COMMENTARY War, diplomacy and Diplomacy Reynaldo V. Silvestre and Larry Peery 12:09 AM | Saturday, April 18th, 2015 INTRODUCTION It was a hot, muggy day in the summer of 1970 at Clark AFB outside of Manila, the Philippines; which had become a hub of USAF activity due to the Vietnam War build-up. The Base Ops Building was a zoo as a very junior USAF 2nd Lt. walked up to the main counter and confronted a very senior USAF Chief Master Sergeant behind the counter. The CMSgt looked at him and said, “What can I do for you, sir,” although you could tell he wanted to say “What can I do for you, son?” The 2nd Lt. looked like any other new 2nd Lt. in the Base Ops Building with one exception. He had a large, doubled-sealed canvas duffel bag handcuffed to his left-wrist; and that told the CMSGT what he needed to know. ”I need a plane,” the 2nd Lt. said. “Sorry, sir, there’s nothing available today headed back to the States.” The 2nd Lt. looked at him, “I need a plane that will get me to California and I need it now, Sgt.” As the MSgt started to open his mouth, the 2nd Lt. reached inside his jacket and shirt and pulled out his dog tags. On the same chain was a laminated ID card with a USAF unit logo decal he didn’t recognize, four gold stars, a code number and an AUTOVON phone number. “Call this number, Sergeant. Now.” The CMSGT decided discretion was the better part of valor in this case and did as he was told. All the 2nd Lt. heard was “The number on this ID is XX-XXX-X. Yes, sir. Yes, sir!! Yes, sir!!!” The CMSgt. hung up the phone, looked at the 2nd Lt. and said, “Well, sir, I do have a KC-135 filled with Marines headed for Da Nang. That’s all I’ve got.” “Fine, get them unloaded, Sergeant.” The 2nd Lt. stood on the ramp and watched as the hundred or so Marines filed off the plane looking at him and his bag with curiosity. As he waited, an equally young Philippine Army 2nd Lt. walked up beside him, saluted, grinned and said, “Well, you made their day.” A short conversation and the two young officers boarded the plane for the long flight to Hickam and then on to Travis. After a brief lay-over in Hickam the two, along with a few other Navy and Marine personnel they’d picked-up in Hawaii, were off to Travis AFB, just outside San Francisco. By the time they landed the two had exchanged what little information they had about themselves and their brief military careers. The Philippine Lt. glanced at the bag on the USAF officer’s wrist more than once but never asked, and the American Lt. never volunteered what the bag was all about. When they landed; they saluted, shook hands, promised to stay in touch and went their own ways. And so it happened and time passed. “Hello, Larry. It’s Reynaldo. How have you been? …. Yeah, isn’t retirement great? … Well, I just wrote something for the media over here and I thought you might like it. Can I send it to you? …Sure, I’ll email it now.” I thought about Reynaldo as I waited for his email. He had served in the Philippine Army’s Special Operations branch for years until he was forced to retire as a colonel due to injuries he received while fighting in Vietnam and Abu Sayyaf Islamic terrorists in the country’s south. His experience, his rank, his injuries and his six rows of earned campaign medals had paved the way for a new academic career as Chief, Office of Strategic and Special studies, Armed Forces of the Philippines. Somewhere along the way he found the time to serve as a member of the Philippine government-Moro National Liberation Front technical working group on the cessation of hostilities in 1994. Eight years later he officially retired from the Army and began a third and fourth career as a Visiting Professor at Santo Tomas University in Political Military Affairs and as commentator for a variety of Philippine newspapers and magazines. What follows is based on what Reynaldo sent me, although I have modified it to add a “dip&Dip” connection. Considering what is going on in the Near, Middle and Far East; and in the Islamic Terrorist World I thought his thoughts might be of interest to Diplomates. I hope the seven trends in the Diplomacy hobby I have identified will provoke some thought and reaction. WAR AND DIPLOMACY From 1940 when the armies of Austrian corporal Adolf Hitler “blitzkrieged” Europe to the present, the world has had 74 years of unending war. Whatever peace we may have had in these seven decades of fire and madness has not been peace at all but a ceasefire. Or, to put it another way: From 1961 when the armies and fleets of American student and game designer Allan B. Calhamer “Dipped” across Europe to the present, the world has had 54 years of unending war, diplomacy and Diplomacy. Whatever peace we may have had in these five decades of fire and madness has not been peace at all but a ceasefire. These years of war—with bitter, vicious and unforgiving hatreds as well as incredible cruelties—have developed a generation of humanity for whom cruelty and falsehood, violence and deep mistrust of everyone else are the standards of life and behavior. The model human being of our time is no longer the gentleman of Elizabethan England, the mandarin of imperial China, or the ilustrado of Filipinas, but the “operator,” the marunong sa buhay, the man of brute power. The arbiters of our destiny as a race are people and nations who control and can unleash nuclear power and destruction. War, to summarize Robert Ardrey in his acclaimed work, “The Territorial Imperative,” is the most successful