Resolving violent conflicts through the universal principles of good sportsmanship: Play For It: A series of tournaments between representatives of two populations at war.
If two groups of people are willing to kill for it and also die for it, why not Play For It?
In this policy proposal for the people, I present a robust alternative to the unaccomplished ‘Sports Diplomacy’ of the past. If two parties to a war are willing to kill each other for some cause then they’re not going to be at all interested in ‘hugging it out’. Let’s settle fatal geopolitical conflicts with a series of high-stakes, non-fatal, politically binding tournaments.
In reality, it’s not my idea. It’s your idea. It’s rediscovered idea of every grade-school kid in the playground at recess. Every sportswriter has said football is simulated warfare more than once. Can it work? History affords us some perspective.
Many of the greatest soccer games ever played happened on Christmas Day, 1914, in No Man’s Land between German and English soldiers. As recently as 2005, two hotly warring factions in the Ivory Coast put down their guns in order to watch their country compete in the World Cup. Famously, the battle of Nong Sarai was decided by a fatal duel involving single combatants atop war elephants. That was then. What can we do now?
Play For It brings the picture of peace into focus with four sides to the frame: 1) Freezing the Conflict, 2) Identifying the Purse, 3) Enough Rematches, and 4), Leaving no Trace.
-
The goal, and the only practicable way to begin implementing a winner-take-all tournament is to freeze the conflict. The status quo at the moment both sides agree to Play For It is the starting point. Gamesmanship in anticipation of a high-stakes tournament, such as cutting water, heat, or electrical supplies, can undermine the entire tournament. Play For It is a series of tournaments played among national champions representing a population of civilians and combatants at war, not among bureaucrats. It is important for both sides to acknowledge and respect the land, people, things, or money they intend to play for.
-
The tournament prize hast to be firmly identified. This is the land, thing, or revenue that people are fighting and dying over. Temporary ownership is at stake. The alternative is bloody conquest. Practically, this might mean the right to administer a property, collect taxes within a designated area, and having the ability to transit goods. Ownership lasts only until the next tournament concludes. The rightful loser peacefully, willingly, and temporarily conceding all claims to ‘the prize’ at the end of the tournament is half the mark of success. The other half is in the rightful winner doing it all again.
-
Play For It might not be able to get every warrior to sit down at the peace table but history has shown that we can get warriors to stand up at the ping-pong table. The danger to a lasting peace lurks in hurt feelings and resentment, which is why negotiating the rematch schedule between parties is highly important. A well-balanced rematch schedule not only restrains the temptation to return to arms but it can result in an economically significant recurring event.
-
Redistributionist money charities create dependency problems and try to internationalize the solution to a conflict whereas these bloody conflicts are, often, intensely local. When the pictures have all been taken, the celebrities and money go but the hurt stays behind. One big reason why Play For It is so different from anything that has been tried so far is because we’re not asking anyone to put their ill-feelings away, only their guns and bombs.
There’s a great demand for Alternate War Resolution. Here are three examples of conflicts that are ripe for closure:
- Inadequate mediation by Russia in the Armenian-Azerbaijan war risks a reignition of violence over access and ownership to a well-defined mountainous territory. Armenia is a founding member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization alongside Russia. However, in recent hours, Armenia just signed a Strategic Partnership Commission Charter for security guarantees from the West. Desperation is setting in.
- In Myanmar, China would greatly appreciate any settlement to its neighbor’s civil war regardless which side prevails. The conflict currently raging there threatens to undermine China-underwritten infrastructure projects which are integral to the Belt & Road economic program.
- China would also likely appreciate its close trading partners, Thailand and Cambodia, ending the bloodshed over their prized Preah Vihear temple. Both sides claim ownership and occasionally fight over a distinct historical heritage monument that nobody wants to see scarred by bullet holes and shrapnel.
‘Sports Diplomacy’ has no track record of success. Expensive handshakes, photo ops., and a catering budget never solved anyone’s problems. The Olympic Peace is in tatters. We’ve got the World Cup, America’s Sestercentennial, and the Summer Olympics all arriving within the next four years. All of this is coming against the rising specter of World War on the horizon. We must seize this historic opportunity to use sports not merely to ‘further’ some ambiguous cause of peace but to seal it now in defined and lasting terms.
tl;dr: This is a ‘charity’ like you’ve never heard of before. We want no war. We want peace all over the place. We don’t give anyone money. We don’t keep anyone’s money. We pay the peace dividend and that’s enough. Get in, put on a great show, get out, and leave no trace except the resounding echo of peace. Just imagine what we the people and the Trump Administration could do together to put a blinding spotlight on global conflicts that nobody’s child should have to die over.
~Thank you for reading. Thank you for supporting. Thank you for being.
@JustPlayForIt