The Mandala Culture of Anarchy: The Pre-Colonial Southeast Asian International Society
Pandu Utama Manggala Australian National University, Australia
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 China- centred tribute 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 empires and the hierarchical East Asian international society, in particular during the 13th- 16th Century. 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 Majapahit Empire, 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, Southeast Asia, Mandala, Tributary System
Introduction Southeast Asian countries were far from peaceful and stable under the tribute Throughout the years, study on pre- system. Fierce competition for survival and colonial Southeast Asian international domination had characterized the balance relations has not garnered major attention of power politics throughout the pre- because it had long been seen as an integral colonial era (Shu 2012b, p. 46). part of the China-centred tribute system. For that reason, there is a need to Moreover, Southeast Asia has often been provide greater understanding of the regarded as a political backwater uniqueness of the international system as compared to East Asia because Southeast different regions have different ontologies Asia as a region is seen as relatively to comprehend its dynamics and structures. passive , always subjected to the influence This paper contributes to the pre-colonial of great powers (PengEr & Teo 2012, p.2). It Southeast Asian literature by examining the is often said that under the Chinese interplay that had existed between pre- hierarchical order, Asian international colonial Southeast Asian empires and the relations was seen as stable and regional hierarchical East Asian international order had been achieved until the arrival of society, in particular during the 13th-16th the Western powers in the 19th Century Century. The paper draws a boundary from (Kang 2007). However, pre-colonial Kang s and Suzuki s 9 article
Journal of ASEAN Studies, Vol.1,No.1 (2013), pp. 1–13
©2013by CBDS Bina Nusantara University and Indonesian Association for International Relations ISSN 2338-1361 print / ISSN2338-1353 electronic
2 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
that too much focus on the centrality of purpose of state , the organizing principle China-dominated regional hierarchy. of sovereignty , 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 what Rother (2012) calls and the China s tributary system. Lastly, the as the cultural memory of a region . This paper concludes with a summary of the helps to explain, for example the conduct of main findings and discusses the implication foreign policy in the 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 themselves by a common set of rules and anarchy but argue that this does not institutions for the conduct of their necessarily preclude order, society, and relations. Furthermore, detailed analysis of community beyond the nation state. The pre-colonial Southeast Asian international other hand are liberalists who assert that relations is elaborated using Reus Smit s anarchy is incompatible with order and the three normative beliefs of constitutional realization is only possible once anarchy is structures of an international society (1999). replaced by governance of one sort of These three normative beliefs are the moral another (Evans & Newnham 1998, p. 19). Journal of ASEAN Studies 3
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. 9 -91). By this, Waltz for unequal relations amongst states, but asserted that it is structure that shapes and short of hegemony or empire Goh 9, 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 Confucianism, 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 . 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 “sia Rother are among those who have analysed from 2012, p. 53). Nonetheless, his conclusion an Asian perspective. with the focus on bandwagoning and the Kang s article explains that “sian absence of balancing in Asian international international relations have historically relations is not convincing and tends to be been hierarchical order under Chinese reductionist realism (Rother 2012, p. 53). domination prior to the intervention of Kang s claim neglected the fact that Western powers (p. 164). Nevertheless, it Southeast “sia as part of the China s tribute was the hierarchical order that had created system was also dominated by competition stability in the region as there was no for survival and domination throughout the evidence of external balancing or other pre-colonial time (Lieberman 1993). 4 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
