Structural incentives sustain conflict; systemic change needed for lasting peace
Original framing: “Is war more profitable than peace? David Keen explains” — Al Jazeera
The original framing omits the role of indigenous peacebuilding practices, the historical context of colonialism in creating artificial conflicts, and the systemic barriers to peace such as debt dependency and resource extraction. It also lacks attention to the voices of conflict-affected communities and the structural reforms needed to shift from war economies to peace economies.
Medium structural omission detected in mainstream coverage.
This narrative is produced by a leading political economist for an international news platform, likely serving a global audience interested in geopolitical analysis. The framing highlights the profitability of war for certain actors, but may obscure the role of media in perpetuating conflict through sensationalism and the complicity of international institutions in sustaining arms trade and militarized aid programs.
Conflict-affected communities often have deep knowledge of local peacebuilding practices, but their voices are systematically excluded from global policy discussions. Including these perspectives is essential for designing inclusive and effective peace strategies.
The profitability of war is not a natural outcome but a systemic feature of global power structures that benefit from crisis and conflict.
By examining the role of Indigenous peacebuilding, historical patterns of empire, and cross-cultural approaches to conflict resolution, we can see that peace is not only possible but economically and socially advantageous when supported through structural reform. Marginalized voices, scientific evidence, and artistic traditions all point to the need for a systemic shift away from war economies toward sustainable peace economies. This requires coordinated action across policy, education, and finance to dismantle the incentives that sustain conflict and to invest in long-term peacebuilding.