Imperial Chinese tributary system

The Imperial tributary system of China was the network of trade and foreign relations between China and China's "tributaries" that, for millennia, drove much of East Asian affairs. Chinese suzerainty over East Asia, governed and enforced through the Imperial tributary system, not only "deeply influenced the culture of the peripheral countries but also drew them into a China-centered, or "sino-centric", international order."[1] The Imperial tributary system dictated foreign policy and trade for over 2,000 years of Imperial China's dominance of the region, and thus played a huge role in the History of Asia, and the History of East Asia in particular.

Contents

The System

The Chinese international structure preceded, and greatly differed from, other systems that developed in other parts of the world. First, it was premised on the belief that China was the cultural center of the universe and that all non-Chinese were uncivilized "barbarians." Second, since the Chinese ruler, “the Son of Heaven,” was considered the ruler of all humankind, all other “barbarian” rulers were mere local chieftains owing allegiance to Beijing.[2] Thus, there could be no Western-style diplomatic relations; countries wanting to trade with China had to send “tribute” missions that legitimized China's superiority and suzerainty (via the ritual of ke-tou (kow-tow), which consisted of three kneelings, each involving three prostrations before the emperor} and in return they could trade for a specified number of days at border points designated by Beijing.[2]

Since Asian states wanting to trade with China continued to pay regular tribute to Beijing, there was little reason for the Chinese to doubt their predominance in the world order. Even the Europeans, who had first entered the Chinese waters as early as the sixteenth century, had submitted to trade within the highly restrictive Chinese system.[2] By conforming to the conditions imposed on them and by accepting their inferior position, the Westerners strengthened the Chinese belief in the preeminence of the Middle Kingdom and in the tributary system of foreign relations.[3]

Neighboring tributary states

Kingdoms along China's North-Western Frontier often struggled with the Imperial tributary system, and Beijing's rejection of tribute missions, and the lavish gifts and benefits gained, exacerbated, then helped soothe, the drawn-out and complex conflicts now known as the Ming-Turpan Border Wars.

Mansur then abandoned large-scale military expeditions, though he continued to sanction raids on China to attain his objectives. Instead he offered tribute, occasionally dispatching a dozen or more embassies a year. He was apparently eager to obtain the Chinese gifts granted to foreign embassies, and therefore limited his incursions.[4]

Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet, although outside China proper, were considered within the pale, and Beijing had the right to post agents and armed forces there. Korea, the Ryukyu Islands, Annam (present-day Vietnam), Siam (Thailand), Burma (new name Myanmar), and Nepal were “tributary states,” which sent regular tribute missions.[2]

China fought to protect some, but not all tributary states from foreign invasions. The Chinese fought in the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598) and First Sino-Japanese War to protect their tributary state in Korea from Japanese invasion.[5]

The Ming dynasty declined to intervene under the isolationist and anti interventionist Hongwu Emperor when the Vietnamese attacked Champa, giving only a rebuke.[6] The Chinese against did not intervene in the 1471 Vietnamese invasion of Champa when Vietnam destroyed Champa. Both Vietnam and Champa were tributary states.

The investure of rulers of tributary nations with titles by Chinese envoys was part of the system.[7]

Warfare between tributary states was arbitrated by the Chinese Emperor. Malacca and Vietnam were both tributaries to China. Malacca sent envoys to China again in 1481 to inform the Chinese that while going back to Malacca in 1469 from a trip to China, the Vietnamese attacked them, castrating the young and enslaving them. The Malaccans reported that Vietnam was in control of Champa and also that the Vietnamese sought to conquer Malacca, but the Malaccans did not fight back due to lack of permission from the Chinese to engage in war. The Chinese Emperor scolded them, ordering the Malaccans to strike back with violent force if the Vietnamese attacked.[8]

The Ryukyu Kingdom was a tributary state to the Ming dynasty then the Qing dynasty. It was annexed by Japan, which caused a dispute between China and Japan. Li Hongzhang told Ulysses S. Grant that the Ryukyu had paid tribute to China for hundreds of years, and the Chinese reserved certrain trade rights for them in an amicable and beneficial relationship, which Li claimed they preferred to being annexed and taken over by the Japanese.[9]

The Imperial Tributary system fully developed during the Han Dynasty.[10]

Hostage exchanges were part of the tributary system during the Han dynasty[11]. Hostages also continued to be used in the Tang dynasty tributary system.

