Inspiration - „Spalte und herrsche“: Weisheit oder Wahnsinn?

2025-05-20

“Divide and rule” is an old principle of political wisdom. In The Thirty-Six Stratagems: Secret Book of the Art of War, the third stratagem is formulated as follows: “Kill with a borrowed knife”(1) (the original meaning of the word stratagem being “ruse of war”). In the second century BC, the Greek historian Polybius explained how the Romans had mastered the art of dividing their enemies before conquering them.

In the 16^th century, Machiavelli remarked: “Some princes, with a view to a more secure tenure of their states, have disarmed their subjects; some have kept the countries subject to them divided into different parties; others have purposely encouraged enmities against themselves […]”(2)

But contrary to popular belief, he did not necessarily approve of those who fomented or maintained these fractures; on the contrary, he wrote that “... cities divided against themselves are easily lost, on the approach of an enemy; for the weaker party will always unite with the external foe, and then the other will not be able to maintain itself.”(3) He observed that the division that reigned in Italy, fostered by the Republic of Venice, favored its conquest by Spain, a great power of the time. And this is exactly what happened later in Europe, when great empires (e.g. Napoleon's Empire or the German Third Reich) found themselves faced with divided adversaries whom they could easily defeat and then win over to their cause, willingly or unwillingly. Only when they formed large coalitions could they preserve their freedom.

Fomenting and sustaining conflict among adversaries may seem expedient, when it comes to conquering neighboring states or avoiding being conquered; but is it the appropriate solution for lasting peace? Indeed, in the absence of a peaceful settlement (through diplomacy or arbitration), such dissensions leave only one possible solution: war.

Going a step further, is there a causal link between this “Divide and rule” foreign policy principle and the number of armed conflicts taking place in the world today?

In 1968, the American philosopher L. Ron Hubbard formulated what he called The Third Party Law (the word “party” meaning here “a person or group taking one side of a question, dispute, or contest(4), in other words, the parties to a conflict):

“A THIRD PARTY MUST BE PRESENT AND UNKNOWN IN EVERY QUARREL FOR A CONFLICT TO EXIST.

[...]

Or

WHILE IT IS COMMONLY BELIEVED TO TAKE TWO TO MAKE A FIGHT, A THIRD PARTY MUST EXIST AND MUST DEVELOP IT FOR ACTUAL CONFLICT TO OCCUR.”(5)

He adds: “One looks over ‚personal‘ quarrels, group conflicts, national battles and one finds, if he searches, the Third Party, unsuspected by both combatants or, if suspected at all, brushed off as ‚fantastic.‘ Yet careful documentation finally affirms it.

This datum is fabulously useful.”^[6]

Numerous historical examples will probably come to mind to illustrate how a foreign power uses a revolt in another country, or dissension between two countries, to advance its own interests to the detriment of those of the other two. The principle of “Divide and rule” in international politics should therefore be seen for what it is: a ruse of war, since it requires this third party to operate without the other two fully realizing its role as instigator.

This approach, which consists in always seeking and discovering the third party behind a dispute, could also be profitably applied in business or family disputes and prove to be an excellent tool in the hands of professional mediators.