Furthermore, states are in no position to elements that constitute the structure of choose black and white between balancing international society, which are: and bandwagoning. In the real world, states 1) A hegemonic belief about the moral purpose opt for other options such as hedging, of centralized, autonomous political containment, neutrality, engagement, and organization. Such purposes are moral non-alignment. Therefore, Kang s argument because they always entail a conception is not able to decode the complexity of of the individual or social good served interaction between the pre-colonial by autonomous political organization, Southeast Asian and the Chinese empires. and are hegemonic because they Shogo Suzuki s 9 article tries to constitute the prevailing, socially elaborate more deeply in the East Asian sanctioned justification for sovereign international society. It helps to rights. comprehend the complexity of the deep 2) An organizing principle of sovereignty that constitutive values that define the social differentiates political units on the basis identity of the state and brings discursive of particularity and exclusivity, creating mechanism that link intersubjective ideas of a system of territorially demarcated. legitimate statehood and rightful state 3) 3) A norm of procedural justice. These action to the constitution of fundamental norms specify the correct procedures institution. that legitimate or good states In elaborating his arguments, Suzuki employ, internally and externally, to adopts Hedley ”ull s view on international formulate basic rules of internal and system. Bull asserted that international external conduct. (Reus Smit 1999, pp. system is a society of states and this society 30-33) is built upon inter-subjectivity through Grounding on Reus Smit s three common interests and common values normative belief, Suzuki explains that the which they bound themselves by a common moral purpose of the state within the East set of rules and institutions for the conduct Asian international society was derived of their relations (Bull & Watson 1984). Any from Confucianism that aimed the support given international system does not exist and maintenance of the moral, social, and because of unchallengeable structures, but cultural order of social peace and harmony rather the very structures are dependent (Suzuki 2009, p. 34). As a consequence, the for their reproduction on the practices of the justificatory foundations for the principle of actors Koslowski & Kratochwil 1994, p. sovereignty within the order were to 216). Therefore, Suzuki recognizes that the maintain the social hierarchy that would identity of state is grounded in a larger promote cosmic harmony. Moreover, complex of values and these values provide drawing his analysis from the time of the states with substantive reasons for action. Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1911), Suzuki accepts the notion of hierarchical Suzuki (2009) claims that the systemic norm order in the East Asian international society. of procedural justice were the Tribute However, quite different from Kang s System that prescribed rightful state action arguments, Suzuki uses Reus-Smit s 999 (p. 37-38). conceptualization of the constitutional ”oth Kang s and Suzuki s article are structure of international society to help giving insights into an Asian international understand the dynamics of interaction in relations. Nevertheless, the position of other the East Asian international society. Reus non-Chinese states within the hierarchical Smit offers three primary normative order has not been really elaborated. In Suzuki s 9 article, he admits that the Journal of ASEAN Studies 5 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 Rother pointed out, three normative beliefs of constitutional in the above Wendt s argument, there are structure and draws on Wendtian still rooms for different configurations constructivism to explain the logic of based on different identities because states anarchy that shaping the interaction. have the ability to transform the social Wendt (1992) makes his famous claim structure within which they operate (Rother on the logic of anarchy that anarchy is what 2012, p. 57) states make of it . He asserts that the Before elaborating the dynamics of absence of hierarchic authority in the interaction between the two regions, there international system does not inevitably has to be an understanding of what equate to perpetual interstate conflict in a constitute the pre-colonial Southeast Asian self-help environment, as neo-realists international structures in which is contend. Moreover, Wendt argues that discussed in the following section. anarchy is only a permissive cause of conflict and not an efficient cause. In relation to Kang s article, Wendt is The Majapahit Empire and The Southeast taking different position as he argues that it Asian International Society is the social and ideational, rather than material aspect of international politics In the course of Asian studies prior to which determines how actors behave. the European intrusion in the Indian Furthermore, Wendt also asserts that states archipelago in mid-19th Century, the have the ability to transform the social traditional international order is often structure within which they operate. From considered consisted of civilized (China) this understanding, Wendt creates the and barbarians (Southeast Asian states). As concept of culture of anarchy which is the Kang (2007) points out in his article, the bodies of norms and institutions that make Chinese emperor required the barbarians to up an international social structure (Flawith demonstrate formal obedience in the form 2011, p.266). of kowtow in order not to be invaded (p. Wendt argues that there are at least 9 . In Kang s view, Southeast “sia was a three configurations that the international peripheral region, a part of the rim land . society may take, the Hobbesian , Lockean , The minimal role of Southeast Asia 6 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
