China and The Art of (losing) War

[Informant]

Oh again?

 

[3Idiots]

Yeah, China is losing influence, India is gaining influence.

Perhaps you don't even realize that what you said is quite true.

See what happened between 1998 and 2012:

>> 1998 - what china said of Indian nuclear tests:

On 12 May the Chinese Foreign Ministry stated: "The Chinese government is seriously concerned about the nuclear tests conducted by India," and that the tests "run counter to the current international trend and are not conducive to peace and stability in South Asia.".[24] The next day the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued the statement clearly stating that "it shocked and strongly condemned" the Indian nuclear tests and called for the international community to "adopt a unified stand and strongly demand that India immediate stop development of nuclear weapons".[25] China further rejected India's stated rationale of needing nuclear capabilities to counter a Chinese threat as "totally unreasonable".[25] In a meeting with Masayoshi Takemura of Democratic Party of Japan, Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China Qian Qichen was quoted as saying that India's nuclear tests were a "serious matter," particularly because they were conducted in light of the fact that more than 140 countries have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. "It is even more unacceptable that India claims to have conducted the tests to counter what it called a "China threat"

changed to this in

>> 2011 - when India tested Agni-V clearly bringing Beijing in its range:

A spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, Liu Weimin, said, "China and India are large developing nations. We are not competitors but partners. We believe that both sides should cherish the hard-won good state of affairs at present, and work hard to uphold friendly strategic co-operation to promote joint development and make positive contributions towards maintaining peace and stability in the region." The state-owned China Central Television (CCTV) reported that the test was "a historic moment for India, and it shows that India has joined the club of the countries that own ballistic missiles."

C'mon if china doesn't even have the guts to "condemn" India's "demon designs", it only says that strength respects strength.

Atleast in 1998, china had the guts (or the influence) to speak openly against India ... but no longer.

So you choose, the different tone represents china lost influence or India gained influence or both.

But, on relative basis, India gained influence over china. That is gospel truth.

Trust me, even Sun Tzu will acknowledge that.

side note: Indian prime minister isn't going on a standalone visit to china; he goes to china on a return journey from Russia. Ah.. it's alright.

 

[xunzi]

I can give a few brief examples --

1.) Foremost is Saudi Arabia's decision to not allow U.S troops on its soil , which incredible as it is , the US accepted without question.

2) Another example would be the military bases on Philippines , referred in the article. Again the US acquiesced despite the fact that they could easily throw their weight around.

Of course , the downside is the U.S administration has its satellite states ( there are several) , under its de-facto thumb so all these displays are for public sentimental consumption --"we respect you and your sovereignty " -is the message they wish to deliver to the public.

Behind the scenes, they probably have a hundred other methods of surveillance , covert diplomatic leverages to eventually get their objectives accomplish but gotta hand it to them. At the diplomatic level ( where it really matters ) they are the worlds leading experts of image projection.

On the contrary , China has in the last couple of years made several diplomatic blunders which result in it viewed more as an aggressive entity by several countries. While the west have never really been a friend , China managed to alienate even the carefully neutral Asian countries like India and increase the apprehensions of several others like Japan and the Philippines , those of whom where finally reconciling themselves to the idea of a multi-polar world with China , Russia , U.S as many leading powers .

In short China literally upset a very well functioning balance to tilt the diplomatic scales towards the U.S--In the process shooting themselves in the foot, albeit accidentally.

It's not a tough choice for us. Territorial integrity vs global image, we choose territorial integrity 10 times out of 10.

 

[Sedqal]

I can give a few brief examples --

1.) Foremost is Saudi Arabia's decision to not allow U.S troops on its soil , which incredible as it is , the US accepted without question.

2) Another example would be the military bases on Philippines , referred in the article. Again the US acquiesced despite the fact that they could easily throw their weight around.

Of course , the downside is the U.S administration has its satellite states ( there are several) , under its de-facto thumb so all these displays are for public sentimental consumption --"we respect you and your sovereignty " -is the message they wish to deliver to the public.

Behind the scenes, they probably have a hundred other methods of surveillance , covert diplomatic leverages to eventually get their objectives accomplish but gotta hand it to them. At the diplomatic level ( where it really matters ) they are the worlds leading experts of image projection.

On the contrary , China has in the last couple of years made several diplomatic blunders which result in it viewed more as an aggressive entity by several countries. While the west have never really been a friend , China managed to alienate even the carefully neutral Asian countries like India and increase the apprehensions of several others like Japan and the Philippines , those of whom where finally reconciling themselves to the idea of a multi-polar world with China , Russia , U.S as many leading powers .

