Hegemon and Instability: Pre-Colonial Southeast Asia under the Tribute System Hegemon and Instability: Pre-Colonial Southeast Asia under the Tribute System⑴ Min SHU Abstract Under the tribute system Southeast Asia had long been dominated by China in the pre-colonial era. This arti- cle examines the hegemonic influences that China had exerted on pre-colonial Southeast Asia. Based on the literature of hegemonic stability, China’s influences are analyzed according to four theoretical perspectives: norm socialization, public-good provision, hegemonic coercion, and institution-building. Firstly, China’s self-perceived cultural state had not socialized the ‘Indianized’ states of Southeast Asia. Secondly, despite the vibrant commer- cial links that China-centered tributary trade had created, it was not an economic order open to all Southeast Asian countries. Thirdly, the coercive campaigns that China waged in mainland Southeast Asia had altered the sub- regional power balance beyond its control. Fourthly, the pre-colonial tribute system was sophisticated and long- lasting, but its institutional impacts had not escaped the dynastic cycle of China’s imperial power. These findings not only challenge the view that the China-dominated regional hierarchy had been stable and peaceful, but also raise questions about the applicability of hegemonic stability in a non-Western pre-colonial context. Southeast Asia had long been an integral part of 1. Introduction the China-centered tribute system (Reid, 1996; Stuart- International relations in pre-colonial East Asia Fox, 2003; Wang, 1998a, 1998b; Wolters, 2008). In followed a distinctively hierarchical order. With its the eastern mainland, Dai Viet had been a ‘loyal’ trib- unparalleled economic, political and military utary state ever since it got independence from China strengths, China stood at the center of the regional in the 10th century. Its southern neighbor and long- hierarchy (Faribank, 1968; Mancall, 1984; Kang term competitor, Champa, similarly sought a close 2010). The rest of East Asia was incorporated into the tributary connection for both economic and political regional order through an elaborated institutional reasons. In the central mainland, the pre-historical framework̶the tribute system (Faribank, 1942; Man- Kingdom of Funan sent tributary missions to China as call, 1968). Under this system, foreign countries were early as in the 3rd century (Stuart-Fox, 2003: 30). invited to pay tribute to China. By submitting to the Later, the Khmer empire and different Tai and Laotian supremacy of China, foreign rulers were rewarded Kingdoms also pursued active tributary relations with with the official recognition by the imperial court, the Middle Kingdom. Only in the more distant western lucrative tributary trade with China, and, on some mainland, the Burmese kingdoms of Pagan, Toungoo occasions, imperial protection in the case of emer- and Konbaung dispatched sporadic missions. In mari- gency (Shu, 2012). The tributary states were even time Southeast Asia, the trading states of Srivijaya, ranked by China according to their cultural conformity Brunei, Luzon, Sulu and Melaka all sought close trib- to the Chinese civilization and their loyalty to the utary connections with China until the region fell imperial court (Kang, 2010: 57-59). It is often consid- under the European powers in the 16th century. The ered that the hegemony of China, together with the powerful Javenese Empire of Majapahit, though wary hierarchical tribute system, had contributed to the of its vassals’ contact with China, regularly dispatched long-term peace and stability in East Asia prior to the its own envoys to the Ming court. arrival of European powers in the mid-19th century For many pre-colonial Southeast Asian countries, (see Kang 2007, 2010). tributary trade with China not only brought a steady 45 早稲田大学高等研究所紀要 第 4 号 inflow of wealth but also created a solid foundation to reassessment of the hegemonic stability theory in a thrive on the Asian trade routes (Reid, 1993). During non-Western context. the periods when China was strong and its foreign The rest of the article is organized in the follow- policy outward-looking, the power balance in South- ing way. The next section discusses the intellectual east Asia was also more easily maintained (Wolters, development of hegemonic stability theory, exploring 2008: 69). However, Southeast Asian countries were different theoretical interpretations as well as their far from peaceful and stable under the tribute system. critics. The intention is to show that hegemonic stabil- Fierce competition for survival and domination had ity is an evolving theoretical framework capable of characterized the balance-of-power politics throughout communicating with novel