continued to play until well into the Scholars who study the Majapahit twentieth century where both the US and Empire are mostly interested in the course the Soviet Union, superpowers at that time, of history, the matter of structure, foreign were vitally interested in the politics and relations, and how the Majapahit shape the economic potential of the region. international relations in the region Despite very few studies have unfortunately have been neglected for many specifically examined pre-colonial decades. In this part, an attempt has been Southeast Asian region from an IR made to examine the structure of the perspective, this region was in fact Majapahit, the type of order, and the sources interesting to examine due to its unique of legitimacy that bounded the empire. structures. The Southeast Asian region is The constitutional structures of the not a unit in the religious, historical, Southeast Asian international society were geographical, or ethnic senses. There are at primarily derived from ancient Indian least four different religions in Southeast political discourse based on the book of Asia, which are Islam, Hinduism, Arthasastra by Mauryan Chief Minister, Buddhism, and Christianity. Historically, Kautilya in the 4th Century (Boesche 2003, p. the whole Southeast Asia never came under 9 . Furthermore, Kautilya s concept, the the rule of a single state or empire. On the Mandala was then adopted by Wolters mainland, the Khmers created a large (1968) to denote pre-colonial Southeast empire, which at its height in the 9th to the Asian political formations. The regional 13th Centuries embraced the region from system was built of larger political unit, in Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and which the dependencies preserved a great South Vietnam (SarDesai 2010, p. 2). There deal of internal autonomy in exchange for were other large polities in pre-colonial acknowledging the pole s spiritual Southeast Asia, but they did not cover the authority (Gesick 1983, p. 3). Southeast entire region. However, during the golden Asian polities did not conform to the era of the Majapahit Empire notably under Chinese view as the polity defined by its the Prime Minister, Gajah Mada (1331- centre rather than its boundaries, and it 1364), large area of Southeast Asia was could be composed of numerous other under the Majapahit Empire. tributary polities without undergoing Therefore, in the pre-colonial Southeast administrative integration (Dellios 2003). Asia era, the greatness of the Majapahit The Mandala displayed the Empire could not be neglected. The cosmopological characteristics of Hindu- Majapahit, literally means the bitter fruit, Buddhist persuasion prior to the expansion was an empire of 98 tributaries stretching of European international society. Mandala from Sumatra to New Guinea which is a Sanskrit word for sacred circle in consists of present day Indonesia, which humans become centred and diffuse Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Southern that state of being outwards into action Thailand, the Philippines, and East Timor (Grey 2001, p. 2). Therefore, the Mandala (SarDesai 2010). Moreover, the capital of highlights the importance of charismatic Majapahit was situated in Trowulan, East leadership in a political system that Java. It was one of the last major empires of fluctuates. Moreover, whoever can claim the the region and considered to be one of the centre of this system, can claim the title of greatest and most powerful empires in the universal emperor, the cakravartin . history of Southeast Asia due to its political, The Mandala in its sacred dimensions is economic, and social influences. a centring device for spiritual purposes. When this idea was applied to the political Journal of ASEAN Studies 7 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 Empire, particularly when its Majapahitcreated its concentric circle, Prime Minister Gajah Mada took his famous defining its mitra, ari, madhyama, and, oath SumpahPalapa . Gajah Mada said that udasina. Nagarakretagama book by the poet he would not taste palapa fruits / spices Prapanca noted there were several until he could unify external territories neighbouring foreign polities that in under the Majapahit (Purwadi 2004, p. 157). friendly terms with the Majapahit, among It can be seen that Gajah Mada s oath was those were Syangka, Ayudhya (Siam), based on the Mandala philosophy that Rajapura, Champa, Kamboja and Yawana requires recognition of the emptiness. The (Slametmuljana 2006). notion of centre consisted of power