In short China literally upset a very well functioning balance to tilt the diplomatic scales towards the U.S--In the process shooting themselves in the foot, albeit accidentally.

Saudia and Philippines are not neighbours. Give an example from Canada, Mexico and South America please. Mexico and South American countries are on record about hegemonic attitude of US. Infact Monroe doctrine is very blunt about the attitude of USA regarding its neighbours in South America, thus US actions can be seen as continuation of a policy rather then isolated reaction to events.

Please don't drag morality into it, we are talking about US as a nation state which has to protect its own national interest. So lets keep it academic.

 

[3Idiots]

It's not a tough choice for us. Territorial integrity vs global image, we choose territorial integrity 10 times out of 10.

Your territory ends where the mountain begins. You can bang your head against a mountain and go back bleeding... or keep to the east of great wall of china.

The choice isn't tough at all.

 

[Raphael]

Your territory ends where the mountain begins. You can bang your head against a mountain and go back bleeding... or keep to the east of great wall of china.

The choice isn't tough at all.

Clearly you don't understand. Every country has principles that they consider essential and non-negotiable qualities of their national being. For the USA, this is their nebulous conception of 'freedom'. For India, it's your beloved caste system. For China it's territorial integrity. No matter how much you may ridicule it, territorial integrity is our sacred ideal, and no government will ever cede territory to expansionist foreigners without having to prepare for national indignation and revolution.

 

[tranquilium]

Perhaps you don't even realize that what you said is quite true.
See what happened between 1998 and 2012:
>> 1998 - what china said of Indian nuclear tests:
changed to this in
>> 2011 - when India tested Agni-V clearly bringing Beijing in its range:
C'mon if china doesn't even have the guts to "condemn" India's "demon designs", it only says that strength respects strength.
Atleast in 1998, china had the guts (or the influence) to speak openly against India ... but no longer.
So you choose, the different tone represents china lost influence or India gained influence or both.
But, on relative basis, India gained influence over china. That is gospel truth.
Trust me, even Sun Tzu will acknowledge that.
side note: Indian prime minister isn't going on a standalone visit to china; he goes to china on a return journey from Russia. Ah.. it's alright.

Okay...so basically the Indian victory is that the Chinese is no longer saying meaning words to Indians.

 

[xunzi]

Your territory ends where the mountain begins. You can bang your head against a mountain and go back bleeding... or keep to the east of great wall of china.

The choice isn't tough at all.

I'm sorry, my Indian friend. We have made a choice and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Wholegrain]

Epic fail by an orientalist, dumb westerner who doesn't know **** about asian history.

The Yuan dynasty lasted from 1279-1368 and Qing from 1644-1912. The guy claims "For the last 1,500 years, the Chinese have been more under foreign rule than Chinese rule." - which is a flat out lie.

The Manchus were not nomads, they were sedentary and used tactics exactly like the Ming army, which they copied, and even adopted artillery. Most of their army was defected Ming Chinese soldiers. They lived in fixed settlements and cities.

I went over this **** with the mongols as well over here. The Mongols army was mostly made out of not nomadic horsemen, but defected Chinese soldiers and other peoples from all over their empire, including siege engineers from Iraq, Alan troops from the Russian steppes etc.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...am-seeks-american-balance-15.html#post4407998

Another massive, idiotic lie is that modern China uses Sun Tzu to shape its military strategy. Pure BS.

China and The Art of (losing) War

HONG KONG — There’s no question that Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” is a brilliant strategy manual.

Everyone from Oracle's Larry Ellison to the New England Patriots' Coach Belichick has cited the ancient general’s maxims.

Even Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf was a Sun Tzu devotee.

But when it comes to China’s foreign policy, Sun Tzu’s theories is leading China astray.

That’s one of the intriguing arguments put forward by Edward Luttwak, a China expert and military strategist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in his new book, "The Rise of China vs. the Logic of Strategy."

Luttwak argues that by bullying its neighbors and resorting too often to deception, China is suffering the shortcomings of ancient strategic ideas. These practices, he says, have generated resentment toward China.

With a recent Pew Poll showing that only 5 percent of Japanese and 37 percent of Americans have a positive view of China — down 24 and 14 percentage points, respectively, from previous surveys — it’s clear that something is wrong with China’s diplomacy.

