sign in sign up
<<
Home , Golden age (metaphor), Majapahit, Ming dynasty, Polity

www.ssoar.info

The Culture of Anarchy: the Pre-Colonial Southeast Asian International Society Manggala, Pandu Utama

Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article

Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Manggala, P. U. (2013). The Mandala Culture of Anarchy: the Pre-Colonial Southeast Asian International Society. Journal of ASEAN Studies, 1(1), 1-13. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-441509

Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC Lizenz (Namensnennung- This document is made available under a CC BY-NC Licence Nicht-kommerziell) zur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte (Attribution-NonCommercial). For more Information see: den CC-Lizenzen finden Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.de The Mandala Culture of Anarchy: The Pre-Colonial Southeast Asian International Society

Pandu Utama Manggala Australian National University,

Abstract Throughout the years, study on pre-colonial Southeast Asian international relations has not garnered major attention because it had long been seen as an integral part of the - centred system. There is a need to provide greater understanding of the uniqueness of the international system as different regions have different ontologies to comprehend its dynamics and structures. This paper contributes to the pre-colonial Southeast Asian literature by examining the interplay that had existed between pre-colonial Southeast Asian and the hierarchical East Asian international society, in particular during the 13th- . The paper argues that Southeast Asian international relations in pre-colonial time were characterized by complex political structures with the influence of Mandala values. In that structural context, the , one of the biggest empires at that time had its own constitutional structures of an international society, albeit still sought close relations with China.

Keywords: Pre-Colonial History, , Mandala, Tributary System

Introduction relations was seen as stable and regional order had been achieved until the arrival of Throughout the years, study on pre- the powers in the 19th Century colonial Southeast Asian international (Kang 2007). However, pre-colonial relations has not garnered major attention Southeast Asian countries were far from because it had long been seen as an integral peaceful and stable under the tribute part of the China-centred tribute system. system. Fierce competition for survival and Moreover, Southeast Asia has often been domination had characterized the balance regarded as a political “backwater” of power throughout the pre- compared to East Asia because Southeast colonial era (Shu 2012b, p. 46). Asia as a region is seen as relatively For that reason, there is a need to “passive”, always subjected to the influence provide greater understanding of the of great powers (Peng Er & Teo 2012, p.2). It uniqueness of the international system as is often said that under the Chinese different regions have different ontologies hierarchical order, Asian international to comprehend its dynamics and structures.

Journal of ASEAN Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2013), pp. 1–13 © 2013 by CBDS Bina University and Indonesian Association for International Relations ISSN 2338-1361 print / ISSN2338-1353 electronic 2 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy

This paper contributes to the pre-colonial themselves by a common set of rules and Southeast Asian literature by examining the institutions for the conduct of their interplay that had existed between pre- relations. Furthermore, detailed analysis of colonial Southeast Asian empires and the pre-colonial Southeast Asian international hierarchical East Asian international relations is elaborated using Reus Smit’s society, in particular during the 13th-16th three normative beliefs of constitutional Century. The paper draws a boundary from structures of an international society (1999). Kang’s (2007) and Suzuki’s (2009) article These three normative beliefs are the ‘moral that too much focus on the centrality of purpose of ’, the ‘organizing principle China-dominated regional hierarchy. of ’, and the ‘norm of procedural Nevertheless, both articles are used to justice’. understand the nature of China’s The rest of the paper is organized in the hegemonic presence in pre-colonial following way. The next part elaborates Southeast Asia. some theoretical grounding to be used in The paper argues that Southeast Asian the analysis. The comparative investigation international relations in pre-colonial time of Kang’s and Suzuki’s article is the starting were characterized by complex political point to analyse the complex political structures with the influence of Mandala structure that existed in the East Asian values. In that structural context, the international society and further added Majapahit Empire, one of the biggest with Wendt’s conception of anarchy. The empires at that time had its own second part discusses some essential constitutional structures of an international characteristics and the constitutional society, albeit still sought close relations structure of the Majapahit Empire. The third with China. Therefore, the paper debates part explores the interaction between the the nature of hierarchical China’s tributary Majapahit Empire and hierarchical East system in pre-colonial Southeast Asia. In Asian international society. The focus is to policy terms, the findings of the article highlight the international structures that indicate that the interactive dynamics existed and how those structures shape the within the subsidiary system created norms relationship between the Majapahit Empire that are rooted in the cultural memory of a and the China’s tributary system. Lastly, the region. This helps to explain, for example paper concludes with a summary of the the conduct of foreign policy in the main findings and discusses the implication Southeast Asia. of the study. The method of this paper is cross- disciplinary studies which combine the finding of area studies and international Anarchy, Hierarchy and the East Asian relations theory to provide a deeper International Society understanding of the process of socialization and mutual adaptation Anarchy is a crucial yet highly between the Southeast Asian and the East contentious concept in international Asia international society. The term relations. In its formal sense, Anarchy international society used in the article means that there is no supreme authority refers to Bull & Watson (1984) above states. In the classical texts of understanding of international system international relations theory, anarchy is which is a society of state that is built upon often became the central theoretical debate. inter-subjectivity through common interests On the one hand are proponents of the and common values. This society bound realist theory who accept the condition of Journal of ASEAN Studies 3 anarchy but argue that this does not Kang’s (2007) article explains that Asian necessarily preclude order, society, and international relations have historically community beyond the . The been hierarchical order under Chinese other hand are liberalists who assert that domination prior to the intervention of anarchy is incompatible with order and the Western powers (p. 164). Nevertheless, it realization is only possible once anarchy is was the hierarchical order that had created replaced by governance of one sort of stability in the region as there was no another (Evans & Newnham 1998, p. 19). evidence of external balancing or other In the development stage of the debate, coordinated efforts to constrain China. Kenneth Waltz with his influential Theory Kang derives the hierarchic model from of International Politics employed anarchy assumptions that states are the main unit of and power as central analytical concepts to analysis and anarchy is the prevailing the balance of power theory. Waltz (1979) condition for international system. argued that the international system Although he draws on his argument from functions like a market which is ‘interposed realist assumptions, Kang rejects the neo- between the economic actors and the results realist notion that ‘hierarchy’ cannot coexist they produce. It conditions their with anarchy in the international system, calculations, their behaviour and their and instead uses ‘hierarchy’ as “shorthand interactions’ (pp. 90-91). By this, Waltz for unequal relations amongst states, but asserted that it is ‘structure’ that shapes and short of hegemony or empire” (Goh 2009, p. constrains the political relationship of the 107). In short, Kang tries to combine the component units. In an anarchical world, logic of anarchy and hierarchy in the sense states need to rely only on self-help and of realist understanding. balance of power is created through The main premise for Kang’s argument balancing behaviour by weaker states is that the region more comfortable with a towards the potential hegemon (Shu 2012a, strong China because of “the cultural p. 4). Moreover, Waltz and other neorealist prominence of , the disparity proponents have sought to contrast the in economic and military strength, and the concept of anarchy with the idea of long-standing influences of the tribute hierarchy. According to neorealist, because system” (Kang 2010). In contrast with neo- the system is anarchy it cannot be a realist that emphasizes balancing against hierarchy (Evans & Newnham 1998, p. 224). the predominant power, Kang believes that Several IR scholars have made lesser states will most likely bandwagon for surpassing arguments to reject the profit (Kang 2007, p. 167). Some of the exclusiveness of anarchy and hierarchy. For benefits are security protection, bigger example, Lake (2009) uses the notion of opportunities for market and trade, and ‘degrees of hierarchy’ along a single- external arbitration. The hierarchical order dimensional continuum between total itself is preserved through a combination of anarchy and complete hierarchy to identify benefits and sanctions that the central different forms of hierarchical relations. power provides to the lesser power. However, not many scholars have Kang’s article provides a new analytical specifically examined the relationship framework for Asian international relations. between anarchy and hierarchy from an His elaboration shows that Eurocentric’s Asian international relations’ perspective. international relations theories “do poor David Kang (2007) and Shogo Suzuki (2009) jobs as they are applied to Asia” (Rother are among those who have analysed from 2012, p. 53). Nonetheless, his conclusion an Asian perspective. with the focus on bandwagoning and the 4 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy absence of balancing in Asian international However, quite different from Kang’s relations is not convincing and tends to be arguments, Suzuki uses Reus-Smit’s (1999) reductionist realism. Kang’s claim neglected conceptualization of ‘the constitutional the fact that Southeast Asia as part of the structure of international society’ to help China’s tribute system was also dominated understand the dynamics of interaction in by competition for survival and domination the East Asian international society. Reus throughout the pre-colonial time Smit offers three primary normative (Lieberman 1993). Furthermore, states are in elements that constitute the structure of no position to choose black and white international society, which are: between balancing and bandwagoning. In the 1) A hegemonic belief about the moral purpose real world, states opt for other options such of centralized, autonomous political as hedging, containment, neutrality, organization. Such purposes are “moral” engagement, and non-alignment. Therefore, because they always entail a conception Kang’s argument is not able to decode the of the individual or social “good” served complexity of interaction between the pre- by autonomous political organization, colonial Southeast Asian and the Chinese and are “hegemonic” because they empires. constitute the prevailing, socially Shogo Suzuki’s (2009) article tries to sanctioned justification for sovereign elaborate more deeply in the East Asian rights. international society. It helps to 2) An organizing principle of sovereignty that comprehend the complexity of the deep differentiates political units on the basis constitutive values that define the social of particularity and exclusivity, creating identity of the state and brings discursive a system of territorially demarcated. mechanism that link intersubjective ideas of 3) 3) A norm of procedural justice. These legitimate statehood and rightful state norms specify the correct procedures action to the constitution of fundamental that “legitimate” or “good” states institution. employ, internally and externally, to In elaborating his arguments, Suzuki formulate basic rules of internal and adopts Hedley Bull’s view on international external conduct. (Reus Smit 1999, pp. system. Bull asserted that international 30-33) system is a society of states and this society Grounding on Reus Smit’s three is built upon inter-subjectivity through normative belief, Suzuki explains that the common interests and common values ‘moral purpose of the state’ within the East which they bound themselves by a common Asian international society was derived set of rules and institutions for the conduct from Confucianism that aimed “the support of their relations (Bull & Watson 1984). Any and maintenance of the moral, social, and given international system does not exist cultural order of social peace and harmony” because of unchallengeable structures, but (Suzuki 2009, p. 34). As a consequence, the rather “the very structures are dependent justificatory foundations for the principle of for their reproduction on the practices of the sovereignty within the order were to actors” (Koslowski & Kratochwil 1994, p. maintain the social hierarchy that would 216). Therefore, Suzuki recognizes that the promote cosmic harmony. Moreover, identity of state is grounded in a larger drawing his analysis from the time of the complex of values and these values provide (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1911), states with substantive reasons for action. Suzuki (2009) claims that the systemic norm Suzuki accepts the notion of hierarchical of procedural justice were the Tribute order in the East Asian international society. Journal of ASEAN Studies 5

