Year: 2012
Type: article
Abstract: Dr. Zhou Fangyin’s ‘Equilibrium Analysis of the Tributary System’ enriches the increasingly salient debate among Chinese International Relations (IR) students on the so-called ‘tributary system’1 in three ways. First, it correctly points out that China did not unilaterally create the mode of interstate connections in pre-modern East Asia. Rather, the ‘system’, if there was indeed such a thing, was an institutional mechanism mutually constructed by both the central and peripheral regimes. This, in my opinion, is a crucial clarification that revises the views of some of the Fairbankian School of scholars, who insist that the tributary system was an institution enforced by China on surrounding states that only passively accepted it.2 Second, the article differentiates between tributary discourse and practice, and emphasizes the system’s internal logic in practical policy making. In another words, by observing the tributary system as policy-oriented behaviour, the article rejects the explanation of it as a (partially self-deceived) cultural phenomenon, instead emphasizing its realist significance as a rational political arrangement. In so doing, it opens the way to further research on the topic along the political science line. Third, the article regards the traditional interstate order in East Asia as a dynamic process under constant change and development. Although not altogether convinced by the author’s model of alternation of cycles, I do agree with Zhou’s denunciation of the ‘stagnation’ theory, and firmly believe such a direction foreshadows exciting insights in the search for a ‘Chinese school’ of international relations. That said, as Dr. Zhou himself admits, the article is just ‘a starting point’ for more comprehensive and diverse research into the topic. It does expose several important issues which invite questions and challenges from different perspectives. The problems, ranging from theoretic presumption to the historiographic approach, are by no means unique to this article, but common in Chinese, as well as Western, IR scholarship. It is quite likely that my critique of Dr. Zhou’s article will be read as a challenge from one discipline (history) to another (IR), but I hope that such an impression would reflect only the fact that there is a growing cross-disciplinary consensus on the importance of the subject under discussion, and that it is drawing attention from a widening range of academic fields. With this clarification out of the way, I hope the current article will make a contribution, no matter how trivial, to our understanding of history and the present East Asian world. My article is composed of three parts. The first section addresses questions and problems arising from Dr. Zhou’s article. The second part raises an alternative approach—what I call a ‘multilateral and multilayered perspective’—to understanding the interstate relationship in pre-modern East Asia, with a focus on Sino–Korean relations from the 14th to 19th centuries. The last section tries to bring together recent historical scholarship on the post-1500 world order and the IR discussion on East Asian history, arguing that the latter would benefit from attention to the former. The conclusion suggests that we relocate the interstate relations in pre-modern East Asia into the wider frame of global history. A few words about terminology: I prefer the term ‘zongfan (宗藩) hierarchy’ to ‘tributary system’ in signifying the world order in pre-modern East Asia. Although often regarded as interchangeable in many instances, I insist on calling attention to the distinct historical origins of the two terms. The term zongfan is an indigenous expression which reveals the sociological, philosophical and cosmological roots of the political arrangement,3 whereas ‘tributary’, a term borrowed from the historical setting of the Roman Empire, has its roots in the exchange of wealth.4 Equating ‘tributary’ with zongfan as to the of of not ‘tributary’ a I would to issues in Zhou’s article I in the model a and of historical problems are not from but and mutually are not unique to the article under discussion, but in many on Although its is to the of the Dr. Zhou’s model the that it is more in the between on the and of it model on the of a which the system In an article of realist such a is quite It is on several in IR scholarship. of the as of the of between rational in the of I as to for a and to the historical will I the that the ‘tributary system’ is a borrowed from a of which is Rather, I we to the of and from the of history, to we the of this the of the pre-modern world order in East Asia. Zhou of the presumption of Chinese in the under such of as and there that a was the In words, is not a it be regarded just as the of a and the starting of a My questions was there out of to was of East Asian international It is a common consensus in on this subject that its a of the zongfan A of and connections and interstate in pre-modern East Asia. It is that often the way for and but it was from the and not to the of the scholars, and believe that was a more and mechanism in the of the East Asian the of a order and by the two I would that the of be so the East Asian central the of China and of and for the and exchange of and and the and The of the order on the central to and and to a which the in of and for the in history, a and cultural by different with different the of I would that constant and cultural that both central and peripheral of importance in one with another and the I two to my on First, between the and the a in a It between the two mutually on the and the of the East is the relationship between China and the from the to the centuries. under the ‘tributary’ the signifying that China ‘tributary with In words, this relationship Dr. Zhou’s It an part and one of the