Reciprocity in International Relations

Its ramification for the current international order

Zi Gong asked, “Is there any one word that can serve as a principle for the conduct of life?” Confucius said, “Perhaps the word ‘reciprocity.’”¹

Confucian scholar Mencius later propounded this concept of reciprocity on five relationships, parent and child, ruler and minister, husband and wife, older brother and younger brother, friend and friend. The first four are characterized by differentiated statuses, while the last one, friendship, indicates a degree of equality. Mencius neither confirmed nor reinforced the status difference. He just attempted to understand what it is that establishes a responsibility between those two pairs in the relationship. In this article, I would like to investigate the relationship among states.

What is a sovereign state?

The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States stipulates four criteria for statehood that have been recognized by subsequent treaties. Those are:

• A permanent population.

• A defined territory.

• A government not under another (emphasis mine).

• A capacity to enter into relations with other states.

These conditions entail a degree of equality among states before the law, the court of public opinion, or whatever global bodies that adjudicate relations among states. Therefore, it’s probable and reasonable to conclude that the relationship among states is more like that among friends. Among equals, there are three ways to re-phrase the concept of reciprocity.

• Do to others as you would have them do to you. The Gospels of Luke and Matthew express the rule this way.

• Do not to others as you would not have them do to you. Confucius explained the rule this way to his students.

• What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself.

However, it is extremely rare to find illustration of reciprocity in international relations, probably due to obvious differential political, economic, and social forces among states. On the other hand, examples contrary to the concept of reciprocity are numerous. For instance, the Doctrine of Discovery provided legal, religious, and moral justification for the European conquest of the world. In 1493, Pope Alexander VI declared, in papal Bulls of Donation,

… by the authority of Almighty God conferred upon us, [we] do… give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever,… all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south … in the direction of India…

Abraham Lincoln indirectly confirmed the doctrine of discovery in his third annual message, in 1863, by proclaiming,

The removal of certain Indian tribes have been carried into effect. … extinguishing the possessory rights of the Indians to large and valuable tracts of lands.…[D]uty to these wards of the Government demand … moral training which … will confer upon them … the hopes and consolations, of the Christian faith.

This so-called civilizing mission culminated in the publication of Rudyard Kipling’s The White Man’s Burden poem in 1899, celebrating and promoting the Philippine-American War (1899 - 1902). The Vatican did not formally repudiate this doctrine until March 30, 2023, once it had realized that the trade, i.e., a Christian faith and a heavenly life for an earthly enslaved and exploited life, wasn’t fair.

Therefore, I suspect reciprocity is an ideal to which most states fail to reach. Or, more likely, states rationally decide not to attempt to attain this ideal due to its prohibitive costs and unclear benefits. I now will survey the development of the State of Qin, from its beginning to its eventual unification of ancient China in 221 BC. This review, of course, is superficial due to space and time. But my main aim is to illuminate on what Frederick Douglas once said, “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” Accordingly, I am not worried about the charge of superficiality.

Qin, a case study of international relations

Qin was a comparatively backward state during the Zhou dynasty (11th cent. - 221 BC), located on the fringe of western China. It was deemed culturally, socially, and politically inferior by states in the central plain. Its fortune changed drastically under the leadership of Duke Mu of Qin (r. 659 - 621 BC). He wisely redeemed an enslaved noble Baili Xi, who was already in his 70s at the time, with five pieces of goatskin from the State of Chu. He had Baili Xi shackled as a criminal while in transit, claiming to kill the latter as soon as he had arrived in Qin, to avoid suspicion of the king of Chu. The duke appointed Baili Xi as prime minister, after multiple intimate discussions, upon his arrival. He then followed Baili Xi’s advice to implement three main policies.

• Respect the nominal leadership of the emperor of the Zhou dynasty, which had declined significantly by this time. He earned respect, legitimacy, and support from a preponderance of states, especially the weaker ones, by doing so. He therefore unified the weaker states into a fearsome force.

• Maintain friendly relations with other states, especially the stronger ones, to minimize military conflict with them.

• Pursue an expansive policy toward the Sichuan Basin, which was easier to accomplish since this area was loosely controlled by nomadic tribes.²

---

Qin before the conquest of Sichuan, 6th century BC

---

The last policy, arguably the most important one, gave the State of Qin the benefit of benign indifference and neglect from the other states. During the reign of Duke Mu, we also witness a rare demonstration of reciprocity in action. In 647 BC, there was a famine in Jin during the reign of Duke Hui of Jin (r. 650 - 637). Jin asked for grain from Qin. Duke Mu provided Jin with grain, following the advice of Baili Xi, even though Duke Hui of Jin had betrayed him on multiple occasions. The following year, 646 BC, the State of Qin had a famine and requested Jin for help. Duke Hui of Jin repaid by attacking and invading Qin, taking advantage of its temporary weakness. However, Qin successfully repelled the attack and even captured Duke Hui. Subsequently, Duke Mu magnanimously released his opponent. Duke Mu later helped Prince Chong’er become Duke Wen of Jin (r. 637 - 628). Subsequently, the State of Jin supplanted Qin in power and influence due to its unique position along the Yellow River basin and not from any weakness or mistake on the part of Duke Mu.

---

---

However, Qin did decline gradually and then suddenly around the end of the fifth century BC. During the reign of Duke Jian of Qin (414 - 400 BC), for example, Qin was defeated multiple times by the emerging state of Wei, one of the successor states of Jin. Fortunately, Qin then had a succession of able and competent reformers.

Firstly, Duke Xian of Qin (r. 384 - 362 BC) initiated significant reform to compete with the other states. He conducted three significant policies:

• Abolition of human sacrifice.