System that prescribed ‘rightful’ state action this understanding, Wendt creates the (p. 37-38). concept of ‘culture of anarchy’ which is the Both Kang’s and Suzuki’s article are bodies of norms and institutions that make giving insights into an Asian international up an international social structure (Flawith relations. Nevertheless, the position of other 2011, p.266). non-Chinese states within the hierarchical Wendt argues that there are at least order has not been really elaborated. In three configurations that the international Suzuki’s (2009) article, he admits that the society may take, the ‘Hobbesian’, ‘Lockean’, position of non-Chinese states depended on and, ‘Kantian’ anarchies. A Hobbesian the degree to which the Chinese judged anarchy refers to the true ‘self-help’ system them to have been assimilated into Chinese where there are constant existential threats culture and their geographical proximity to of warfare between states (Wendt 1999, pp. China (pp. 37-38). Hence, it is necessary to 259-260). Lockean anarchy is characterised explores pre-colonial Southeast Asia as by a rivalry and as a consequence, states there are evidences of interactive dynamics will form ‘status-quoism’ towards each that constitute international structure other. Moreover, violence is recognised as a within that region. legitimate way to settle disagreements and Having been comparing and contrasting warfare is one way to form a balance of Kang’s and Suzuki’s article, this paper tries power (Wendt 1999, pp. 279). Whereas to synthesize their arguments to understand Kantian anarchy is the most cooperative the dynamic of interaction between the pre- culture of anarchy in which states identify colonial Southeast Asian Empires and the the other as friends and collective security is hierarchical East Asian international society. the dominant norm (Wendt 1999, p. 297). The paper explores the pre-colonial However, these three configurations are not Southeast Asian empires using Reus Smit’s mutually exclusive. As Wendt further three normative beliefs of constitutional explains, there are still rooms for different structure and draws on Wendtian configurations based on different identities constructivism to explain the logic of because states have the ability to transform anarchy that shaping the interaction. the social structure within which they Wendt (1992) makes his famous claim operate (Rother 2012, p. 57) on the logic of anarchy that ‘anarchy is what Before elaborating the dynamics of states make of it’. He asserts that the interaction between the two regions, there absence of hierarchic authority in the has to be an understanding of what international system does not inevitably constitute the pre-colonial Southeast Asian equate to perpetual interstate conflict in a international structures in which is self-help environment, as neo-realists discussed in the following section. contend. Moreover, Wendt argues that anarchy is only a permissive cause of conflict and not an efficient cause. The Majapahit Empire and The Southeast In relation to Kang’s article, Wendt is Asian International Society taking different position as he argues that it is the social and ideational, rather than In the course of Asian studies prior to material aspect of international politics the European intrusion in the Indian which determines how actors behave. archipelago in mid-19th Century, the Furthermore, Wendt also asserts that states traditional international order is often have the ability to transform the social considered consisted of civilized (China) structure within which they operate. From and barbarians (Southeast Asian states). As 6 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy

Kang (2007) points out in his article, the Majapahit was situated in , East Chinese emperor required the barbarians to . It was one of the last major empires of demonstrate formal obedience in the form the region and considered to be one of the of kowtow in order not to be invaded (p. greatest and most powerful empires in the 169). In Kang’s view, Southeast Asia was a history of Southeast Asia due to its political, peripheral region, a part of the “rim land”. economic, and social influences. The minimal role of Southeast Asia Scholars who study the Majapahit continued to play until well into the Empire are mostly interested in the course twentieth century where both the US and of history, the matter of structure, foreign the Soviet Union, superpowers at that time, relations, and how the Majapahit shape were vitally interested in the politics and international relations in the region the economic potential of the region. unfortunately have been neglected for many Despite very few studies have decades. In this part, an attempt has been specifically examined pre-colonial made to examine the structure of the Southeast Asian region from an IR Majapahit, the type of order, and the sources perspective, this region was in fact of legitimacy that bounded the empire. interesting to examine due to its unique The constitutional structures of the structures. The Southeast Asian region is Southeast Asian international society were not a unit in the religious, historical, primarily derived from ancient Indian geographical, or ethnic senses. There are at political discourse based on the book of least four different in Southeast Arthasastra by Mauryan Chief Minister, Asia, which are , , Kautilya in the 4th Century (Boesche 2003, p. , and Christianity. Historically, 9). Furthermore, Kautilya’s concept, the the whole Southeast Asia never came under Mandala was then adopted by Wolters the rule of a single state or empire. On the (1968) to denote pre-colonial Southeast mainland, the Khmers created a large Asian political formations. The regional empire, which at its height in the 9th to the system was built of larger political unit, in 13th Centuries embraced the region from which the dependencies preserved a great Burma, , Laos, , and deal of internal autonomy in exchange for South (SarDesai 2010, p. 2). There acknowledging the pole’s spiritual were other large polities in pre-colonial authority (Gesick 1983, p. 3). Southeast Southeast Asia, but they did not cover the Asian polities did not conform to the entire region. However, during the golden Chinese view as the polity defined by its era of the Majapahit Empire notably under centre rather than its boundaries, and it the Prime Minister, (1331- could be composed of numerous other 1364), large area of Southeast Asia was tributary polities without undergoing under the Majapahit Empire. administrative integration (Dellios 2003). Therefore, in the pre-colonial Southeast The Mandala displayed the Asia era, the greatness of the Majapahit cosmopological characteristics of Hindu- Empire could not be neglected. The Buddhist persuasion prior to the expansion Majapahit, literally means the bitter fruit, of European international society. Mandala was an empire of 98 tributaries stretching is a word for ‘sacred circle’ in from to which which become ‘centred’ and diffuse consists of present day , that state of being outwards into action , , , Southern (Grey 2001, p. 2). Therefore, the Mandala Thailand, the , and East highlights the importance of charismatic (SarDesai 2010). Moreover, the capital of leadership in a political system that Journal of ASEAN Studies 7 fluctuates. Moreover, whoever can claim the cakravartin being able to deploy his friends centre of this system, can claim the title of to contain his enemies. As such, the Mandala universal emperor, ‘the cakravartin’. consists of circles of mitra (friends), ari The Mandala in its sacred dimensions is (enemies), madhyama (medium power) and a centring device for spiritual purposes. udasina (major powers) with the Vijigisu as When this idea was applied to the political the centre. field within religiously oriented society, it In relations to this concentric circle, the permits a political leader to claim a degree Majapahit foreign relations also adopted the of divinity. Such was the case in the geopolitical of Mandala. The Majapahit Majapahit Empire, particularly when its created its concentric circle, defining its Prime Minister Gajah Mada took his famous mitra, ari, madhyama, and, udasina. oath ‘Sumpah ’. Gajah Mada said book by the poet Prapanca that he would not taste “palapa” (fruits / noted there were several neighbouring spices) until he could unify external foreign polities that in friendly terms with territories under the Majapahit (Purwadi the Majapahit, among those were Syangka, 2004, p. 157). It can be seen that Gajah Ayudhya (Siam), Rajapura, , Mada’s oath was based on the Mandala Kamboja and Yawana (Slametmuljana philosophy that requires recognition of the 2006). emptiness. The notion of centre consisted of Three important friendly polities of the power that is personal and devotional Majapahit, Champa, Syangka, and Ayudhya rather than institutional. It was the ability of are worth to be observed. The Majapahit Gajah Mada to tap into ‘cosmic power’ attempted to build a friendly relations with through virtuous behaviour that created the the Champa in particular because the power of conquest. Thus, Gajah Mada Champa was perceived as rear-friend of the represented the charismatic centre of a Majapahit as it had also refused to allow the Mandala and is considered a person of Mongol to use its harbor for embarking ‘prowess’ (Wolters 1968, pp. 94-95). logistics during the great invasion of Kublai With the Mandala being a significant Khan upon Java in the end of . tradition of knowledge in pre-colonial The similar case applied to the Syangka that Southeast Asia, the fundamental interests of had been seen opposed the Chola’s states, the Majapahit and other polities domination in Indian sub-continent, in became those of enhancing and protecting which the Majapahit also refused to accept. the society and its values. The Mandala The Majapahit maintained a good relations became the moral purpose of the Majapahit with the Syangka because it adopted the that spoke universality through moral doctrine “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. conquest (Dellios 2003). While for the Ayudhya, the Majapahit The organizing principle of sovereignty maintained relations with the Ayudhya within the Southeast Asian international because it had established over the society was thus along the networks of populations of the Central Indo Chinese loyalties. The Majapahit integrated vertically Peninsula where there was no record of the with the divinity as well as horizontally influence of the Majapahit Empire across a territory of people, land, and (Slametmuljana 1976, pp. 144-146). The resources organised in the form of ‘ observation shows that in the first two loyalties’ (Tucci 1961, p. 25). In regards to cases, the Majapahit tried to assure that his this, the principle was applied in the ari (The Mongol and Chola) was geopolitical term. Geopolitical Mandala, as accordingly counterbalanced by his mitra mentioned by Kautilya was about how the (the Champa and Syangka). Whereas the 8 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy latter case shows that the Majapahit foreign geopolitical Mandala being contextualize by relations also tried to accommodate the the Majapahit: interests of its empire as well as the madhyama (the Ayudhya). The following diagram tries to illustrate the way

