your species spends more than that on Super Bowl ads for beer.
Inflation-Adjusted to twenty-twenty-four Dollars. Using B.L.S.
C.P.I. data: The Ottawa Treaty in nineteen ninety-seven had an original cost estimate of fifteen to twenty-five million
dollars, which is thirty to fifty million in twenty-twenty-four dollars, an inflation multiplier of about two times.
The Cluster Munitions Convention in two thousand eight had an original cost estimate of fifteen to twenty-five million dollars,
which is twenty-three to thirty-eight million in twenty-twenty-four dollars, an inflation multiplier of about one point
five. The Arms Trade Treaty in twenty-thirteen had an original cost estimate of twenty to thirty million dollars, which
is twenty-seven to forty-one million in twenty-twenty-four dollars, an inflation multiplier of about one point three five.
The Nuclear Ban Treaty in twenty-seventeen had an original cost estimate of ten to twenty million dollars, which is thirteen
to twenty-five million in twenty-twenty-four dollars, an inflation multiplier of about one point two five.
In today's money: Treaty campaigns cost roughly twenty-five to fifty million dollars (twenty-twenty-four U.S.D.).
That's less than zero point two percent of the implementation cost.
Banning landmines: about forty million dollars to get the signatures, and more than five billion dollars to actually dig
them up. The paperwork is the cheap part. The not-exploding-anymore part is where it gets expensive.
Cost for a one percent Health Treaty. This one touches military budgets, the sacred cow of national sovereignty.
Suggest moving one percent of the explosion money and politicians look at you like you've asked to borrow their favorite
child. So budget three to four times what landmines cost. Phase one: Pre-negotiations (Coalition building, expert drafts)
lasts eighteen to twenty-four months and costs eight to twelve million dollars, funded by philanthropy (Gates, Open Philanthropy,
et cetera) and champion governments. Phase two: Global Campaign (Platform, three point five percent consent, media) lasts
three to five years and costs forty-five to eighty million dollars, funded by philanthropy and crowd-funding.
Phase three: Diplomatic Process (Conferences, delegate travel) lasts eighteen to thirty months and costs fifteen to twenty-five
million dollars, funded by host governments and the U.N. Trust Fund.
Phase four: Ratification Drive (Legal reviews, parliamentary aid) lasts two to four years and costs five to eight million
dollars, funded by philanthropy. Phase five: Contingency (Opposition management) is ongoing and costs ten to fifteen million
dollars for strategic communications and lobbying. Total: eighty-three to one hundred forty million dollars.
The Math. Signing the treaty: approximately eighty-three million dollars.
What the treaty unlocks: twenty-seven point two billion dollars per year.
Forever. That's a three hundred to one return on paperwork.
How to Make Governments Sign Things. Politicians move when they see (a) voters demanding it and (b) political cover.
Give them both: Prove public demand: Get three point five percent of the population (two hundred eighty million people)
to say "yes" with verified identity. Harvard researcher Erica Chenoweth found that every nonviolent campaign with three
point five percent plus participation succeeded. That's not activism.
That's a mandate. Two hundred eighty million verified humans is the kind of number that makes politicians suddenly remember
they work for you. Prove it's safe: Peer-reviewed modeling showing every nation gains more in health savings than it loses
in military spending. Politicians need cover the way vampires need darkness.
Give them studies to wave around. Timeline to "Governments Can't Ignore This".
With approximately sixty million dollars in seed funding, you can reach "Treaty-Ready" status in two to three years: Platform:
two hundred eighty million verified supporters (three point five percent threshold).
Modeling: Country-by-country impact analysis. Coalition: one hundred twenty plus supportive N.G.O.s and five to ten champion
governments. Once these assets exist, formal negotiations become inevitable.
Not because politicians want them. Because ignoring two hundred eighty million people is the kind of career decision that
leads to "spending more time with family.". You aren't buying a treaty.
You're buying the machinery that makes the treaty inevitable.
Political Success Probability: Economic Analysis. To calculate expected value, you need to estimate the probability this
actually works. This section documents the rationale for the one percent central estimate with a zero point one percent
to twenty-five percent confidence interval. Yes, the model assumes a ninety-nine percent chance of failure.
It's still a good bet. Stay with me. Even at a one percent probability of success, this intervention's expected cost per
disability-adjusted life year, or D.A.L.Y., of seventeen point seven cents is still five hundred three times more cost-effective
than malaria bed nets at eighty-nine dollars per D.A.L.Y. Bed nets are the gold standard of global health interventions.
Historical Precedents (The Depressing Table). The zero point seven percent Official Development Assistance, or O.D.A.
target, aimed for zero point seven percent of Gross National Income, or G.N.I., to foreign aid.
About twenty percent of countries actually did it over more than fifty years.
Scandinavia and Germany. That's basically it. The Kyoto Protocol set binding emissions targets.
About fifty-five percent of countries complied initially, then it collapsed between nineteen ninety-seven and twenty twelve.
The U.S. never ratified. Canada withdrew. Classic. The Paris Agreement involves non-binding pledges.
About fifteen to twenty-five percent are on track since twenty fifteen.
One hundred ninety-five countries signed. Maybe forty meant it.
The NATO two percent G.D.P. defense target has been in place since twenty fourteen.
About thirty-two percent of members have met it. Even the threat of being invaded wasn't enough.
