Will Sun Tzu enable China to conquer the world?
by Jose Rizal M. Reyes / poet-philosopher, Philippines / August 13, 2013
“Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”
— a saying in ancient Greece
From time to time, the name of the revered Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu is mentioned in connection with China’s conduct of foreign affairs. It is said that his principles of warfare are being applied by China’s leaders in international relations. Considering Sun Tzu’s reputation that steadily rose for 2 millenniums, the subscript or subliminal message is that China got something old and reliable to bank on.
And so the question arises: Will Sun Tzu enable China to conquer the world? And my answer is: No, not at all. On the contrary, Sun Tzu will destroy China. The wrong application of Sun Tzu’s principles is causing China to be hated by its neighbors and the world at large. China’s leaders should study the 6 other military classics of China — which take a more moral, noble and benevolent view of warfare and governance. Ultimately, this superior view will also prove to be more victorious.
Generally speaking, Sun Tzu is more technical and almost amoral. There is nothing much in his teachings that curtails the actions of the rulers, generals and warriors as long as victory is achieved or some advantage gained. No wonder he got to be quite popular.
In contrast, the six other military classics are generally more preachy and responsible — teaching such things as running your kingdom in an orderly way, pressing into service the best talents, being a benevolent ruler or virtuous general, being concerned with people’s welfare both in your kingdom and in the kingdom you want to conquer, applying rules fairly and equally especially in the dispensation of reward and punishment, battling for the people’s hearts and minds, and all that. These other books reflect a lot of influence from the Confucian, Taoist and Legalist schools of philosophy — the best of Chinese thought — something that can only be faintly gleaned from Sun Tzu.
In the book “Six Secret Teachings” attributed to Jiang Ziya, for example, it is stated that: “Moral, effective government is the basis for survival and the foundation for warfare. The state must thrive economically while limiting expenditures, foster appropriate values and behaviour among the populace, implement rewards and punishments, employ the worthy, and refrain from disturbing and harming the people.”
“The Methods of the Sima”, another Chinese military classic, states that the welfare of the people is the only justification for war. To be legitimate, warfare must benefit the people of all the states involved in a conflict. Contending forces should avoid injuring the people of enemy states and actions that antagonize a subject populace is sternly prohibited. Before going to war, generals are prescribed to go through a ceremony of accusing the enemy of his faults and of instilling among the troops the righteousness of their cause.
“The Wuzi” — also numbered among China’s 7 military classics — combines Confucian values and Legalist principles in conducting the affairs of state. It is attributed to Wu Qi who, after years of Confucian studies and administrative experience, came to the conclusion that military strength is necessary in order for righteousness, benevolence and other virtues to survive and thrive. He is concerned that without a strong army to protect the just, evil would dominate the world.
In discussing military affairs, the book “Wei Liao Zi” says”: “In general, when employing the military do not attack cities that have not committed transgressions or slay men who are innocent. Whoever kills people’s fathers and elder brothers; whoever profits himself by plundering the riches and goods of other men; whoever makes slaves of the sons and daughters of other men is in all cases a brigand. For this reason, the military provides the means to execute the brutal and chaotic and to stop the unrighteous. Wherever the army is applied, we must try to retain the farmers in the fields, the merchants in their shops and the officials in their offices, For the use of military is to punish the one man that started the atrocities. Thus even without the forces bloodying their blades, all will give their allegiance.”
The text of the “Three Strategies of Huang Shigong” promotes Confucian values by emphasizing the general’s cultivation of benevolence and righteousness, promotion of the people’s welfare, rule of virtue, and the appointment of the worthy to office. It also reflects Taoist influence by setting forth the ideal of “achieving victory without contending”, the importance of preserving life, and the fundamental evilness of warfare. Legalist principles are also contained in the treatise such as its advocacy for a strong state as well as the strict, impartial enforcement of the law.
The last of the 7 military classics of China — “Questions and Replies between Tang Taizong and Li Weigong” — was written during the Tang dynasty in a political and technological setting much different from that of the 6 other classics. It frames itself as a review of the earlier writings on the subject and consists of a dialogue between Emperor Tang Taizong and the accomplished general Li Weigong.
To sum it up, the 6 other military classics might be too moral and virtuous for comfort. But that’s precisely what China needs if it wants to fulfill its aspiration of being global leader. They need to tap such local resources as Confucius, Lao Tzu and Sinified Buddhism to provide China with the moral and spiritual strength to deserve, achieve and exercise international leadership. If they can also tap Kwan Yin, so much the better, it’s a wonderful part of their rich culture.
While there is still time, China’s civilian and military leaders should study and apply the principles contained in the 6 other military classics. Thus would they find the needed inspiration to discard their autistic worldview, step back from the suicidal path they are currently pursuing, and avoid being strangled by the 2 chains of islands that they inordinately desire and covet.
In fact, they should have studied the 6 other military classics earlier. Or just simply the Confucian and Taoist teachings, that should suffice. Had they done so, they could have preserved a won game, instead of initiating their sudden decline into the status of the Ex-Future Leading Superpower of the World.