In a conversation with GlobalPost, Luttwak explains why he thinks Chinese leaders would be wise to shed Sun Tzu’s theories if they want to build better relations with the outside world. (The interview has been edited and condensed by GlobalPost.)

GlobalPost: One of the arguments in your book is that Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” is an obstacle to China’s foreign affairs. Why is that?

Edward Luttwak: This literature, which China’s leaders greatly admire, induces a greatly mistaken sense of superior skill. They are convinced that it is full of secrets for success. But China’s history is in fact a long history of defeats. That is ignored by them as they revel in the subtlety and complexity and tricks of this literature.

This is like someone who is a terrible driver who imagines he is a superb racecar driver, but he cannot get out of the garage.

In what ways have these sources led China astray internationally?

The ancient sources are full of suggestions for tricks and manipulations. These are clever, and work within the same culture, but do not work inter-culturally. Picture Manchu nomads on horseback approaching Ming dynasty generals who are busy quoting Sun Tzu. What do they do? They conquer them and rule them for 300 years. That’s the Qing dynasty.

Then think of the Mongols. Before that it was two Turkic dynasties. The Central Asians and people of the northern steppes knew all about diplomacy and interacting with other powers. And therefore they completely outmaneuvered the Chinese. For the last 1,500 years, the Chinese have been more under foreign rule than Chinese rule.

This is what you learn from Sun Tzu.

You don’t use military power to destroy the enemy at great cost, you use it as a clever means to get him to do something you want. Just as in the Senkaku islands, you don’t send an invasion fleet, which would start a war. You use clever maneuvers designed to intimidate and win without a war.

The effect of these has been to mobilize Japanese in a serious and structural way, to turn off the trend of getting closer to China, to the benefit of the US. They are basically inducing Japan to militarize against China — the opposite effect of what they wanted.

Tell us some other examples?

[China’s surprise attack on India in October 1962] is a very explicit example.

When Mao did it, he said, this is how we do it: We are not going to invade India, we will not destroy India. We are just going to follow the proper techniques of Sun Tzu: You don’t use force to crush the enemy, you use it to intimidate and nudge them back to the negotiating table. But it had the opposite effect, so that today the border dispute is still not resolved.

You also see it in the current Senkaku dispute. The idea there is that you get someone to withdraw by marching and displaying your army in front of his fortress.

And in dealing with Vietnam, China is affirming its maritime claims by sending Chinese fishing fleets. They are all expressions of this mentality, which is the idea that you win against other countries by clever tricks.

These tricks have turned the Japanese from potential clients into desperate enemies. They have turned the Philippines from rejecting American bases to wanting them back. Even the Indonesians and the Indians, who have really no reason for hostility, China has managed to increase this antagonism.

What are the strengths of Sun Tzu’s ideas? In other words, where are they still applicable?

They are useful. They have absolute usefulness in intra-Chinese politics. They teach a lot of important lessons. Mao could use them to fight Chiang [Kai Shek] and Chiang to fight Mao. And for members of the Standing Committee who are trying to outmaneuver each other, the ideas are very useful.

But not for foreigners who respond very differently. If the Senkakus belonged to a Chinese kingdom, the strategy would work.

What would be a more effective strategy for China internationally?

If you want to be a global power you must have amicable relations with your neighbors. If China understood that, it would wonder, ‘How does the US do it?’ The US does it by deferring to its neighbors — because of its superior strength — and acting as if it were not at all superior.

You have to take your power out of the interaction. When the US president talks with the Mexican president, the fact that the US could invade is taken entirely out of the discussion.

With Canada, the imbalance of power is entirely irrelevant. A few years ago we got into a timber war, and at no point did Canadians believe that the US would push it around.

To what extent is American diplomacy suffering from a lack of understanding about the Chinese viewpoint on foreign affairs?

I think that Americans grossly overestimate the relative strength of Chinese diplomacy because they are not aware of the strength of US diplomacy. They see correctly China’s superb ability to make wealth from earth and water. But they are always surprised by China’s incompetence in dealing with foreign powers.

What was America’s strength? It was having discovered — and it was a discovery — that you become very powerful by acting very weak.

The US was not born with this. The US fought with the Canadians, it fought with Mexico. It was only later that Americans learned that in dealing with all its weaker neighbors and allies, that it has to offset its strengths by very humble behavior.

See the 60 year history of NATO, where the US was deferring to Luxembourg. They kept NATO together not by imposing their power and authority, but by the opposite: By accommodating, by treating even the weakest member as someone important.