Confucianism and the Mandate of Heaven provided the ideological foundations for the tribute system. Emperor Han Wudi played a critical role in the formation of the system.[12]

The tributary system showed cultural inferiority on part of the tributary state, and a show of reverence for the recipient of the tribute.[13]

The Tributary system served as the manner in which Imperial Dynasties ruling China conducted all of their foreign affairs in. The last dynasty to use the system was the last dynasty standing prior to China becoming a Republic, the Qing dynasty.[14]

Entering into the tribute system was a requirement for foreign countries wishing to enter into trading relations with China.[15][16]

The Vietnamese, under the Nguyen Dynasty, copied the Imperial Chinese system, declaring themselves Emperors on the Chinese Confucian model and attempting to create a Vietnamese Imperial tributary system.[17]

Footnotes

  1. ^ Vohra 1999, p. 22
  2. ^ a b c d Vohra 1999, p. 23
  3. ^ Vohra 1999, p. 24
  4. ^ Rossabi 1976
  5. ^ Hosea Ballou Morse (1918). The international relations of the Chinese empire, Volume 3. Longmans, Green, and Co.. p. 22. http://books.google.com/books?id=clRxAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA22&dq=tributary+china&hl=en&ei=1ZUGTsKgI-H30gGXhYi-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tributary%20china&f=false. Retrieved 2011-05-28. 
  6. ^ Edward L. Dreyer (1982). Early Ming China: a political history, 1355-1435. Stanford University Press. p. 117. ISBN 0804711054. http://books.google.com/books?id=yzWsAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA116&dq=champa+tribute+china&hl=en&ei=-UAFTeOdLYTGlQePxuTKCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=champa%20tribute%20to%20ming%20assistance%20against%20vietnam%20hung-wu%20opposed%20to%20military%20adventures&f=false. Retrieved 2010-11-28. 
  7. ^ Shih-shan Henry Tsai (1996). The eunuchs in the Ming dynasty (illustrated ed.). SUNY Press. p. 151. ISBN 0791426874. http://books.google.com/books?id=Ka6jNJcX_ygC&pg=PA292&dq=henry+tsai+shih-shan&hl=en&ei=k5cGTt_vF-ru0gG78JDOCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=invest%20its%20chief%20king%20of%20sumatra%20brought%20into%20ming%20tributary&f=false. Retrieved 2010-06-28. 
  8. ^ Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Straits Branch, Reinhold Rost (1887). Miscellaneous papers relating to Indo-China: reprinted for the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society from Dalrymple's "Oriental Repertory," and the "Asiatic Researches" and "Journal" of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume 1. Trübner & Co.. p. 252. http://books.google.com/books?id=TgkYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=in+the+year+1474+the+censor+went+to+champa+with+imperial+commission+to+invest+the+king+there+he+found+the+country+occupied+by+annamese&hl=en&ei=lr0rTd30DYL48AbF1vXdCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=annamese%20occupied%20champa%20wanted&f=false. Retrieved 2011-01-09. 
  9. ^ Ulysses Simpson Grant, John Y. Simon, Ulysses S. Grant Association (2008). John Y. Simon. ed. The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: October 1, 1878-September 30, 1880 (illustrated ed.). SIU Press. p. 165. ISBN 0809327759. http://books.google.com/books?id=3zBLjHeAGB0C&pg=PA165&dq=tribute+china&hl=en&ei=XF8LTrflBcXW0QG08s2rAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tribute%20china&f=false. Retrieved 2011-01-11. 
  10. ^ Yu 1967, p. 36
  11. ^ Sima 1993, p. 84
  12. ^ Hussain 2004, p. 84
  13. ^ Smits 1999, p. 35
  14. ^ Britannica 2010, p. 222
  15. ^ Barbara Bennett Peterson (2000). Barbara Bennett Peterson. ed. Notable women of China: Shang dynasty to the early twentieth century (illustrated ed.). M.E. Sharpe. p. 289. ISBN 076560504X. http://books.google.com/books?id=KLNrqn4WLZYC&pg=PA289&dq=shang+dynasty+tribute&hl=en&ei=PtQAToayMMrs0gGxmqmJDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved June 20, 2011. 
  16. ^ Kuan-Hsing Chen (2007). Kuan-Hsing Chen, Beng Huat Chua. ed. The Inter-Asia cultural studies reader. Psychology Press. p. 94. ISBN 0415431344. http://books.google.com/books?id=DaqG8S4rYocC&pg=PA94&dq=chinese+tributary&hl=en&ei=Ek0BTrWANuni0QHktPyzDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=chinese%20tributary&f=false. Retrieved June 20, 2011. 
  17. ^ Alexander Woodside (1971). Vietnam and the Chinese model: a comparative study of Vietnamese and Chinese government in the first half of the nineteenth century (reprint, illustrated ed.). Harvard Univ Asia Center. p. 234. ISBN 067493721X. http://books.google.com/books?id=0LgSI9UQNpwC&pg=PA234&dq=chinese+tributary+system&hl=en&ei=pAYBTuL0IojPgAfZktH3DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=chinese%20tributary%20system&f=false. Retrieved June 20, 2011. 

References