of all human cultural traditions because of its all-consuming satisfaction of the imperatives of identity, stimulation, and territory, evoked even more by the delusion of greater security. We need not look further than our own lives to perceive the general truth in this statement. Such is our compulsion to be “someone,” and to seek pleasurable gratification, even at the cost of a peaceful life, friendship and hard-earned savings. Nor can we ignore the implications of nations hazarding life, liberty and peace for their millions of people for the sake of some arid border strip in Afghanistan or a pile of rocks in a sea at Panatag Shoal. In our homeland, we have not had so much as a complete year of national tranquility. We passed through a crucible of colonial servitude, stripped of human dignity, brutalized, and suffered pervasive injustice. The need to survive created the revolutionary army; the need to survive well ignited their passion into the flame of 1896. Filipinas endured occupation by European and Asian powers, annexed by Yankee troops and invaded by Japan. Attacked by foreign swords, Filipino patriots spilled their blood. Menaced from within by the armed followers of foreign ideology, veterans fought a fratricidal insurgency. We have suffered grievously in a way rendered more excruciating by the necessity of having to strike at some of our Muslim brethren. By and large, over the last 118 years, ours has been an inheritance of pain. Given the biological nature of man as an eternal warrior, diplomacy remains the sole instrument to achieve the irreducible goals of national survival. War and diplomacy are two sides of one coin. Since ancient times, war as an armed conflict between two parties has always been a political action. To Carl von Clausewitz, war is a continuation of politics by other means such as diplomacy. Diplomacy is the art of gaining more than you can get by force, which the weak must learn and which the strong do not need. This definition is applicable to individuals and nations. A strong individual, like a strong nation, can demand; a weak individual, like a weak nation, can only beg. The Greek historian Menander tersely proclaimed: The strong take what they can, the weak must give what they must. If this is the nature of diplomacy, what are its major instruments? First, we need people of intelligence, preferably those whose intellect would place them in the upper 10 percent of the nation. This is a requirement which we must observe on pain of slavery, because we cannot successfully bargain with able diplomats by using political lame ducks and others who cannot survive in private business and who must therefore look for a government job, or a turn back in the Philippine Military Academy for academic deficiency as secretary of national defense. A PhD in quantum physics in a prestigious university is most desirable. Second, we need people of courage. We cannot successfully bargain by using diplomats who are eager to please their foreign counterparts, even to the point of signing away our country. Third, we must have a clearly defined concept of what we need and what we want as a people who would be free, prosperous and proud. If we do not know what we need and what we want, we shall leave the bargaining table with empty promises disguised as a mutual defense treaty. Those are the primary requisites. Without them the other instruments would have no effect except slavery for us. With them we can at least die proudly. Relating the nature of diplomacy with its instruments, what then shall we prescribe for our homeland, the Philippines? First, we should determine our identity as a race and our place in history. Unless we make up our minds that we belong to either Asia or the United States, then all our policies will be characterized by a fatal ambivalence. We shall continue to go after an ally 10,000 miles away while we neglect our next-door neighbors, who, by race, geographical proximity and common regional interests, are our natural allies. If we continue our unnatural alliance with the United States—unnatural because it is achieved at the expense of our regional neighbors—the day will surely come when we shall have become “outsiders” in our own domain. Asia shall treat us as a suspect foreigner because we have turned our back on our Asian interests. After identifying our nation as an Asian nation, we should then specify what our particular interests in Asia are, which we must preserve and advance and for which we would fight if threatened. For example, do we care what happens to Korea? Japan? Burma (Myanmar)? Vietnam? Indonesia? If we know our position, then we can ignore events in some places, and fight to the death in others. If we do not know our specific interests in Asia, our actions would be those of a punch-drunk boxer who starts boxing at the sound of any bell. After identifying our nation, and after defining our particular interests in Asia first, and in the rest of the world next, our final basic concern must be the use of diplomats who are competent, courageous and patriotic. Diplomacy is an art and must be played with extemporaneous skill; while machines can be trusted with formulas, only humans can be trusted with an art. Let it not be said that we are small and weak and therefore doomed. We are weak in comparison with such countries as Japan and China. But there is no reason we cannot compensate for our weakness by allying ourselves with stronger nations who share our interests in