that is Three important friendly polities of the personal and devotional rather than Majapahit, Champa, Syangka, and Ayudhya institutional. It was the ability of Gajah are worth to be observed. The Mada to tap into cosmic power through Majapahitattempted to build a friendly virtuous behaviour that created the power relations with the Champa in particular of conquest. Thus, Gajah Mada represented because the Champa was perceived as rear- the charismatic centre of a Mandala and is friend of the Majapahit as it had also refused considered a person of prowess Wolters to allow the Mongol to use its harbor for 1968, pp. 94-95). embarking logistics during the great With the Mandala being a significant invasion of Kublai Khan upon Java in the tradition of knowledge in pre-colonial end of 13th Century. The similar case Southeast Asia, the fundamental interests of applied to the Syangka that had been seen states, the Majapahit and other polities opposed the Chola s domination in Indian became those of enhancing and protecting sub-continent, in which the Majapahitalso the society and its values. The Mandala refused to accept. The Majapahit maintained became the moral purpose of the Majapahit a good relations with the Syangka because it that spoke universality through moral adopted the doctrine my enemy s enemy is conquest (Dellios 2003). my friend . While for the Ayudhya, the The organizing principle of sovereignty Majapahit maintained relations with the within the Southeast Asian international Ayudhya because it had established over society was thus along the networks of the 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 vassal observation shows that in the first two loyalties Tucci 9 , p. . In regards to cases, the Majapahit tried to assure that his this, the principle was applied in the ari(The Mongol and Chola) was accordingly geopolitical term. Geopolitical Mandala, as counterbalanced by his mitra(the Champa mentioned by Kautilya was about how the and Syangka). Whereas the latter case cakravartin being able to deploy his friends shows that the Majapahit foreign relations to contain his enemies. As such, the Mandala also tried to accommodate the interests of consists of circles of mitra (friends), ari its empire as well as the madhyama (the (enemies), madhyama(medium power) and Ayudhya).The following diagram tries to udasina (major powers) with the Vijigisuas illustrate the way geopolitical Mandala the centre. being contextualize by the Majapahit: 8 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
Diagram 1. The Majapahit’s Geopolitical Mandala
Other Mandalas in Greater Mekong Mitra (Friend) Syangka
Udasina (Major Power) Ari (Enemy) China (Ming Dynasty) The Mongol
Vijigisu (centre) TheMajapahit
Madhyama (Middle Power) Ari (Enemy) Ayudhya The Chola Dynasty
Mitra (Friend) Champa
Other Mandalas in Malay Peninsula
“dopted from Rosita Dellios description of the statal circle
The third normative belief, which is the specific, the highly regarded substantive systemic norms of procedural justice, laid in contribution was to present valuable local the conduct of diplomacy within the products as their tributes annually. structures. There were two distinguished The other form of diplomacy was forms of diplomacy that the Majapahit forming alliance through marriage. One exercised, which were through small prominent example of this was when tributary system and marriage. The Hayam Wuruk, the Majapahit s king during tributary system, although it was a small its golden era, decided to marry a princess annual tribute, had a role as a ritual justice of Sunda named DyahPitaloka as an effort within the Southeast Asian international to obtain the Kingdom of Sunda in 1357. society. The Majapahit required only a small Unfortunately, the effort failed because of amount of tribute from the ruler of any the Maharaja of Sunda rejected Gajah Mada s country to be recognized as the Majapahit s request to delineate the marriage as a suzerainty and to be classified as a tribute to the Majapahit. dependency Slametmuljana 9 , p. . From the above exploration of the By giving a small tribute, dependencies constitutional structures of Southeast Asian were promised effective protection against international society with the Majapahit as a potential threats. However, unlike the focus, one remaining question lies: how China s tribute system, the Majapahit s did the structures shape the Majapahit s dependencies were required to make interaction with the East Asian international substantive contribution to the wealth of society? The next part discusses how the their suzerain (Shu 2012b, 50). To be more Majapahit identities informed fundamental Journal of ASEAN Studies 9 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 Majapahithad that ruled over large area of Southeast Asia. regularly dispatched its own envoys to the The interaction between the Chinese empire Ming Dynasty, 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 9 the region (PengEr & 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 Chinese culture and to pay tribute to China. Had the Majapahit