connections the between the two not by states but and and in which the Chinese and in exchange for and development. It a crucial part in political and which not so as but as a of the of a to in the was a that did not the of this relationship as one Zhou’s article the between a and its peripheral states to the realist The presumption of the historical China was in an and its policy in the quite The is that such a presumption no of the and in the relations. First, different not to the two in but often the of in one of Zhou’s that the under more to constant on its did under the and the the of more we into the and the was into the system and under the of the central was to the by of the institution and a system of the first in Chinese history the that the into the central and in China The different from a of this the policy in to no Second, the was indeed in a for of the history of the does not that it no In to arising the points of the and of which was was under constant from one more in the The between China and a in and by relations between China and the relationship be a composed of just China and one peripheral In the I will historical Sino–Korean relations further to this The of the of Zhou’s article in its of the between the and the the the is to be in three of the but to an in the on the of of from to Zhou that tributary relations with China a on to the that the of one the of in to the to tributary to the the from the in a that would as a constant to to such this the of policy the The is a out of as a of In this way, the author’s the of relations on internal as China was to from the so the Sino–Korean zongfan which was to be in no part in Rather, has to be in of the in the of the the a of three more into several the of the its and by of the the of the on to political and The of is but one of this to a in a that was in the first regarded as a the was a in which the its who and was the of a in which the the many and was first and by and not relationship with under policy of the and the which to the of the was and by as an both to the and from That said, it be that was the first the last that to China another did not as a to to such a matter of as I will in the second history such the was in in of is to a as regards the not so a the a from the but the of another to the the and which is not from the of a the of historical and to a and on the the of among the has and the last three it with another of is not an alternative to from the of the way of In article, Zhou tries to ‘tributary as of among the the is not from the of it is from the Chinese of The and between a and its surrounding to under the of and In the out the and in Zhou’s article the of historical from the of to for historical the challenges from surrounding as is as it that with China only for the of the an as it is and by of the historical and and as well as and the history of and but few be as and between the and its often the latter from the not of in the Chinese as is often to as on the of means a of constant in the a and the as has to be under the of of into a in which the states to an among the it was who but of be just the In the term about on the with into the of In East Asia, in and in with the of of the zongfan often and on the history with different is quite a common suggests that we the discourse as an which was by its different a of we the discourse of one for as historical such important for A crucial of the zongfan for the of The on the of history, reveals as more It is I agree the history the of of and in of the between and is to historical A on understanding of history will our in the in science with in historical and be and by that such and are in of students of the pre-modern interstate order in East Asia, historical means not just on from but the from states and means understanding for as has in I would to my by two in Zhou’s article history is The two both of in the section on the Sino–Korean are not to the author’s First, the Sino–Korean as an starting from the to the the the accepted the as a ‘tributary’ relations between the and the as The is that the article between the and between and the of the into several states the the to the Chinese for first with the the the the ‘tributary’ relations with three but The the in which the and to states with one the the and a part of the a of the two a in history, in which the and the The to which Zhou’s article did not the the the Second, not the it is to from of the the Chinese of the article, I was The of was in Chinese historical as its The two are interchangeable in Chinese historical the In a and the which the of the Although the the in Chinese the way as a from that of the Chinese the to the two and the as the to the has a common Chinese term in to It is the to as in no of the as the did not into the Zhou’s article, an the into as it is that the term in the only to the not a term which and different does such a we are in a world by in which are and along we be that are be of that in China and the so diverse in that be to of Chinese the relations between different are and to be as a as there was a ‘tributary’ relationship that of there to this would our in a A direction to instead of in a on the ‘tributary system’ ‘Chinese world as the first of the are to the of the world order in pre-modern East if we our to an of the relations between the and its we be that such a relationship as an different different different relations and the mode of that the in the to with the no as to how it with the in Asia the relations to be by in a but will our to the to a science historical development. of our with and the ‘tributary we our research with East Asian to how a interstate relationship was out of its I an alternative way to the interstate relationship in pre-modern East that from a focus to a and multilayered this a relationship is into a