[The Library: Information Warfare] Barbarians vs. Barbarians: Another Ancient Chinese Deception Ploy

Barbarians vs. Barbarians: Another Ancient Chinese Deception Ploy

Honestly, I could write an entire series based upon Kissinger's On China. But at the moment, I'll call this post two.

Ancient China had a pretty brilliant method of deception combined with their Five Baits. I go a little bit more in detail regarding the historical context in my last post about the Five Baits, but I'll explain a little here as well, as it's very important.

In the period of Chinese history in question, specifically the Qing Empire of the 1700's and 1800's, China was beset by "barbarians", a name reserved for... well literally everyone that isn't under the Mandate of Heaven, a Kingdom ruled over by the Son of Heaven, the Chinese Emperor. The Britons specifically were trying to pry open China to access the pearl of free trade inside, a ploy made very difficult by the Chinese view of nationalist excellence mandated by the heavens. In the beginning, China gave the Britons access only to Canton, now known as Guangzhou (广州), and severely limited Briton's trade there. The Britons were upset at this, and expressed this irritation during the Opium War, a short and brutal war over the Briton's insistence of selling opium in to the Chinese. Free trade with the Barbarians was seen as beneath the Emperor... until he had his ass served to him on a platter mandated by heaven and the British Royalty.

In the meantime, Russia was given more and more concessions. They were the only country to have a permanent pseudo-ambassadorship in Beijing (actually an Orthodox Russian church that was used as an embassy), and Russia was being given further concessions because of the constant threat of a land grab from Count Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatyev. While the British were seen as a diplomatic annoyance, the Russians were seen as a direct military threat. 

All the while, the US was trying to get a share of a free and open orient. They faced some of the same difficulties that the British had, compounded with their difficulty in finding goods that America could produce and China would buy. They faced the cultural barrier to trade, like the British, but stopped short at fighting an Opium War... mainly because the British East India trade company had a complete monopoly over opium trade from India, and America only had access to a smaller supply of lower quality Turkish opium. (source)

Speaking of the Indians... they were exporting Buddhism, which some saw as a direct competition to the well-accepted Confucian system. They shared many of the same ideas, but the Barbaric Indians exporting their religion, one that focused on an after life and a deity instead of the rigid Confucian caste system, that was an irritant, on top of, you guessed it, Indian economic pressure.

Add in the Japanese, who were also trying to export Buddhism to China, in between their excursions seeking to conquer the neighbor nation. The Japanese were viewed (and, if you ask some modern Chinese natives, are still viewed) as a direct military threat who also wanted in on the China pie.

Why does all of this matter? Furthermore, surrounded by the vicious barbarians of the early 1800's, how was China not conquered?

Setting Barbarian Against Barbarian

China had a brilliant, and now common, practice of divide and conquer. They knew they came from an economic high ground and a military low ground, so instead of playing toward their weakness in a direct military conflict (which they tried with some success in the Battles of Taku Fort, but failed at overall) the Chinese played towards their strength.

China came from a position of holding the money that everyone wanted access to. Therefore, they made it an auction instead of a giveaway. They offered deals to all nations, and let them battle, with increasingly favorable deals to China, amongst themselves. Thus, China became an economic proxy war, with every possible party at the table seeking more of the pie. This worked to incredible success, as it gave China far more bargaining power than their nationalistic piety that came from a Mandate of Heaven. China no longer had to rely on their diplomats to battle for deals, they only had to make offers. 

This was a sign that China was maturing far faster diplomatically than many other nations did. They still held on to their piety, but set it aside in later diplomatic discussion in order to hold on to their country. They were fine with localized spheres of economic influence, as long as they got better and better deals.

Compare that to current, modern China. Needless to say, Xi Jinping is no longer holding on to the title of Son of Heaven. He may have an air of piety about him, but not quite on the level of Deity. The piety he does posses, he sets aside in many cases in favor of bargains. Recent attempts at Donald Trump at beginning a trade war with China have lead many economists to warn very much against the idea. China has flourished economically in recent years, and very much has resorted to the "Barbarians versus Barbarians" approach. When the US Department of Commerce barred many Chinese companies ZTE and Huawei from entering the American market this year and last, it was because they had already done plenty of business with Iran and North Korea. An unpopular decision by most, but it shows that China is willing to give dibs to anyone who gives them the best deal.  

If a trade war does break out, expect to see this tactic taken by China's Xi. The "Barbarians versus Barbarians" is a great way to ensure that both gamblers lose, but the ultimate Arbiter China always wins. Be aware of the tactic in any situation when multiple parties are bargaining over a limited resource (so literally all economics) and expect the tactic to be used by the trade arbiter.

A small note: this tactic can and has come back to bite the arbiter in the ass. Count Nikolai Ignatieff convinced China that he was the only way to expel the Anglo-French invaders from taking Beijing... a directive he directly supported by supplying the Allied forces with maps and intelligence. He convinced the invaders to leave by feeding them false intelligence of a coming winter that would leave the forces surrounded by ice. As a price for the expulsion of the Barbaric invaders? A massive, 35,000 square mile territorial claim, giving them the port city of Vladivostok, a huge naval port, and a foothold in the Sea of Japan. So, if you find yourself as the arbiter in a Barbarian versus Barbarian trade, or simply a participant, be aware of the trickiest barbarian. 

Seriously recommend Kissinger's On China. Find it here on Amazon.