The Cage is Mightier Than Both Pen and Sword: A Plan for World Peace So Crazy, It Just Might Work
Humankind loves a good fight. It’s problem-solving and conflict resolution in its most primal form. That being said, we’ve become more hesitant to fight one another as we’ve realized just how brutal our aptitude for organized violence can be. Has it really been for the best though?
There are many thinkers out there who are firm in their belief that world peace is as simple as international respect for human rights and democratic values. Those thinkers are wrong. Democracy and modern, enlightenment values do very little to stave off our thirst for blood, they just do what they can to keep the use of violence monopolized in the “right” hands.
When there are differences to be settled — whether it be between individuals or nations — contemporary thought tends to favor settlement by means of words: argumentation, written contracts, oral agreements, etc… It is only when those peaceful exchanges of words completely and utterly break down that we consider violence, a fight, a war.
But by the time we reach that point, it is often too late to exercise that use of force in a truly restrained and organized matter. So what if we laid the option for physical violence on the table earlier? What if we hybridized the word-settlement that often leaves parties unsatisfied with the violence-settlement that often spins out of control?
That is, what if we let countries fight it out in a cage?
Hear me out. When there’s a schoolyard dispute that clearly won’t be solved during sit-downs with teachers or administrators, do you just keep pointlessly trying to make them talk it out? No, that’s how you end up with resentment, suckerpunching, and school shootings.
Instead, the best conflict resolution is often the one that forms naturally in these situations: the disputing parties name an exact time and place where they will fight under fair conditions and with witnesses. When words fail, it doesn’t mean that violence wins outright. Sometimes, it’s the blending of word-settlement with violence-settlement (a.k.a. well-organized fighting) that achieves the best outcome. And in a way, it is that most suited to the complexity and contradictions of human nature and relations.
Could not the same logic apply to international relations and conflict resolution? If two nations have a major disagreement, a dispute unsettleable with words and approaching chaotic violence, would it not be fair to propose an organized fight between representatives?
One fighter from each country, with a weight limit to be agreed upon by the disputing party, could compete in a bout in a neutral, third-party country. Winner takes all. The fight, likely held under some form of mixed martial arts (MMA) rules, would indulge our tribal urge to settle a score with violence while also limiting the enormous consequences of full-blown warfare.
Moreover, the mutual respect and reconciliation that often results from a fight, regardless of who wins and who loses, would serve international relations well. When two fighters finish a bout, even when one (or both) take a serious beating, they more often than not come out on the other side with far more respect and love for those with whom they share the cage. How often has a fallen-out friendship been mended with a good scrap and hug afterwards?
So I propose, both for our entertainment and well-being, to begin considering a middle-ground between toothless United Nations talks and total war: fights.
When the pen fails and the sword seems too much, a cage and two pairs of padded gloves can do the trick.