The E.U. Stability Pact requires a three percent deficit and sixty percent debt limit.
It has been routinely violated since nineteen ninety-seven.
France and Germany broke their own rule. Pattern: International financial commitments achieve less than twenty-five percent
meaningful compliance. Your species signs things and then doesn't do them.
It's like a New Year's resolution, but for geopolitics. Why a one percent Treaty is Harder Than Most Precedents.
Let's be honest about the obstacles. This is not a chapter written by someone trying to sell you something.
(It is. But at least it's honest about the hard parts.). It touches military budgets, and politicians would rather discuss
their browser history than their defense budget. It requires ongoing annual allocation instead of a one-time signature,
functioning like a gym membership for peace that is paid monthly, forever.
There is no immediate security threat to motivate governments without an active catastrophe, even though one hundred fifty
thousand daily disease deaths apparently doesn't qualify as one.
The novel mechanism of military-to-health reallocation has never been done, and humans are suspicious of things they haven't
tried before (which is odd for a species that also invented bungee jumping).
A coordination problem exists because benefits require critical mass, meaning nobody wants to go first and everybody wants
to go second. Why a one percent Treaty Might Beat the Odds.
It is self-funding and creates health dividends that exceed the "cost," meaning you make money doing this, which is unusual
for moral obligations. It has bipartisan appeal because "Should we cure more diseases?"
polls well across every political spectrum, which is shocking, I know.
A referendum pathway can bypass government resistance through direct democracy, which is the one weird trick politicians
hate. There are visible beneficiaries from the one hundred fifty thousand daily disease deaths, making it hard to argue
with the body count. Network effects mean each signing country makes the next more likely, as peer pressure is humanity's
most reliable technology. Probability Estimates. Economists would find the following defensible (and economists find very
little defensible): For the pessimistic floor scenario, the probability is zero point one percent.
Everything goes wrong: global crises, political gridlock, and possibly an asteroid.
For the conservative central scenario, the probability is one percent.
There is a ninety-nine percent chance of failure, but it is still five hundred three times better than bed nets.
For the optimistic ceiling scenario, the probability is twenty-five percent.
A major crisis opens a political window, or humans just decide to be smart for once.
The model uses: Central estimate one percent. Expected Value (Even When You Assume Failure).
At one percent probability of success: The expected R.O.I. is eight hundred forty-eight thousand to one (still positive,
even assuming near-certain failure). The expected cost per disability-adjusted life year, or D.A.L.Y., is zero point one
seven seven dollars (five hundred three times better than bed nets at eighty-nine dollars per D.A.L.Y.).
The downside is capped at about one billion dollars, and you lose the cost of a nice yacht.
The upside is unbounded, and you cure most diseases. Even assuming a ninety-nine percent chance of total failure, this beats
the gold standard of global health interventions. The math doesn't care about your pessimism.
Why The Treaty Won't Stop at one percent Most international commitments stagnate after signing.
You saw the depressing table. Zero point seven percent Official Development Assistance, or O.D.A., targets have been unmet
for over fifty years. Kyoto abandoned. Paris missed. Your track record with follow-through makes goldfish look disciplined.
So why would a one percent health treaty be any different? Because this time, people get paid.
The eighty ten ten funding structure allocates ten percent of treaty funding (two point seven two billion dollars per year
at one percent) to Incentive Alignment Bonds, or I.A.B.s. These are securities that pay out when treaties *expand*, not
just maintain. In other words: people get rich when more diseases get cured.
Finally, a financial instrument that isn't morally bankrupt.
The Expansion Mechanism. At the one percent treaty level, the annual I.A.B.
pool is two point seven two billion dollars per year. Political pressure is strong, which is ten times the size of the largest
N.G.O. budgets. At the two percent treaty level, the annual I.A.B.
pool is five point four billion dollars per year. Political pressure is very strong, reaching the nation-state level.
At the five percent treaty level, the annual I.A.B. pool is thirteen point five billion dollars per year.
Political pressure is overwhelming, equivalent to a major industry lobby.
At the ten percent treaty level, the annual I.A.B. pool is twenty-seven billion dollars per year.
Political pressure is unstoppable, as there is no historical precedent.
Why This Differs from Every Other Treaty. Zero point seven percent O.D.A.
failed because nobody made money when countries complied. The N.G.O.s pushing for compliance have small budgets, compete
with each other, and run on guilt. Guilt has terrible fuel efficiency.
The one percent health treaty creates its own expansion lobby.
Bond holders profit when the treaty expands to two percent, then five percent, then ten percent.
These aren't activists you can ignore at a dinner party. They're investors with quarterly earnings calls about curing diseases.
The Ratchet Effect. One. Two point seven two billion dollars per year flows to I.A.B.
holders pushing for two percent. Two. When two percent passes, five point four billion dollars per year pushes for five
percent. Three. When five percent passes, thirteen point five billion dollars per year pushes for ten percent.
Four. The political pressure for expansion *accelerates* with each success.
Most treaties are gym memberships purchased in January and abandoned by February.
I.A.B.s are the opposite: the constituency for expansion *grows* with each success.
Greed doesn't take holidays. Long-Term Feasibility. With I.A.B.s, the ten percent allocation creates a perpetual political
engine. A machine that runs on greed and outputs health. Embarrassing, but effective.
Without I.A.B.s, this joins Kyoto in the Museum of Things Humanity Promised to Do and Then Didn't.