• Moving the state capital from Yong to Xianyang. The new capital facilitated commerce with other states due to geographical proximity to them and weakened the aristocratic clans that were entrenched in the old capital.

• Establishing counties, governed by bureaucrats instead of nobles, to strengthen the central government.

Secondly, his son, Duke Xiao of Qin (r. 361 - 338 BC), went even further and appointed Shang Yang from the State of Wei as prime minister. He instituted the following reforms:

• Abolishing the nobility.

• Equality before the law.³ Shang Yang later cut off the nose of Prince Qian, who was the older brother of Duke Xiao and the tutor of Crown Prince Si, for violating the laws.

• Cultivation of unsettled lands via immigration.

These successive reforms culminated in the eventual unification of China under the emperor Qin Shi Huang in 221 BC.

Lessons from the rise of Qin

• Reciprocity, as a concept in international relations, is probably an ideal due to its prohibitive costs and unclear benefits. It’s rarely an actual objective of states, even when they claim to desire it.

• States most likely pursue their own interests, constrained by their resources and capabilities and those of their competitors.

• States most likely keep on the same course of action and avoid reforms, unless their survival are at stake.⁴

• Benign indifference and neglect are wonderful things to have, giving states the time to progress and develop without external scrutiny and hindrance.⁵

• Sometimes, either surrender or fight to the death are the only options, as recently indicated by several political leaders.

• Might makes right, as proposed by Thrasymachus when he asserted, ‘Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger,’ in Plato’s Republic. Socrates disputed Thrasymachus’s assertion. But astute readers know what happened to Socrates, so I won’t discuss any further.

---

Current ramification

In reviewing Qin development, I began to understand why Confucius had failed miserably as a politician. His kingdom wasn’t of this world, like that of Jesus and Socrates, even though they had diametrically different ideas. All of them fought a losing battle against what gives perceived meaning to human life, i.e., power, wealth, and control. They were great teachers, I was told. Their ideas are being taught, demonstrated, and further improved in the sacred halls at Oxford, Sorbonne, Amsterdam, and the like. But it appears that their students never practice their lessons.

So it goes.

The contradiction between beautiful words and perverted actions, between perceived hopes and visible realities, has always been a part of human existence. But we continue to be deceived by it when we encounter this contradiction in real life. Power, wealth, and control are mesmerizing, soothing, and comforting. They are worthy opponents and irresistible temptations since time immemorial.⁶ My daughter Sophia thinks that’s why Jesus wept in the garden of Gethsemane prior to his crucifixion, since he recognized the difficulty of our struggles. Jesus himself admonished his disciples, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”⁷ In this same spirit and resolve, Islamic scholars regard inner jihad as greater than outer jihad.

In the current political, social, and economic conditions, I am afraid that the tears of Jesus on that fateful day, together with those of countless millions, would gradually form ripples around the world. Those ripples eventually might organize into waves, from different corners of the earth, to sweep away the structure of existing international order. My concern is re-enforced by what Jesus once said, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”⁸

Will it happen? Time will tell.

---

I enjoy reading the following from the United Nations Charter Preamble:

We (emphasis mine) the people of the United Nations determined

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

And so forth.

Those are alluring words negotiated and agreed upon, in 1945, by the British which had colonies in South Asia at the time, the French which had colonies in Indochina, the Dutch which had colonies in the East Indies, and so forth. These colonial powers later gave up their territorial possessions due to violent and overwhelming revolts, and not due to the concept of reciprocity. It’s flattering that they included us in the proceedings, even prior to the fall of their empires. They spoke for us, I suppose.

So it goes.

Numerous world leaders gathered in New York City this past week. They further enhanced, augmented, and philosophized upon those magnificent words in the hallowed halls at the UN headquarter. One of these leaders proclaimed, “Things can get better.” “Sure, things can get better,” one of my friends in Singapore concurred. She then added, “If these leaders would just get the hell out of my country.”

---

As I write this, I cannot help but remember what happened one late chilly evening in the winter of 2020. I returned home from a long day at work, expecting to enjoy the warmth and comfort of my family. ‘Love you, love you,’ I heard upon entering my house. I surveyed the surroundings but didn’t see anyone. My wife was audibly snoring in the bedroom while my daughters were probably dreaming about My Little Pony upstairs. ‘Love you, love you,’ repeated the voice. I then traced this excited tone up to the ceiling. It was Pinky, my little parrot. ‘Love you, love you,’ was just empty chatter after all. But I still loved Pinky. He was a parrot, not a hypocrite.

So it goes.

Pinky or not. This bird loves to stay away from my embrace, and to be free from my control. He cherishes his freedom, perhaps too much. Like Huck Finn, he doesn’t want to be civilized by anyone.⁹

---

Thank you for reading. Please subscribe and share my post, if you enjoy my thoughts, to assist me in this new journey. I have decided to dedicate a portion of my time and energy to write on this substack, hoping to spread the message of caution, prudence, and watchfulness in this chaotic period. We do the part that we can.

Let Pinky fly, freely.

1. Excerpt from the Analects of Confucius.

2. This is not unlike Manifest Destiny, the westward expansion of the young United States of America to the Pacific Coast, courtesy of benign indifference and neglect from old European powers.

3. This is remarkable considering the better-known John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government wasn’t published until 1689. It is also a good example of ‘history is written by the victors,’ as stated unabashedly by a late British politician.

4. For instance, the United States of America instituted significant reforms during the depth of the Great Depression.

5. The rise of China, in the past few decades, is a recent example.

6. Interested readers are recommended to read The Temptation of Jesus, Luke 4: 1- 13.

7. Gospel of Matthew 26: 41.

8. Gospel of Matthew 26: 52.

9. Huck Finn is the protagonist of Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1844).