evidence. Then, the hege- the pre-colonial era (Shu, 2012). The inter-state con- monic impacts of China on pre-colonial Southeast flicts between Dai Viet and Champa, between Asia are examined from four perspectives. The third Ayutthaya/Siam and Burma, and among the kingdoms section assesses the socialization effect of China’s of Sumatra and Java all lasted for several centuries self-perceived cultural state in Southeast Asia. The without a clear winner. These conflicts were further fourth section explores the link between public goods complicated by the distinctive political structure in provision and tributary trade in pre-colonial Southeast pre-colonial Southeast Asia̶the Mandalas, where Asia. The fifth section examines the coercive dimen- loosely-controlled vassals frequently led to conflicting sion of hegemonic China, focusing on the imperial political claims and overlapping jurisdictions (Wolters, China’s military campaigns in mainland Southeast 1999; Stuart-Fox, 2003). Different from the experi- Asia. The sixth section discusses the changing institu- ences of the Confucian world in Northeast Asia (Kang, tional strength of the China-centered tribute system. 2010), the hegemony of China had not produced a The article is concluded with a summary of the main decisive impact on the sub-regional stability of pre- findings and a discussion about their implications for colonial Southeast Asia. the hegemonic stability theory. Why did the undisputed hegemony of China fail 2. The Theory of Hegemonic Stability to create long-term peace and stability among its tribu- and Its Critics tary states in pre-colonial Southeast Asia? According to the hegemonic stability theory, a predominant hege- The theory of ‘hegemonic stability’, a term coined mon should be conducive to an open trade order and by one of its critics (Keohane, 1980), is first articu- stable inter-state relationship (Kindleberger, 1973; lated around the mid-1970s. At a glance, the theory is Krasner, 1976; Gilpin, 1981). To achieve a stable simple and straightforward. It posits that a single, order, the powerful hegemon can employ at least four dominant power (i.e., the hegemon) is conducive to different strategies, each representing a specific school stability and prosperity in the world. The theory is of modern international relations theories (see Milner, normally attributed to three scholars: Charles Kindle- 1998). The hegemon may project its power and coerce berger, Robert Gilpin and Stephen Krasner. While all subordinate states to comply; it may provide important of them accept the logic of hegemonic stability, the public goods and motivate other states to follow suit; meaning of stability differs in their accounts. Accord- it may establish multilateral institutions to maintain a ing to Kindelberger (1973), the experiences of the desirable inter-state order; it may even create a set of Great Depression show that only a predominant power values and norms to socialize its subordinates. Yet, is able to create a stable world economy. A stable eco- hegemonic stability is a contemporary international nomic order requires a steady flow of capital, adequate relations concept of Western origin⑵. To what extent it liquidity, stable exchange rate, and coordinated mone- is applicable to pre-colonial Southeast Asia remains an tary policies, something Lake (1984) refers to as the open question. Aware of this possible caveat, the arti- ‘international economic infrastructure’. For Gilplin cle intends to conduct a theory-guided historical (1975, 1981), stability has both political and economic analysis to achieve two objectives: firstly, to under- connotations. In political terms, stability is ‘an inter- stand China’s hegemonic presence in pre-colonial national system of relative peace and security’ (Gilpin, Southeast Asia based on the claims of hegemonic sta- 1981: 145). In economic terms, stability is a liberal bility; secondly, to conduct a history-informed economic order featuring ‘free trade, foreign invest- 46 Hegemon and Instability: Pre-Colonial Southeast Asia under the Tribute System ment and a well-functioning international monetary stable world order. For this reason, the hegemon system’ (145). In Krasner’s (1976) account, stability is should be willing to provide and maintain stability in a simply considered as an open trading structure. It world where it dominates. This is the essential logic should be noted that the contemporary understandings behind the hegemonic stability theory (Gilpin, 1981; of liberal economic stability, especially concerning Gowa, 1989; Lake, 1993)⑷. capital liquidity and financial coordination, were well However, the metaphor of public goods is ques- beyond the reach of the pre-colonial era. In this article, tioned by some. As Conybeare