The pre-modern East Asian international relationship has significantly been based on China. China has been the center of attention in the history of East Asian due to the country developed political systems as well as a strong military which was able to influence neighboring countries. China was dominated by the strong historical dynasties which made the significant influence in the development of China as well as all other its influence in the East Asia. Most of the dynasties were able to rule for a very long time which was responsible for the militarization of the nation as it becomes prominent amongst its neighbors. The dynasties were able to create massive armies and labor forces which were able to undertake big projects for their emperor (Meng, 2015). The all-powerful emperors who reigned over China made the kingdom more orderly and powerful compared to the pre-modern East Asian countries where power struggle was normal and persistent hence, stifling development and ability to amass a decisive military power. Choson highly depended on China for protection as well as for trade (Yuan-Kang, 2012).
China was the most advanced country regarding governance at the time due to a well-developed autocracy. The autocratic dynasties were ruthless in enforcing their rule due to the threat of the barbarians who surrounded the kingdom. Further, the autocracies maintained massive armies for quashing out possible internal rebellions. Confucianism was developed in China which made China the center of enlightenment for the entire eastern Asia. The virtue stressed for good governance and merit-based system for government position promotion. The government was effective unlike the barbarians and Choson because in China they were to maintain virtues towards their subjects (Song, 2012).
Border security about the Tributary System between Ming and Choson
The tributary system had a significant negative impact on border security despite its primary aim of providing security and support for the Choson in the face of invasion. The tributary system ensured that as long as the people of Choson remains subject to the Ming dynasty, the Ming dynasty was going to protect the people of Choson from the Japanese invaders. In 1592 and 1597 Japan was united by Hideyoshi and invaded Korea with the aim of conquering China because Choson was in the middle between China Ming dynasty and Japan. As a result, the Ming came to the aid of Choson and due to Choson indebtedness to the Ming dynasty some Choson had to contribute a certain number of men to Ming to strengthen its forces (Larsen, 2013).
The tributary system came to be hated by the people of Choson especially the poor servants whose husbands and sons were to be given to Ming to offer border security. The tension with Choson escalated by the fact that Choson was left vulnerable itself to the Japanese pirates who attacked the mainland from time to time (Zhang & Buzan, 2012). The people of Choson came to view the tributary system as only beneficial to the Ming dynasty which led to Choson seclusion and restricting interaction with Japan and Ming limiting its interactions to few tributaries a year with the aim of strengthening its border security to secure its people (Song, 2012).
Own approach to pre-modern East Asia international relations.
All of all, premodern East Asia’s international relationships can define from Chinese role in premodern East Asia. The system China used for international affairs was the tributary system. The system is based on Confucianism and the World View of China; it was Sino-centric idea and the Celestial Empire, believe that they were the most powerful country. China held supremacy over all the other states, and those states should be viewed as “barbarian” or “dependents” (Yang, 2011). Chinese civilization measures are based on how closely that tributary believes in the same political and social values.
Many scholars have used the term, “tributary system”, to explain pre-modern East Asia international relationships. However, I strongly contend that this, term is just trying to illustrate and define the uniqueness of international relationship in East Asian history. I have found that the tributary system is greatly depends on the realism and power transition theory, which is a belief that the world is in anarchy, states are unitary also main key actor, maintain survive, and most importantly, the flow of international relationship is under the power (Goldwin et al, 2012). In addition, when old power meets new power, it creates tension and conflict. This is the state of nature. Therefore, pre-modern East Asia International relationship should be approach by realistic world order and it is possible to show this by examining the Ming dynasty, Qing dynasty, and Choson Korea relationship.
Ming and Choson entered into a suzerain-tributary relationship and extremely shared a belief in Neo-Confucianism (Kye, 2010). The Sino-Korean relationship was absolute Chinese dominance. However, during Hideyoshi’s invasion of Korea in 1592: 7 years of war, Choson faced collapse and they could not hope to expel the Japanese from their land by themselves and without help. Ming had to intervene the war and help Choson (Clark, 1998). This is very simple example that Chinese dominance idea did not reach to Hideyoshi Japan. However, the purpose of Ming’s intervention was not to protect the tributary state: Choson. It was was all about to protect Ming’s border, which is evidence of the realism idea that ‘my state has to survive first’.
The cost of war for Ming was too crucial to stand. They lost their strength and, most significantly, the rise of Manchu power threatened both Ming and Choson. Manchu was treated as a ‘barbarian’ because Manchu ethnic has a totally different culture and custom compared to Han Chinese (Lee, 2017). However, after Manchu consolidated power and was able to compete against Ming; a power transition began. There was already rivalry between Ming and Manchu to control the tributary Choson. At this point, the Choson dynasty was ruled under King Gwanghae. Gwanghae recognized there was something wrong in the power balance between Ming and Manchu, he decided to a balance diplomacy to deal with both, Ming and Manchu, but many of the Choson ruling class thought that was a disgrace to the Father State: Ming, and the humiliation action to barbarian (Chan, 2017). However, I would like to agree with King Gwanghae’s policy that the he saw the power and then planned to save the state first. For example, when fighting broke out between Ming and Manchu, Choson had to send a troop to help Ming that requested. But King Gwanghae ordered to his General Kang to surrender to Manchu at the right time when its possible. This situation gave a reason for political coup in Choson that change the King from Gwanghae to Injo, caused by dealing and surrendered to the barbarian.
After the change in regime to Injo, Choson apologized to Ming that they had ignored the Father state’s gratitude. Again, Choson is directing to pro-Ming and anti-Manchu. Injo’s action lead Choson to experience two Manchu’s invasion, as known as, Jeongmyo Horan and Byeongia Horan (Chan, 2017). The Byeongia Horan: the second invasion made a critical and the most important evident that the tributary system should be approached by realism. During the invasion, Choson faced great pressure and Injo had to surrender to Hong Taiji, Emperor of Qing or Manchu, at Samjeondo. He bowed and hit his forehead on the ground three times. Choson had to accept the humiliation of submitting to the barbaric Manchu (Chan, 2017). Choson is now Manchu’s tributary state. This is the most accurate evidence showing that power takes all.
Furthermore, when Manchu declared their state as the Qing empire, their power was overwhelming compared to other states in East Asia. However, in the 19th century, the western power stepped down in the Qing empire, which caused direct conflict with this new world order. China and Europe traded within the restrictions of a tributary based system, but Opium War led China to understand western power and learn that they have to cooperate with west in international relationship (Yang, 2011).
As a result, the international relationship in pre-modern East Asia can be use “tributary system” term to show the history, but mostly, there are realism approach actions occurred in the international relationship. The world is always in power conflict.