composed of among and science and and this we to its the in that it was by different with one we to and that and and as a process in constant I would to the relationship between China and to be the of ‘tributary to the to Zhou in article, I to how the two relations and how this history. a in that the and of the zongfan I to is how issues and the zongfan I there two from the of relations and to be in is the constant from a more the two the to The is the of the of both and I that the zongfan was and under the of two The and of the first and a to common and the and such a In the Chinese the from its the the the in the as a and of the first to the of the and relations with the the and this to the to an the The this to a the by the on the one with the on the The of the of both the and the and its in the as the to the of the the the the of the the into two the by himself and the by In in the the out to the of the part of the and to a in the from the a the and to the The of the was the and instead to the to on the and in the a policy of with the the the to its to the part of the The the and of the zongfan and political in the of the to the of in the states the policy to the the to the under the relations with the who a in the process of in the and to the and into the who and In the along the of the the many from the in to the was the first in history that the its to the the the of in of the of the and in of the the into the The to with and in and The and and in but under the zongfan The and under to the along the of the an was by in a with the of is in our do not to with this relationship subject to the with the from to an on the as the first in to The to to the as the Sino–Korean The of on three states and to The the and and the more both and the was to the that the of the of the for more the in the its to the this the in the of both states that the in which the a political the and The of three traditional in Asia the for the of a the which and of the and on the the second on Sino–Korean relations in the by and the the in and the in the of of the from the the the latter to the and to the In the of the the the China and of the the the the in China was and The regarded as the to China in the the that it was a not the of and its to the conclusion that was the policy for the between the and the the first the in the and was to with the in In both the the to the in to with of the Although the of the Sino–Korean tributary from the it the a to the zongfan It was the of that as the of that the change its and the China in the of three the in China and the surrounding to of the and cultural the in the and cultural in the of tributary and the the and of such in the with the and of the Sino–Korean zongfan the its policy the the and of and the in its internal on the the attention of on both only to on Sino–Korean the of the the to the the who the of as the on of and the two the of in to the Although of the the regarded the as a to its In for a a of to of the and to the the between the and the the latter the of the that the and of the that the not China and that it would to The the was a for this and would be to from to to and so the In an of to out the Sino–Korean A was the the but to believe in the points of of the two A was on the of so in that that to to the by the to an under the zongfan both and The for another the 19th the zongfan The of in the 19th the of the world order in East it did of the in both China and to by in Although to the relationship to the such as to the traditional zongfan was the under from and was the and no to its of on the The Sino–Korean zongfan relationship in the 19th from two to the and to the In the in the its focus on the part the from the of and its to the the first in history, two on and the the to the a of from into both and a the in the its and to a and the as its of In to the of and its political and of the The two in both of which the of such the to more in that the was important to did it to its tributary the was to the of both and it to to the two that the its policy and for the did not China in the for The zongfan institution between China and which in the the world order in East Asia, in which China as the did not the first in and in it further of its in and in as well as China the of the East Asian in for the the of from both and China to the with as and would out from and In we that the Sino–Korean relationship of the has and dynamic and by it has by and to in the The ‘tributary’ relationship in East Asia was more a of of an that from to we the that the of the Sino–Korean zongfan points be by the Sino–Korean zongfan relationship first and a under the in the by cultural as well as between the two it as the and of was mutually in practice, the which the part of the for the the latter the of the the to relations and an alternative as be in the and the Sino–Korean China in a the Sino–Korean zongfan relationship was by the of an and That is to under which the the and the the between the both to the by The practical to the in exchange for of the order in The was not it be as the 14th the Sino–Korean zongfan China to its the if not constant the of the and It be that the Sino–Korean zongfan relationship was the of a process of in a of its in zongfan relations the we not to to relations the zongfan not to the pre-modern East Asian world order in I focus on the it is that such as and the East Asian world in many ways. to I will not the of interstate relations so we about the pre-modern world order in East I that the is that we first to some that the of ‘tributary’ and to the of the East the and historical many insights that benefit our IR in the IR so ‘tributary’ is more as the traditional Chinese as to the international system to common was by the of in is on the that international the relationship among states by international was by the and the