civilization (PengEr & 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 market access to the major Kingdoms in been one of the vassal polities of the East Asia, rather than acknowledgement of Majapahit. Hence, Brunei conformed to the their superiority. It debates Kang s Majapahitorder and thus only sent one argument that China for most of the time mission to China and continued to pay had been culturally, economically, and annual tribute to the Majapahit(Wang 1968, military dominated the region. Moreover, p. 51). The best analysis on why Brunei the paper also debates Shu s a decided to act in favour of the Majapahitwas argument that Southeast Asian polities were because the geopolitical Mandala made 10 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
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 Majapahitas 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 Majapahitand 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 Majapahitdid 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 Majapahittransformed 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 Majapahitin 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 15th Century. The move had great logic of anarchy in between the effects on the political topography as the Lockeanrivalry and the Kantian peace. There support provide by the Ming helped were still rivalries in the region as the Melaka to experience a rapid rise during the Majapahithad been striving for the early of 15th Century (Wade 2010, p. 31). centrality of its political position in the The rise of Melaka, which was an Islamic regional political landscape. However, the Kingdom, squeezed the Majapahitinfluence principal way to form a balance of power in the first quarter of the 16th Century was not through warfare but instead (SarDesai 2010, pp. 53-54). through cooperation. The geopolitical As the Majapahitdeclined because of its Mandala advised that strategic grouping, bad governance following the demise of manifested in deploying as many friends for Prime Minister Gajah Mada and the death the vijigisuremains vital in preserving peace, of the charismatic leader HayamWuruk in common stability, and common security. 1389, the Chinese trading fleets started to From this understanding, states and norms dominate most of the trading activities in in the pre-colonial Southeast Asian pre-colonial Southeast Asia. As Reid international society had worked to suggested, it was the starting point for the produce their own logic of anarchy. “ge of Commerce to emerge in the region, introducing spices to the world (Wade 2010, p. 4). Journal of ASEAN Studies 11
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 was so prominent for both control. The Majapahit managed to assert the Northeast and Southeast Asian regions. strategic partnership with China as the However as this 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 ofthe 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 (Rother 2012, p. 63). The undergoing administrative integration geopolitical Mandala remains vital for (Dellios 2003). Hence, the geopolitical Southeast Asian states in conducting their Mandala as the organizing principle of foreign policy. For instance, the priorities of sovereignty was materialized. The Indonesian foreign policy are still Majapahitmaintained its relationship with determined using the concentric circle other polities based on the concentric circle perspective. Moreover, the way ASEAN approach. Accordingly, the conduct of manages its regional architecture by diplomacy in the form of small tributary building strategic grouping from ASEAN+1, system and building alliance through ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6 to East Asia Summit marriage occurred as the systemic norms of could be the illustration of ASEAN procedural justice. asserting the Mandala culture of anarchy. In addition, the investigation of the pre- colonial Southeast Asian international society has help to understand the interplay About Author between the Majapahit Empire and the 12 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
Pandu Utama Manggala, an Indonesian Goh, E 2009, ‘Hegemony, Hierarchy, and Diplomat, is a Graduate student at the Order’, in WT Tow (ed), Security Politics Australian National University, Canberra. He is in the Asia Pacific: A Regional-Global one of the recipients of the Australia Awards Nexus?,Cambridge University Press, scholarship in 2012 and is currently serving as Cambridge, pp. 101-121. the President of the Indonesian Students Grey, M 2001, “Encountering the Mandala: The Mental and Political Architectures of Association in the Australian Capital Territory Dependency”, The Culture Mandala, vol. (PPIA ACT). He received his Bachelor of Social 4, no. 2, pp. 1-13. Science degree, Cum Laude in International Kang, D 2007, China Rising: Peace, Power, and Relations from the Faculty of Social and Political Order in East Asia, Columbia University Sciences, Universitas Indonesia (FISIP UI). His Press, New York, Chapter 4 ‘Hierarchy writings have been published in many journals and Stability in Asian International and newspaper. His latest piece was published Relations’. in the Ritsumeikan Journal of Asia Pacific, Kang, D 2010, East Asia before the West: Five Japan. He is also the book editor in 'Mengarungi Centuries of Trade and Tribute,Columbia Samudera Yang Bergolak: SumbanganPemikiran University Press, New York. Diplomat Muda Indonesia , published by Center Koslowski, R &Kratochwil, FV 1994, for Education and Training, Indonesian Ministry ‘Understanding Change in International of Foreign Affairs in 2010. He can be contacted Politics: the Soviet Empire’s Demise and at [email protected] the International System‘, International Organization, The MIT Press,