As my FB colleague Bill Gabunia Debuque commented in agreement to one of my earlier essays: “China was already winning”. That is true, isn’t it? Without firing a single shot. China’s economy was in full throttle and it was making progress in every field of human endeavor it gave its attention to. But its sudden spurt of territorial aggression and acquisitiveness hardened several neighbors to balance China’s growing power, instead of joining the Chinese bandwagon. And that’s the beginning of the end.
In the aforesaid earlier essay, I expressed my view that if only China sat quietly in its corner (a la Taoist style) and let the US be opposed in all corners of the world, China would have won the superpower rivalry without lifting a single finger. But by launching a campaign to enforce its spurious 9-dash or 10-dash territorial claim, China alarmed and alienated several Southeast Asian neighbors — especially Vietnam, the Philippines and quietly also Indonesia . To further worsen the situation, as if various segments of its army were trying to outdo each other, China also revived its territorial disputes with Japan and India.
As a result of this, China’s neighbors suddenly looked to the United States to provide the necessary counterbalance to China’s growing assertiveness and acquisitiveness, with many of them open to the idea of closer relationship or alliance. And so instead of the U.S. being in decline and on the defensive, it is China that is beginning to get opposed in every point of the globe. And yet have you noticed how the Western powers as well as Russia are so quiet or seemingly indifferent about China’s excessive territorial claims? It seems they are the ones following the Tao, not China.
The curious thing is that, instead of lamenting China’s growing self-imposed alienation and isolation, we often hear some Chinese general crow about the progress they are making in controlling what they call the “two chains of islands” facing the Chinese mainland.
Nevertheless, within China itself — in the aftermath of the Scarborough standoff — misgivings were expressed that perhaps China showed its hand too early. But that didn’t stop China from activating its territorial dispute with Japan over the Senkaku islands which Chinese call Diaoyu islands. Was it to remedy the embarrassment of being held to a standoff by the patsy Philippines? Then a 22-man platoon of the People’s Liberation Army infiltrated 12 miles deep into India-held territory, thus reviving also its boundary dispute with India. Was it a case this time of another PLA unit not wanting to be outdone?
There is this recent news report from China where an official candidly spoke about the need for China to also show its black face in foreign affairs. The report said the black face is a sign of villainy in Chinese theater. But after doing some crosschecking, it seems to me that white face or white mask is the color of villainy while black symbolizes being rough, fierce and impartial. And that comes near to how China might be perceived nowadays — being crude, aggressive and morally indifferent.
We should bear in mind — and never forget — that for every successful practitioner of Sun Tzu’s principles, we can find someone who ruined himself or his people because of them. We only read about the success stories. How about the stories of failure, were they ever noticed? The Japanese for example have revered Sun Tzu for centuries and applied his principles of war. But they lost the Second World War, didn’t they? And till now, they are being reproached and clobbered by their yellow brothers — the Chinese and the Koreans — for waging that war, isn’t it?
And China itself, despite all these military classics they had, was twice conquered and twice ruled by foreign dynasties — first by the Mongols and later on by the Manchus. In fact, the Chinese has no track record of ever beating a major power. All it was able to defeat were small and weak neighboring kingdoms which it mercilessly attacked and annexed to enlarge its territory. Why would anybody think that with a second-hand refurbished aircraft carrier from the former USSR, new weaponry made from mostly stolen technology, and the ancient book of Sun Tzu, China would suddenly emerge as conqueror of the world?
Battling for the people’s hearts and minds is one of the time-honored principal tenets in warfare and governance. Reliance on lying, double talk, bullying, threat, intimidation, violence, bribery, deception and propaganda can achieve result along that line up to a certain extent. But there is nothing like genuine virtues such as fairness, kindness, courtesy, benevolence and honesty in dealing with one’s own people and with other countries.
If I were to date the moment when China lost its mind, I would choose 2008 — that is, after the US suffered a serious financial meltdown while being bogged down in two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sensing that its first arch rival the US (the second arch rival being Russia) was in serious trouble, Chinese leaders came to the conclusion that something in the US system snapped. And that was the exact moment when something in China also snapped — they started becoming overconfident, discarding its peaceful rise mode, and getting more aggressive against its weaker neighbors. And the rest is history.
The unraveling of the Union of Soviets Socialist Republic has been pegged by some insightful analyst to the Chernobyl disaster of April 1986. It has even been claimed to be the fulfillment of Revelation 8:11: “The name of the star is called Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the waters, because they were made bitter.” “Chernobyl” is an Ukranian word for “Wormwood”. The Soviets tried to hide information, as was their habit, and this destroyed Soviet credibility, making its neighboring countries mad, and led to a more intense questioning of the Soviet system.
Similarly, I would peg the moment when China lost its chance for global leadership on the Scarborough standoff of 2012. The powerful mantra “peaceful rise of China” got drowned and buried in the watery grave of Scarborough shoal. After that unequal and portentous confrontation between a fast-rising superstar and a long-pipsqueak country, China was never the same again. So was the Philippines.
(This essay was first posted in Facebook 3 years ago, year 2013. — JRMR)
