"In peace, prepare for war; in war, prepare for peace". Many use this quote and attribute it to Sun Tze (500-496 BC). They are all wrong. This is an invented quote. There is no such quote in The Art of War. Actually the more popular saying is "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war.). This came from the Roman writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus (365 - 450 AD). If the Chinese want pride of place, the same quote "If you want peace, prepare for war" came 500 years earlier from historian Sima Qian (145-86 BC). Before the Chinese can claim Roman plagiarism, 200 years earlier Plato (428-348 BC) taught in the agora "To enjoy peace, citizens must be ready for war".
I have never taken peace for granted, and have been acutely aware and grateful my generation has seen no wars. It is easy to forget when the enemy is unseen. Singapore peaceniks often decry the high budget on defence, and go ballistic on news of our F-35s, or submarines. Indeed it is always the perennial myopic question of "why spend so much, who is our enemy?" The fact we live in a dangerous world is lost on them. Biden is courting war over Ukraine or Taiwan, both as chess steps in Western globalists pushing for one world order, and or the need to create diversionary theatres as the progressive crazy US admin falls apart in the relentless Republican investigations into criminal acts of the politicised and weaponised Deep State and the pandemic fiasco. The world is very destabilised at the moment. To cite something of more recent history and closer to home. We saw how Ferdinand Marcos almost created a Filipino-Malaysia war in the North Borneo dispute which ended with the Jabidah massacre in 1967. Who is to say someday in the future we may see a phoenix of the Pedra Branca dispute of a more menacing nature. And our own LKY decades ago famously suggesting war if our lifeline water pipeline across the Causeway is cut.
Confucianism focused on the ethics and morals of individuals and how they build their own path to their place in heaven. The six books of Confucius had nothing on the military, and the sage himself had no training in the art of warfare. It was about self-cultivation and having sage leaders and kings. The dogma emphasised the obligation of the ruler to the people he ruled over.
Neo-Confucianism was a reactionary response to what was seen as a genteel culture and a wimpish society. The neo-Confucianists pursued a more robust culture, one of more vigor. It will be an ideology that directs benefits to the state instead of the individual. Thus the rise of statism, a system of politics where all social and economic affairs are controlled by the centre. At the heart of neo-Confucianism is the imperial examination system that gave rise to a class of scholar officials. Individual pursuit of self-cultivation of classical Confucianists was replaced by obeisance to the neo-Confucianist scholar class, and to officials and the Emperor at the top of the food chain. This new power class dictates every little trivial matter of social relation and conduct down to day-to-day matters such as weddings, funerals, celebration of festive occasions, etc. In effect, neo-Confucianists turned the teachings of the great sage into a state ideology, owned by them. (Does this sound like Singapore?).😊
Chinese imperial court has often been a hotbed of intrigues between the "boon" and "boo", Hokkien dialect for the scholar officials and the military officials. Neo-Confucianist scholars won. Whilst defence still mattered, a docile population eliminated domestic threats. With that, neo-Confucianism led to a down-grading of the importance of all things military in the administration. This denigration of the "boo" led to a lowering of the martial spirit and military professionalism. Neo-Confucianism held over the next thousand years and saw Chinese military technology quagmired in antiquity. It is ironic that neo-Confucianism started at the time when China invented the gun powder, the nuclear power of those days. From there it degenerated in military technology terms to the inutile Ching Dynasty and the foreign occupation of China in the 19th century when the Chinese stared into the barrels of Western guns..
Pacifists believe the other side will simply reciprocate their restrains and neglect that history has shown the world is never missing out on belligerent leaders. These pacifists have a poor understanding of the deep causes of war. The causal factors of war are varied, and in most cases there are more than one cause. Reasons range from economics, insecurity, revenge, adventurism (Alexander the Great), imperialism, punishment, because of a woman (Helen of Troy) etc. All these are excuses, not the real deep cause. American writer Stephen Van Evera presented the best single cause as ".... misperceptions that stem from shifting power relationships ....<and>..... from leaders miscalculating their prospects for victory".
In events leading up to WWI, the British cabinet was strongly influenced by prominent pacifists like Lord Morley and Lord Haldane. Propaganda for pacifism was very strong, promoted by people like Haldane and Norman Angell, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, lecturer and journalist. These were well-intentioned and peace-loving people, but mis-guided. Angell is famous for the line "... the economic cost of war is so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war ... ". The strong pacifism prevented the Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey from any influence over Germany at diplomacy. In was only a few days when war was imminent that Britain declared it will join the allies. Both France and Russia were later to say that had Britain announced early its decision to enter the war, it could have prevent Germany from starting WWI.
Fast forward to 1939, and once again, the appeasement approach of Britain's premier Neville Chamberlain failed to prevent Germany from going to war. Hitler saw in Chamberlain nothing but weakness.
Some pacifists believe strongly that international disputes can be settled by peaceful means in the courts, or some international peace-keeping force. They place their faith in arbitration and that all is needed is the 2 parties to sign some papers. This group are idealists who think populists like Greta Thunberg are better placed to resolve international foreign conflicts than pragmatic statesmen. To these pacifists war is avoidable, and they actively demand disarmament of nations. It is naive for pacifists to harbour the view that a state of military unpreparedness can best protect the state from unforseen aggressors.
There are pacifists that want international disputes settled peacefully rather than war, and who doesn't. But these understand that means of peaceful settlement are not available. It therefore requires statesmanship in diplomacy and negotiation, which often is also impossible. These are the rational pacifists. There are hardly any such institutions to settle disputes, and if there is, it has no teeth. In the South China Sea arbitration, Philippines brought the case against China to UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). Philippines won, but China remains in the Philippines seas.
Weak nations join alliances such as the Non-Aligned Nations Movement popular after WWII when many nations gained independence from colonial powers. Others form regional groupings such as Nato. Few have treaties with a bigger partner such as Philippines which has a Mutual Defence Treaty with the US. All for the purpose of projecting strength.
Even in their pacifist mindset, neo-Confucianists were aware external threats do exist and a reasonable military capacity is required. While the military existed, it had a low standing in the social hierarchy, lower than the farmers. That's where the Chinese saying "no good sons join the army" came from. Today we argue in the comfort of the armchair in our living room, how much of the budget should Singapore spend on defence. The answer is, as much as we can. If that is not an acceptable answer, then how much do you value your freedom?
