From tributaries to vassalage

When a state surrenders its territory without as much as a single shot fired, whether in its defense, or as a strategic gambit, much like a chapter right out of Sun Tzu, a deeply oriental and profound strategy along the lines of conquests in a game of Go on a global stage, appearances can be deceiving.

In the game of Go, conquest is not a function of having more pieces on the board but rather having more grids under one’s control however fewer stones are held. In our on-going dispute for the West Philippine Sea it is easy to see the applicability of those to the geopolitical power struggle facing us.

In Go, the adversarial paradigm is subtler, more profound. The objective is achieved, not by knocking tokens off the board, but by surrounding them. Master the game and one realizes that more than simply capturing stones that represent, not soldiers as would a western board game but cornerstones, in an oriental sense, effectively denying the opponent valuable territory.

Allow us to burrow into the game’s subtleties. Inequity is the objective. Not a military victory. There is never a master — subordinate relationship between players. Shorn of such subservience from the onset, creates a balance.

For both players, without yielding ab initio, a sense of rebellion however remains whether active or passive, overt or covert. For as long as one does not yield then sovereign identities exist, however long the game takes. To understand, simply extrapolate and relate this to our historical geopolitics. We were under Spain for almost 400 years and technically under a foreign power for another quarter of a century after. But we remained defiant.

Subservience starts when we deny our self-worth. That could be a deliberate twist from focusing on one’s own and directing attention to another — for some a plainly utilitarian double-cross, not to benefit the object of latent focus but to benefit one’s selfish ends.

Seen in that light, we can appreciate recent positions raised on our aquatic resources and territories where ownership, control, economic benefits, rights, and rulings comprise a complex conundrum requiring more than soundbite analysis, or the few column inches afforded by broadsheets. We need healthy discourses shorn of argumentum ad hominem. And insulated from lies.

This is as relevant today as it was in our ancient past when it was our ancestral Malay Nusungtao who bravely sailed the seas trading with islanders and landlubbers from the Paracels to the great Indian and Hindu centers, from Phu Nam and Viet Champa — trade catalyzed by Malays predating any from the northern kingdoms. To the early Chinese port traders who found more comfort and safety inland, the seas were hc svnt dracones, left to be challenged instead by the bolder Malays.

Sovereign nations who now kow-tow like vassals, pathetically acting like tributaries and pet chattel did not do so then. What the Middle Kingdom saw as tributes were simply the incremental costs of trade, sweeteners so that the Malays, Indians, and Hindus can exploit the northern markets.

Ancient China before the wall was then more a culture than a state. Today it is the reverse. After “The Great Purge,” it is more a communist state than a noble civilization.

Unfortunately, to spread hegemony, some attempt to rewrite and distort history. Sadly, as expected, those who do not know theirs, have surrendered — all for 582 yuan or the cliche thirty pieces of silver.

“For as long as one does not yield then sovereign identities exist, however long the game takes.

“Ancient China before the wall was then more a culture than a state. Today it is the reverse.