The Chinese have many idioms that stretch back centuries to war time, tales of battles being won through brilliant stratagems, clever use of resources, or just knowing one's opponent. A lot of Chinese live their life through these axioms, and "xian li hou bing" is one of them. It reads like a self-help manual: it literally says: First be polite, then use soldiers. In fact, Chinese armies first were polite to other neighboring kingdoms (hey, respectfully, can I borrow this land and never give it back?) and when they got an expected refusal, they would summon their troops and take over the land by force.
The situation also fits well with today's warfare, or the form of warfare that people in today's society encounter: best example would be litigation: First lawyers are expected to be civil to opposing attorneys, to use convincing arguments and merits of one's case to win arguments, not have to result to use of force, or in many cases, go to trial. It's something I do well, the "first be polite part," but then the resorting to force and aggressively advocating for one's client by attacking the other side fiercely, through damnations of their case and making the other side feel bad about their case, that I feel bad out. It seems a bit disingenuous, to start a relationship amicably but then flip on a dime if you don't get your way and become highly hostile and withdrawing all pleasantries, as if you were just being nice before. I'm currently on a large international case with multiple depositions and witnesses, so the lead attorneys are constantly sitting down in the same room with their clients. It's such a weird dynamic: On one hand they're both attorneys from prestigious law firms who've been practicing law for many years (both are partners at their respective law firms), so they give each other the utmost courtesy during breaks, like talking about their evening plans, etc., but then when the deposition starts and the video starts playing, they making objections and argue with each other harshly, sarcastically, and pretty rudely, if it was a normal conversation. It's just such an interesting dynamic, that of opposing attorneys on a litigation matter, it's like no other relationship in the world.
I do understand, though, sometimes why people in litigation resort to force, and why sometimes leaders of countries resort to force: the other side isn't motivated otherwise. Without the threat of force, those polite words are only just words. Diplomacy can only go so far without the threat of something happening. That's why wars break out unfortunately; I wish there would be no wars in the world, but then there would probably be more tyranny and oppression in those countries where a dictator or group has taken over without fear of reprisal and won't listen to threats. I wish there wasnt' any tyranny nor war; but sometimes it has to be one or the other. I kind of understand it now as an attorney; I have been trying to come up with a solution for a trademark litigation case for my relative in China and have been talking nicely to the opposing attorney for weeks, months even and it keeps getting delayed; he promises to get back to me soon; he doesn't get back to me. My client and I have no choice but to wait. We wait, we wait, but eventually the clear conclusion is that they're going to make us wait as long as we can, they don't have any reason to resolve the matter, and it's up to us to give them a reason to act and resolve the matter: threat of going to trial, or "resort to force" in today's terms. Unfortunately, I think we're headed in the direction of war. Necessary war.
Fantasize on,
Robert Yan
No comments:
Post a Comment