Diagram 1. The Majapahit’s Geopolitical Mandala

Other in Greater Mekong Mitra (Friend) Syangka

Udasina (Major Power) Ari (Enemy) China (Ming ) The Mongol

Vijigisu (centre) The Majapahit

Madhyama (Middle Power) Ari (Enemy) Ayudhya The

Mitra (Friend) Champa

Other Mandalas in

Adopted from Rosita Dellios’ (2003) description of the statal circle

The third normative belief, which is the dependencies were required to make systemic norms of procedural justice, laid in substantive contribution to the wealth of the conduct of diplomacy within the their suzerain (Shu 2012b, 50). To be more structures. There were two distinguished specific, the highly regarded substantive forms of diplomacy that the Majapahit contribution was to present valuable local exercised, which were through small products as their annually. tributary system and marriage. The tributary system, although it was a small The other form of diplomacy was annual tribute, had a role as a ‘ritual justice’ forming alliance through marriage. One within the Southeast Asian international prominent example of this was when society. The Majapahit required only a small , the Majapahit’s king during amount of tribute from the ruler of any its golden era, decided to marry a princess country to be recognized as the Majapahit’s of Sunda named Dyah Pitaloka as an effort and to be classified as a to obtain the Kingdom of Sunda in 1357. ‘dependency’ (Slametmuljana 1976, p. 136). Unfortunately, the effort failed because of By giving a small tribute, dependencies the of Sunda rejected Gajah Mada’s were promised effective protection against request to delineate the marriage as a potential threats. However, unlike the tribute to the Majapahit. China’s tribute system, the Majapahit’s Journal of ASEAN Studies 9