Asia. Again, we may not be able to raise armies, but surely we can bring key people in other countries over to our side, perhaps by words and perhaps by gifts. The wise diplomat would know when to use words and when to use gifts. The principle, anyway, is that not having enough to conquer other nations, we nevertheless have enough to conquer key people in those nations. How? That would be diplomacy. It is fatuous to speak of morality in the conduct of foreign policy. The beneficial bargain is all. The stakes of national survival are too crucial to be determined by niceties and politesse. Finally, let us remember that diplomacy cannot be played with words alone. We must have strength behind our words. Thus, the best diplomacy in the long run is one based on nationalism and propelled by a strong economy. Without nationalism, we shall surely be satellites. And without a strong economy, we shall surely be satellites, too, because we can be bought. But with nationalism and prosperity, and all the traits implied thereby—such as patriotism, self-discipline, hard work, courage, intelligence and self-respect—we shall be able to achieve the objectives of any diplomacy: a peaceful, free and prosperous nation. TRENDS IN DIPLOMACY I thought about Reynaldo’s words as I pondered what was going on in the world-wide Diplomacy hobby and would we ever achieve the objectives of our Diplomacy hobby: a dynamic, stimulating, fulfilling --- yet peaceful --- hobby? Looking at today’s international Diplomacy hobby and its component sub-hobbies I have identified seven trends that may be considered positive, negative or both. Perhaps you can think of more: First, we are surviving. Today that’s a given and pretty much expected, but such was not always the case. This is a positive. Second, we are not fighting amongst ourselves. Again, today this is a given and pretty expected, but such was not always the case, as anyone who attended some of the early DipCons, the fourth World DipCon, or the first European DipCon may recall. This is a positive. Third, we are gentrifying, but not maturing. After a half-century the hobby has still not done many of the commonly accepted things that other, similar organizations have done. This is a negative. Fourth, we, like so much of society, have replaced depth of thought and considered action with quick responses that were not always in our collective best interests. This is a negative. Fifth, we are shrinking and we are expanding at the same time in our collective and sub-hobbies. Our groups in the UK and Scandinavia seem to be shrinking while at the same time our sub-hobbies in South Africa and China seem to be growing. This is both a negative and a positive. Sixth, we are replacing human face-to-face and personal contacts with electronic and high-tech ones. This is both a negative and a positive. Seventh we are dying off, which is the nature of things, as individuals, but we still manage to attract that rare and special type of newbie that it takes to play Diplomacy. This is both a negative and a positive thing. CONCLUSION What first caught my eye about Reynaldo’s essay was his reference to Robert Ardrey’s “The Territorial Imperative,” a book I had first read in college in 1966 when it was a “must read” for anyone studying Political Science, International Relations and History as I was. Ironically, just a few months after my first encounter with Reynaldo on that long flight from Clark to Travis AFB I had a chance to meet, share a Thanksgiving Dinner, and debate with Robert Ardrey at a friend’s home in Baldwin Hills, California. I didn’t even know Ardrey was going to be at the dinner but a dinner invitation at The Despols was not to be turned down. There were known for bringing together an eclectic group of students, academics and business people for their dinners. The food was always good after everybody had had a couple of John Despol’s famous three olive martinis, but the real high-light of the evening was the conversation, debate and occasional verbal brawl that followed. I’ll never forget my first visit to one of their events. The evening turned into a verbal slug-fest between The Rev. Bishop James Pike and the noted pulp mystery writer Mickey Spillane. However, on that particular Thanksgiving the conversation centered around Ardrey’s thoughts and writings on a wide variety of subjects. He was not only a thinker and writer, he was quite a talker. It turned out to be one of the significant intellectual events of my life; and had a profound effect not only on me but some of the other guests: Shirley Strum went off to Africa to study with Dr. Leakey and today is a professor at UCSD’s Department of Anthropology who still goes back to Africa every year to check on “her” apes. Shirley Kanter Ginzburg married one of the founders of one of the first CEO’s of one of the first high-tech companies to call Silicon Valley home; Tony Despol, the hosts’ son, became an attorney for some of the biggest slum lords in Los Angeles; and me, well, what can I write that I haven’t written before too many times? It’s a pity Robert Ardrey passed away some years ago in South Africa. It would have been interesting to have him and Reynaldo sit down to share a Pagdiiwata Feast. I’m sure the drinks, food and conversation would have been stimulating. Larry Peery (peery@ix.netcom.com) If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, and clicking on the envelope above does not work for you, feel free to use the "Dear DP..." mail interface.