By listening to them.


China and The Art of (losing) War | GlobalPost

 

[sincity]

I don't think China government that dumb to rely on Sun Tzu tactic which written 1000 yrs ago to conduct their current foreign affair. No government can be fixation on the past strategy to implement their world diplomacy without constantly adapt the ever changing political environment on the world stage.

 

[JSCh]

A westerner preaching China on the Art of War! That is hilarious.

 

[JSCh]

I can give a few brief examples --

1.) Foremost is Saudi Arabia's decision to not allow U.S troops on its soil , which incredible as it is , the US accepted without question.

2) Another example would be the military bases on Philippines , referred in the article. Again the US acquiesced despite the fact that they could easily throw their weight around.

Of course , the downside is the U.S administration has its satellite states ( there are several) , under its de-facto thumb so all these displays are for public sentimental consumption --"we respect you and your sovereignty " -is the message they wish to deliver to the public.

Behind the scenes, they probably have a hundred other methods of surveillance , covert diplomatic leverages to eventually get their objectives accomplish but gotta hand it to them. At the diplomatic level ( where it really matters ) they are the worlds leading experts of image projection.

On the contrary , China has in the last couple of years made several diplomatic blunders which result in it viewed more as an aggressive entity by several countries. While the west have never really been a friend , China managed to alienate even the carefully neutral Asian countries like India and increase the apprehensions of several others like Japan and the Philippines , those of whom where finally reconciling themselves to the idea of a multi-polar world with China , Russia , U.S as many leading powers .

In short China literally upset a very well functioning balance to tilt the diplomatic scales towards the U.S--In the process shooting themselves in the foot, albeit accidentally.

China foreign policy is based on the five principles of peaceful co-existence. Which respect the sovereign right of all nations.

I find your two points unacceptable.

1.) Foremost is Saudi Arabia's decision to not allow U.S troops on its soil , which incredible as it is , the US accepted without question.

2) Another example would be the military bases on Philippines , referred in the article. Again the US acquiesced despite the fact that they could easily throw their weight around.

Both Saudi Arabia and Philippines are sovereign states. Their sovereignty is NOT A GIFT from US. US is not their master, US is suppose to respect their sovereignty.

They or anyone else do not have to be grateful to US for respecting their sovereignty!

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

China foreign policy is based on the five principles of peaceful co-existence. Which respect the sovereign right of all nations.

I find your two points unacceptable.


Both Saudi Arabia and Philippines are sovereign states. Their sovereignty is NOT A GIFT from US. US is not their master, US is suppose to respect their sovereignty.

They or anyone else do not have to be grateful to US for respecting their sovereignty!

Well I can certainly understand the morality of your argument , however as another member pointed out --- lets keep morality aside and focus on the academic part of it.

I presume you know that in current geopolitics very little if any, goes according to moral values. So without singling out any particular country , let me add that based on pure "business" principles -- if you need something , then you pay a price for it.

Saudi Arabia receives enormous help from the U.S ---in matters of Intelligence , advanced weaponry , surveillance over potential political unrest both internally as well as in the middle east in general.
Hence it reciprocates by allowing the U.S to station a military presence there ( among other things ) .

The Philippines too have a similar arrangement as do Japan , South Korea etc.

Now coming over to the Chinese case. I am familiar with the Five principles of peaceful co-existence as outlined by the Chinese Govt. However coming from a country India which often has tensions along the Chinese border, I must say in reality the Chinese never practice what they have set down.

If territorial integrity be such a galvanizing issue as to risk the goodwill of its neighbors by repeatedly encroaching on territories unilaterally claimed by China , then all pretense of peaceful coexistence falls flat on its face.

Several border issues of China with Vietnam , Japan , Philippines , India and of course the Taiwan question have yet to be solved. However unilaterally using military assets to muscle your way through a negotiation is wrong morally and a complete geo-political disaster.

Have to say the U.S has a better track record in this matter. Of course the U.S is supposed to respect the Sovereignty of all nations without being grateful.So is China.

In practice the U.S for the most part does, China doesn't. If China would have had the military might, it would have annexed a lot of territory unilaterally with a complete disregard of sovereignty. This is an INESCAPABLE FACT.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

Saudia and Philippines are not neighbours. Give an example from Canada, Mexico and South America please. Mexico and South American countries are on record about hegemonic attitude of US. Infact Monroe doctrine is very blunt about the attitude of USA regarding its neighbours in South America, thus US actions can be seen as continuation of a policy rather then isolated reaction to events.