From the above exploration of the market access to the major Kingdoms in constitutional structures of Southeast Asian East Asia, rather than acknowledgement of international society with the Majapahit as a their superiority. It debates Kang’s (2010) focus, one remaining question lies: “how argument that China for most of the time did the structures shape the Majapahit’s had been culturally, economically, and interaction with the East Asian international military dominated the region. Moreover, society?” The next part discusses how the the paper also debates Shu’s (2012a) Majapahit identities informed fundamental argument that Southeast Asian polities were interest in its interaction with the China’s keen to be involved in the hierarchical East tributary system and its implication to the Asian international society to seek imperial anarchy-hierarchy understanding within recognition (Shu 2012a, p. 15-16). The the region. Majapahit apparently did not seek recognition when it “paid” tribute to the Chinese emperor as many scholars have The Majapahit and the China’s Tributary suggested. System: The Mandala Culture of Anarchy From the interpretation of its geopolitical Mandala, the Majapahit was The previous part has informed that the always perceived its interaction with the pre-colonial Southeast Asian international Chinese Empire as engaging with the society had different constitutional udasina (major powers) in order to build a structures to the East Asian. There was also favourable regional architecture. It is a Southeast Asian Empire, the Majapahit without doubt that the Majapahit had that ruled over large area of Southeast Asia. regularly dispatched its own envoys to the The interaction between the Chinese empire , but it was carried out to and pre-colonial Southeast Asian polities manage the constantly changing and was relatively limited in the early imperial evolving regional challenges (Pramono period. The historical interactions of China 2010). Moreover, the fundamental interest and pre-colonial Southeast Asia were of the Majapahit was to benefit from the started from 6th Century onwards, highly profitable trade, to open access to the predominantly constructed by merchants, China’s market and products. traders, and missionaries passing through Furthermore, unlike Suzuki’s (2009) the region (Peng Er & Teo 2012, p. 4). claim that the lesser states never challenged Trade in the form of tributary system the constitutive norms of the order (p. 35), the was therefore the dominant practices in the Majapahit had challenged the system several interaction. The narrative of the Chinese times. For instance, when the Ming envoy world order has been grand to examine the went to Brunei in 1370 to demand the polity pattern of interaction. It has been said that to acknowledge the Chinese power for a the vassal states had to pay tribute to the return of full protection (Laichen 2010, 46), Chinese Emperor confirming the The Majapahit soon warned the Brunei not superiority of the and to pay tribute to China. Had the Majapahit civilization (Peng Er & Teo 2012, p. 5). was considered itself to be in the same Having examined the different structure with the hierarchical East Asian constitutional structures of Southeast Asian international society, the Majapahit would international society, this section debates not have interfered to the Ming Envoy’s the nature of the act of paying tribute to the request. Chinese Emperor. The tribute was actually Furthermore, the immediate reaction the practice of ‘trade strategy’ for a better from the Majapahit was because Brunei had 10 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy been one of the vassal polities of the of the charismatic leader Hayam Wuruk in Majapahit. Hence, Brunei conformed to the 1389, the Chinese trading fleets started to Majapahit order and thus only sent one dominate most of the trading activities in mission to China and continued to pay pre-colonial Southeast Asia. As Reid annual tribute to the Majapahit (Wang 1968, suggested, it was the starting point for the p. 51). The best analysis on why Brunei ‘Age of Commerce’ to emerge in the region, decided to act in favour of the Majapahit introducing spices to the world (Wade 2010, was because the geopolitical Mandala made p. 4). Southeast Asian polities to perceive their The dynamic interactions between the intensified security threats came from their pre-colonial Southeast Asian Empire with neighbours, rather than from China. At that the China’s tributary system have time, Brunei saw the Majapahit as the one enlightened the nature of order in pre- that could give better protection than colonial Southeast Asian region. The above anyone else. exploration demonstrates that hierarchical The other analysis for Brunei behaviour China’s tributary system was not embedded can be scrutinized by examining the in pre-colonial Southeast Asian region. As different values and norms that both the suggested above, the relations between the Brunei and the China held. Confucianism Majapahit and Chinese Empires in particular was of little significance to the pre-colonial the Ming Dynasty was merely trade Southeast Asian polities. As Wolters (1999) relations and the Majapahit did not consent points out, most of the pre-colonial to the hierarchical China’s tributary system. Southeast Asian Empires practiced the In regards to the pre-colonial Southeast Mandala’s knowledge. Due to lack of shared Asian region, the hierarchical structure of cultural understanding and a common East Asian international society