world and The of China from the to this is to of the system and to its tributary The that ‘tributary’ the traditional ‘Chinese system’ to be and of was not just another of it was in pre-modern and not only in a of its but in its internal was on this the between the and the in pre-modern political was The zongfan in China and be as an of a institution to of and the in on the to the of the which the as the of the world and relations between the and its surrounding was in the cosmological as a It be the of its and we the explanation of tributary and the of and under the of ‘tributary’ that be but be as just one of Second, of the zongfan are by no means It is that the pre-modern East Asian for the of was on the is that the zongfan was accepted and by in the the zongfan order to to but not and such as would the of in the and the the global and and political between the and between different and between and the tributary discourse was not only and by the but if not more by some of the states as our the ‘tributary system’ to a with China on one and its on the a be to the of the pre-modern interstate in East Asia. the of tributary to our of the so-called ‘Chinese world from a Third, the was a that different of this fact that and of the both and for of some as did to the and only part The from China that it to who the in the about this on the as a of The of regarded by as of the not the who to be the of The both to and such In many the central would with another points for the in with the as an The of in by was a of between two states with relations with the of the a in of and In another words, the zongfan order was often and different to different it to the international the zongfan order was one of that and from its but not that it is to the pre-modern world order in East Asia as a in of discourse of is not questions on the of the of tributary the was first The of the zongfan be regarded as one of is the of the East Asian I would to make my from a different one that the questions of who the of tributary ‘Chinese world for and its in so The of ‘tributary system’ ‘Chinese world to in the of research on the world. the subject under in this was both the and of the The one of the ‘tributary system’ ‘Chinese world to the of the in it in to the pre-modern First, there a traditional East Asia that was to but which was and from the of the world. Second, traditional has to a the and a change as well as Third, the in East Asia by China to its in the on the indigenous and internal of by a of and diverse to be a ‘system’, world order in pre-modern East Asia was as a and with a the connections between East Asia and the of world in history the constant by East in with such connections was and was not the East Asia, but the so-called world as the was so was the The latter has and to the between and the of the fact that it has to the the two was from and that the of the international system was not a from one to the 19th Sino–Korean relations along the two of zongfan and the two in did not but on many mutually to the of one the It was the that the to with and which to the relationship into the system of international the to to the be in both the zongfan of the and the of the a it is not to that the ‘tributary’ relationship and system by no means mutually on and in challenge the that the system was a the that which the of world order in and to the of the world. the of that order as a process in which Asia, and not only but mutually for emphasizes that of be to in The of that first in the and to was international a system that to but one that constant and with indigenous in the history of and to East Asia, it is that there was between a world order and world order in the 19th to the of of between East Asia and the of was of the and accepted and one of and mutually and the The was one In words, the system did not the with one The was not about institution but the of global from the 19th that is unique about the interstate relationship in East Asia. to focus on the as to the institutional in the of history. for East Asian history into three of which a a to 19th a and a Although the a model of in a of three are and In many the of ‘tributary’ in the many to the of to and It is on this that emphasizes the that there was no between the and in the of The and of the and It is as to the is by the which a traditional Asia from the of the recent historical do a way of for a way to the of East Asian history and relocate this history in a global I would to this by it is important to East Asian history in a global The one on which I agree with Dr. Zhou is in understanding the ‘tributary’ we to a more comprehensive understanding of on two First, I believe that relations between China and its out of of and to be the and historical as science relations from and as and who no connections to a does not an on is on the we the model to on the about the in the East and China is more and of the would be to Second, historical and not in for just Rather, the is to China as well as the world. The ‘Chinese matter academic discipline in which it be as if it only the as another way, the many that current IR are is not the are in but are on a understanding of the world as a on China to be to the not to be a Chinese to China and East Asia are in of global important in current international the ‘Chinese there is to be more in both and That is by understanding ‘tributary’ from a and it is importance to that there was just as there was in the The history of East Asia is an part of global history, and be that way, no more and no of to one part of the as the between different of It was not by the of China and in the that more and more how and in history. on this a of has
DOI: 10.1093/cjip/pos005
Author: N. Song
Institution: University of Chicago
Language: English
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2164046541