Please don't drag morality into it, we are talking about US as a nation state which has to protect its own national interest. So lets keep it academic.

Keeping it academic was my intention as well. Whatever i wrote was purely from an academic POV . In geopolitics the notions of "right" and "wrong" get blurred.

Anyways coming to your point, the boundaries between the U.S and its immediate neighbors a.k.a Canada and Mexico have been unchanged since the U.S took the state of Texas in 1830--- . As far as the Monroe Doctrine is considered , if you were to check history , it was largely disregarded upon its inception and never really been practically implemented -- ( States annexed under it like Cuba , Guam , Philippines etc -- consisting of different ethnicities have long since separated. )

There is a marked difference between historical policies and present day behaviour. For several decades now the U.S has never intended to annex another sovereign nation's territory. Invasion ( Afghanistan , Iraq) is not annexation. Strictly keeping in mind the ACADEMIC nature of this discussion , I would say the U.S has long since realized the value of economic domination and military supremacy rather than trying to put its adversaries under a perpetual threat of territorial loss. Here's where China differs and geopolitically suffers as a result.

Chinese economy and military are strong enough to do exactly what the U.S has done , at least in its immediate neighborhood . However clearly stating its intentions to re-capture its supposedly lost territory to fantasize about a "Chinese Empire" has clearly crossed the Tolerance threshold level of several nations leading them to react in ways inimical to Chinese interests.

I guess the rest of how this plays out will be seen in subsequent years but somehow I get a feeling that Chinese unwillingness to compromise on "territorial integrity" -- considering the fact that territories claimed are not currently militarily held by it , and in most cases may never be -- will only be detrimental to an otherwise " peaceful" rise .

 

[JSCh]

Well I can certainly understand the morality of your argument , however as another member pointed out --- lets keep morality aside and focus on the academic part of it.

I presume you know that in current geopolitics very little if any, goes according to moral values. So without singling out any particular country , let me add that based on pure "business" principles -- if you need something , then you pay a price for it.

Saudi Arabia receives enormous help from the U.S ---in matters of Intelligence , advanced weaponry , surveillance over potential political unrest both internally as well as in the middle east in general.
Hence it reciprocates by allowing the U.S to station a military presence there ( among other things ) .

The Philippines too have a similar arrangement as do Japan , South Korea etc.

Now coming over to the Chinese case. I am familiar with the Five principles of peaceful co-existence as outlined by the Chinese Govt. However coming from a country India which often has tensions along the Chinese border, I must say in reality the Chinese never practice what they have set down.

If territorial integrity be such a galvanizing issue as to risk the goodwill of its neighbors by repeatedly encroaching on territories unilaterally claimed by China , then all pretense of peaceful coexistence falls flat on its face.

Several border issues of China with Vietnam , Japan , Philippines , India and of course the Taiwan question have yet to be solved. However unilaterally using military assets to muscle your way through a negotiation is wrong morally and a complete geo-political disaster.

Have to say the U.S has a better track record in this matter. Of course the U.S is supposed to respect the Sovereignty of all nations without being grateful.So is China.

In practice the U.S for the most part does, China doesn't. If China would have had the military might, it would have annexed a lot of territory unilaterally with a complete disregard of sovereignty. This is an INESCAPABLE FACT.

All the issues China has with her neighbors are historical territories problem. The US do not have all this problem because she has already annexed all that she want from her neighbor (Mexico) long time ago and there are none unsettled issue.

The Chinese territory claim are not new, they are at least more than 40 years old. China simply inherit her claim from the previous government. It is not like China is trying to gain new territory because China become militarily strong. China claim the same when China is weak, it did not change.

From the Chinese perspective, the current flare up of dispute is not China doing. It is because the US "pivot to Asia" send a signal to her allies. Such that to embolden them to take advantage of China because they thought that US would support them. They are trying to gang-up on China expecting US to lead them.

China position has been consistence, to settle the dispute by peaceful negotiation between the parties concerned. That DOES NOT means that China would roll over when the another country unilaterally take advantage of China, China would respond when that occurred.

The west control the global narrative, China is at a disadvantage. Are they really expecting China to unilaterally cede territory to western allies because of western pressure? Like that is going to work.

If China is unwilling, then she is a bully. This line of bias reasoning is dangerous. We see this kind of bias western reasoning in almost all western meddling in hotspots of the world, without exception causing disastrous result for the people living there.

We would not want to end up like them, would we?

​