came to be value system, China’s intention towards replaced by the geopolitical Mandala. The Brunei was misunderstood and resisted Majapahit transformed the social structure (Shu 2012b, pp. 50-51). China, therefore, had within which it operate under the logic of failed to generate desired outcomes on pre- Mandala. Therefore, adopting Wendt’s colonial Southeast Asia. famous quote, ‘hierarchical tributary system is Nonetheless, there had also been several what Chinese Empires made of it’. moves from China to balance the power of Furthermore, the pre-colonial Southeast the Majapahit in the region. One example Asian international society had been was when the Ming Dynasty created new defining its own approaches to the cultures alignments of power in pre-colonial of anarchy. The pre-colonial Southeast Southeast Asia with the Kingdom of Melaka Asian international society positioned its in the . The move had great logic of anarchy in between the Lockean effects on the political topography as the rivalry and the Kantian peace. There were support provide by the Ming helped still rivalries in the region as the Majapahit Melaka to experience a rapid rise during the had been striving for the ‘centrality’ of its early of 15th Century (Wade 2010, p. 31). political position in the regional political The rise of Melaka, which was an Islamic landscape. However, the principal way to Kingdom, squeezed the Majapahit influence form a balance of power was not through in the first quarter of the 16th Century warfare but instead through cooperation. (SarDesai 2010, pp. 53-54). The geopolitical Mandala advised that As the Majapahit declined because of its strategic grouping, manifested in deploying bad governance following the demise of as many friends for the vijigisu remains vital Prime Minister Gajah Mada and the death in preserving peace, common stability, and Journal of ASEAN Studies 11 common security. From this understanding, system and building alliance through states and norms in the pre-colonial marriage occurred as the systemic norms of Southeast Asian international society had procedural justice. worked to produce their own logic of In addition, the investigation of the pre- anarchy. colonial Southeast Asian international society has help to understand the interplay between the Majapahit Empire and the Conclusion China-centred tribute system. The paper questioned the view that pre-colonial This paper proposed a model based on Southeast Asian polities were willing to area studies and IR theories to challenge the submit to the hierarchical order in East Asia view that pre-colonial Southeast Asia had by taking part in the China-centred tribute long been dominated by China under the system. Politically, the pre-colonial tribute system. Many scholars have Southeast Asian Empire, particularly the suggested that China influence through the Majapahit had never been under China’s tributary system wasso prominent for both control. The Majapahit managed to assert the Northeast and Southeast Asian regions. strategic partnership with China as the However asthis paper has examined, udasina in its geopolitical Mandala. Hence, international relations in the pre-colonial the relationship was merely a trade Southeast Asia featured a complex political relations with the Chinese Empire and not a structures. The region had developed its form of tribute trade. own culture of anarchy under the Mandala Theoretically, this paper has suggested values. that the Southeast Asian international The paper has elaborated the society had built their own logic of anarchy constitutional structures of international based on the region ideas and culture. The - society in the pre-colonial Southeast Asia, pre-colonial Southeast Asian international drawing upon the Majapahit Empire. In the society had successfully implemented the case of the pre-colonial Southeast Asian Mandala from ancient Indian political Empire, the legitimate state was expected to discourse origin with the Southeast Asian preserve the Mandala values as a sacred elaboration, building the Mandala culture of circle and a cosmic power. It is designed for anarchy that focus on cooperation. the protection of society and its values In Lastly, theory-guided historical analysis contrast with the Confucianism; the can also sheds light on the understanding of Mandala was not so much about territory, contemporary international relations. Even but about the relationship between the though there is no straight line leading from leader and his/her people. The polity was the Majapahit Empire to the modern day of defined by its centre rather than its Southeast Asia, there has to be resonances boundaries and it could be composed of as norms are rooted in the cultural memory numerous other tributary polities without of a region. The geopolitical Mandala undergoing administrative integration remains vital for Southeast Asian states in (Dellios 2003). Hence, the geopolitical conducting their foreign policy. For Mandala as the organizing principle of instance, the priorities of Indonesian foreign sovereignty was materialized. The Majapahit policy are still determined using the maintained its relationship with other concentric circle perspective. Moreover, the polities based on the concentric circle way ASEAN manages its regional approach. Accordingly, the conduct of architecture by building strategic grouping diplomacy in the form of small tributary from ASEAN+1, ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6 to 12 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy

East Asia Summit could be the illustration Evans, G & Newnham, J 1998, The Penguin of ASEAN asserting the Mandala culture of Dictionary of International Relations, Penguin Group, London. anarchy. Flawith, RW 2011, “The Regressing ‘Culture of Anarchy’ in Ancient China and its Implications for Wendt’s Progressive About Author Constructivism”, Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 263-282. Pandu Utama Manggala, an Indonesian Gesick, L 1983, 'Introduction', in L Gesick (ed), Centres, Symbols, and Hierarchies: Essays Diplomat, is a Graduate student at the on the Classical States of Southeast Asia, Australian National University, Canberra. Monograph No. 26, Yale University Southeast He is one of the recipients of the Australia Asia Studies, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 1-8. Awards scholarship in 2012 and is currently Goh, E 2009, ‘Hegemony, Hierarchy, and serving as the President of the Indonesian Order’, in WT Tow (ed), Security Politics in the Students’ Association in the Australian Asia Pacific: A Regional-Global Nexus?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. Capital Territory (PPIA ACT). He received 101-121. his Bachelor of Social degree, Cum Grey, M 2001, “Encountering the Mandala: Laude in International Relations from the The Mental and Political Architectures of Faculty of Social and Political , Dependency”, The Culture Mandala, vol. 4, no. Universitas Indonesia (FISIP UI). His 2, pp. 1-13. writings have been published in many Kang, D 2007, China Rising: Peace, Power, and Order in East Asia, Columbia University journals and newspaper. His latest piece Press, New York, Chapter 4 ‘Hierarchy and was published in the Ritsumeikan Journal Stability in Asian International Relations’. of Asia Pacific, Japan. He is also the book Kang, D 2010, East Asia before the West: editor in 'Mengarungi Samudera Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute, Columbia Bergolak: Sumbangan Pemikiran Diplomat University Press, New York. Koslowski, R & Kratochwil, FV 1994, Muda Indonesia’, published by Center for ‘Understanding Change in International Politics: Education and Training, Indonesian the ’s Demise and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2010. He can International System‘, International be contacted at Organization, The MIT Press, Massachusetts [email protected] Laichen, S 2010, ‘Assesing the Ming Role in China’s Southern Expansion’, in G Wade & S Laichen (eds), Southeast Asia in the Fifteenth Century: The China Factor, National University References of Singapore Press, Singapore, pp. 44-79. Lake, D 2009, Hierarchy in International Acharya, A 2003, “Will Asia’s Past Be Its Relations, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and Future?”, International Security, vol. 28, no. 3, London, Chapter 2 ’International Hierarchy’. pp. 149-164. Lieberman, V 1993, “Local Integration and Boesche, R 2003, Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra on Eurasian Analogies: Structuring Southeast Asian and Diplomacy in Ancient , Journal of History, c. 1350 -- c. 1830”, Modern Asian Military History, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 9–37. Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 475-572. Bull, H & Watson, A (eds) 1984, The Munandar, AA 2008, Ibukota Majapahit, Expansion of International Society, Oxford Masa Jaya dan Pencapaian (The Majapahit University Press, Oxford. Capital, its and Achievements), Dellios, R 2003, “Mandala: From Sacred Komunitas Bambu, Depok. Origins to Sovereign Affairs in Traditional Peng Er, L and Teo, V (eds) 2012, Southeast Southeast Asia”, CEWCES Research Paper, no. Asia Between China and Japan, Cambridge 10. Scholars Publishing, Newcastle. Pramono, S 2010, “Negara Nusantara and Her Regional Architecture”, paper presented in Journal of ASEAN Studies 13 seminar titled “The Emerging Powers and New York, Chapter 2 ‘The East Asian Global Governance”, held by China Centre for International Society’. Contemporary World Studies and Rosa Tucci, G 1961, The Theory and Practice of Luxemburg Foundation of Germany in . the Mandala, Rider & Co, London. Purwadi, DR 2004, Jejak Nasionalisme Wade, G 2010, ‘Southeast Asia in the 15th Gajah Mada (Gajah Mada’s ), Diva Century’, in G Wade & S Laichen (eds), Press, Jogjakarta. Southeast Asia in the Fifteenth Century: The Reus Smit, C 1999, The moral purpose of China Factor, National University of Singapore the state, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Press, Singapore, pp. 3-43. Reynolds, CJ 2008, Early Southeast Asia: Wang, G 1968, ‘Early Ming Relations with Selected Essays O.W. Wolters, Cornell Southeast Asia: A Background Essay’, in JK, University, Ithaca. Fairbank (ed), The Chinese World Order: Rother, S 2012, “Wendt Meets East: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations, Harvard ASEAN Cultures of Conflict and Cooperation”, University Press, Cambridge, pp. 34-62. Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 49- Waltz, KN 1979, Theory of International 67. Politics, Addison-Wesley, Reading. Sardesai, DR 2010, Southeast Asia Past and Wendt, A 1992, “Anarchy is what states Present: Sixth Edition, Westview Press, make of it”. International Organization, vol. 46, Colorado. no. 2, pp. 379–396. Shu, M 2012a, “Balancing in a Hierarchical Wendt, A 1999, Social Theory of System: Pre-Colonial Southest Asia and the International Politics, Cambridge University Tribute System”, Waseda Global Forum, no. 8, Press, Cambridge. pp. 1-30. Wolters, OW 1968, ‘Ayudhya and the Shu, M 2012b, “Hegemon and Instability: Rearward Part of the World’, Journal of the Pre-Colonial Southeast Asia under theTribute Royal Asiatic Society, no. 3 & 4, pp. 166-78. System”, WIAS Research Bulletin, no. 4, pp. 45- Wolters, OW 1999, History, Culture and 62. in Southeast Asian Perspectives Slametmuljana 1976, A Story of Majapahit, Revised edition, Southeast Asia Program Singapore University Press, Singapore Publications (SEAP) in cooperation with The Slametmuljana 2006, Negara Kretagama, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), LkiS, Jogjakarta. Ithaca & Singapore. Suzuki, S 2009, Civilization and Empire: China and Japan’s Encounter with European International Society, Routledge, London and