Massachusetts Laichen, S 2010, ‘Assesing the Ming Role in References China’s Southern Expansion’, in G Wade & S Laichen (eds), Southeast Asia in the Acharya, A 2003, “Will Asia’s Past Be Its Fifteenth Century: The China Factor, Future?”,International Security, vol.28, National University of Singapore Press, no. 3, pp. 149-164. Singapore, pp. 44-79. Boesche, R 2003, Kautilya’sArthaśāstra on War Lake, D 2009, Hierarchy in International and Diplomacy in Ancient India, Journal Relations, Cornell University Press, of Military History, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 9– Ithaca and London, Chapter 2 37. ’International Hierarchy’. Bull, H & Watson, A (eds) 1984, The Expansion Lieberman, V 1993, “Local Integration and of International Society, Oxford Eurasian Analogies: Structuring Southeast University Press, Oxford. Asian History, c. 1350 -- c. 1830”, Dellios, R 2003, “Mandala: From Sacred Modern Asian Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. Origins to Sovereign Affairs in 475-572. Traditional Southeast Asia”, CEWCES Munandar, AA 2008, IbukotaMajapahit, Masa Research Paper, no. 10. Jaya danPencapaian (The Majapahit Evans, G & Newnham, J 1998, The Penguin Capital, its Golden Age and Dictionary of International Relations, Achievements), KomunitasBambu, Penguin Group, London. Depok. Flawith, RW 2011, “The Regressing ‘Culture of PengEr, L and Teo, V (eds) 2012, Southeast Anarchy’ in Ancient China and its Asia Between China and Japan, Implications for Wendt’s Progressive Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Constructivism”, Australian Journal of Newcastle. International Affairs, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. Pramono, S 2010, “Negara Nusantara and Her 263-282. Regional Architecture”, paper presented Gesick, L 1983, 'Introduction', in L Gesick (ed), in seminar titled “The Emerging Powers Centres, Symbols, and Hierarchies: and Global Governance”, held by China Essays on the Classical States of Centre for Contemporary World Studies Southeast Asia, Monograph No. 26, Yale and Rosa Luxemburg Foundation of University Southeast Asia Studies, Germany in Beijing. NewHaven, Connecticut, pp. 1-8. Journal of ASEAN Studies 13
Purwadi, DR 2004, JejakNasionalisme Gajah Tucci, G 1961, The Theory and Practice of the Mada (Gajah Mada’s Nationalism), Diva Mandala, Rider & Co, London. Press, Jogjakarta. Wade, G 2010, ‘Southeast Asia in the 15th Reus Smit, C 1999, The moral purpose of the Century’, in G Wade & S Laichen (eds), state, Princeton University Press, Southeast Asia in the Fifteenth Century: Princeton. The China Factor, National University of Reynolds, CJ 2008, Early Southeast Asia: Singapore Press, Singapore, pp. 3-43. Selected Essays O.W. Wolters, Cornell Wang, G 1968, ‘Early Ming Relations with University, Ithaca. Southeast Asia: A Background Essay’, in Rother, S 2012, “Wendt Meets East: ASEAN JK, Fairbank (ed), The Chinese World Cultures of Conflict and Cooperation”, Order: Traditional China’s Cooperation and Conflict, vol.47, no. 1, ForeignRelations, Harvard University pp. 49-67. Press, Cambridge, pp. 34-62. Sardesai, DR 2010, Southeast Asia Past and Waltz, KN 1979, Theory of International Present: Sixth Edition, Westview Press, Politics, Addison-Wesley, Reading. Colorado. Wendt, A 1992, “Anarchy is what states make of Shu, M 2012a, “Balancing in a Hierarchical it”. International Organization, vol.46, System: Pre-Colonial Southest Asia and no. 2, pp. 379–396. the Tribute System”, WasedaGlobal Wendt, A 1999, Social Theory of International Forum, no. 8, pp. 1-30. Politics, Cambridge University Press, Shu, M 2012b, “Hegemon and Instability: Pre- Cambridge. Colonial Southeast Asia under theTribute Wolters, OW 1968, ‘Ayudhya and the Rearward System”, WIAS Research Bulletin, no. 4, Part of the World’, Journal of theRoyal pp. 45-62. Asiatic Society, no. 3 & 4, pp. 166-78. Slametmuljana 1976, A Story of Majapahit, Wolters, OW 1999, History, Culture and Singapore University Press, Singapore Religion in Southeast Asian Perspectives Slametmuljana 2006, Negara Kretagama, LkiS, Revised edition, Southeast Asia Program Jogjakarta. Publications (SEAP) in cooperation with Suzuki, S 2009, Civilization and Empire: China The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Japan’s Encounter with European (ISEAS), Ithaca & Singapore. International Society, Routledge, London and New York, Chapter 2 ‘The East Asian International Society’.