-
www.ssoar.info
The Mandala Culture of Anarchy: the Pre-ColonialSoutheast Asian
International SocietyManggala, 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:Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC Lizenz
(Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell) zur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere
Auskünfte zuden CC-Lizenzen finden Sie
hier:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.de
Terms of use:This document is made available under a CC BY-NC
Licence(Attribution-NonCommercial). For more Information
see:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
http://www.ssoar.infohttps://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-441509https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.dehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
-
Journal of ASEAN Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2013), pp. 1–13© 2013
by CBDS Bina Nusantara University and Indonesian Association for
International RelationsISSN 2338-1361 print / ISSN2338-1353
electronic
The Mandala Culture of Anarchy:The Pre-Colonial Southeast Asian
InternationalSociety
Pandu Utama Manggala Australian National University,
Australia
AbstractThroughout the years, study on pre-colonial Southeast
Asian international relations has notgarnered 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 ofthe international system as
different regions have different ontologies to comprehend
itsdynamics and structures. This paper contributes to the
pre-colonial Southeast Asianliterature by examining the interplay
that had existed between pre-colonial Southeast Asianempires and
the hierarchical East Asian international society, in particular
during the 13th-16th Century. The paper argues that Southeast Asian
international relations in pre-colonialtime 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 hadits own constitutional structures
of an international society, albeit still sought close
relationswith China.
Keywords: Pre-Colonial History, Southeast Asia, Mandala,
Tributary System
Introduction
Throughout the years, study on pre-colonial Southeast Asian
internationalrelations has not garnered major attentionbecause it
had long been seen as an integralpart of the China-centred tribute
system.Moreover, Southeast Asia has often beenregarded as a
political “backwater”compared to East Asia because SoutheastAsia as
a region is seen as relatively“passive”, always subjected to the
influenceof great powers (Peng Er & Teo 2012, p.2). Itis often
said that under the Chinesehierarchical order, Asian
international
relations was seen as stable and regionalorder had been achieved
until the arrival ofthe Western powers in the 19th Century(Kang
2007). However, pre-colonialSoutheast Asian countries were far
frompeaceful and stable under the tributesystem. Fierce competition
for survival anddomination had characterized the balanceof power
politics throughout the pre-colonial era (Shu 2012b, p. 46).
For that reason, there is a need toprovide greater understanding
of theuniqueness of the international system asdifferent regions
have different ontologiesto comprehend its dynamics and
structures.
-
2 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
This paper contributes to the pre-colonialSoutheast Asian
literature by examining theinterplay that had existed between
pre-colonial Southeast Asian empires and thehierarchical East Asian
internationalsociety, in particular during the 13th-16thCentury.
The paper draws a boundary fromKang’s (2007) and Suzuki’s (2009)
articlethat too much focus on the centrality ofChina-dominated
regional hierarchy.Nevertheless, both articles are used
tounderstand the nature of China’shegemonic presence in
pre-colonialSoutheast Asia.
The paper argues that Southeast Asianinternational relations in
pre-colonial timewere characterized by complex politicalstructures
with the influence of Mandalavalues. In that structural context,
theMajapahit Empire, one of the biggestempires at that time had its
ownconstitutional structures of an internationalsociety, albeit
still sought close relationswith China. Therefore, the paper
debatesthe nature of hierarchical China’s tributarysystem in
pre-colonial Southeast Asia. Inpolicy terms, the findings of the
articleindicate that the interactive dynamicswithin the subsidiary
system created normsthat are rooted in the cultural memory of
aregion. This helps to explain, for examplethe conduct of foreign
policy in theSoutheast Asia.
The method of this paper is cross-disciplinary studies which
combine thefinding of area studies and internationalrelations
theory to provide a deeperunderstanding of the process
ofsocialization and mutual adaptationbetween the Southeast Asian
and the EastAsia international society. The terminternational
society used in the articlerefers to Bull & Watson
(1984)understanding of international systemwhich is a society of
state that is built uponinter-subjectivity through common
interestsand common values. This society bound
themselves by a common set of rules andinstitutions for the
conduct of theirrelations. Furthermore, detailed analysis
ofpre-colonial Southeast Asian internationalrelations is elaborated
using Reus Smit’sthree normative beliefs of
constitutionalstructures of an international society (1999).These
three normative beliefs are the ‘moralpurpose of state’, the
‘organizing principleof sovereignty’, and the ‘norm of
proceduraljustice’.
The rest of the paper is organized in thefollowing way. The next
part elaboratessome theoretical grounding to be used inthe
analysis. The comparative investigationof Kang’s and Suzuki’s
article is the startingpoint to analyse the complex
politicalstructure that existed in the East Asianinternational
society and further addedwith Wendt’s conception of anarchy.
Thesecond part discusses some essentialcharacteristics and the
constitutionalstructure of the Majapahit Empire. The thirdpart
explores the interaction between theMajapahit Empire and
hierarchical EastAsian international society. The focus is
tohighlight the international structures thatexisted and how those
structures shape therelationship between the Majapahit Empireand
the China’s tributary system. Lastly, thepaper concludes with a
summary of themain findings and discusses the implicationof the
study.
Anarchy, Hierarchy and the East AsianInternational Society
Anarchy is a crucial yet highlycontentious concept in
internationalrelations. In its formal sense, Anarchymeans that
there is no supreme authorityabove states. In the classical texts
ofinternational relations theory, anarchy isoften became the
central theoretical debate.On the one hand are proponents of
therealist theory who accept the condition of
-
Journal of ASEAN Studies 3
anarchy but argue that this does notnecessarily preclude order,
society, andcommunity beyond the nation state. Theother hand are
liberalists who assert thatanarchy is incompatible with order and
therealization is only possible once anarchy isreplaced by
governance of one sort ofanother (Evans & Newnham 1998, p.
19).
In the development stage of the debate,Kenneth Waltz with his
influential Theoryof International Politics employed anarchyand
power as central analytical concepts tothe balance of power theory.
Waltz (1979)argued that the international systemfunctions like a
market which is ‘interposedbetween the economic actors and the
resultsthey produce. It conditions theircalculations, their
behaviour and theirinteractions’ (pp. 90-91). By this,
Waltzasserted that it is ‘structure’ that shapes andconstrains the
political relationship of thecomponent units. In an anarchical
world,states need to rely only on self-help andbalance of power is
created throughbalancing behaviour by weaker statestowards the
potential hegemon (Shu 2012a,p. 4). Moreover, Waltz and other
neorealistproponents have sought to contrast theconcept of anarchy
with the idea ofhierarchy. According to neorealist, becausethe
system is anarchy it cannot be ahierarchy (Evans & Newnham
1998, p. 224).
Several IR scholars have madesurpassing arguments to reject
theexclusiveness of anarchy and hierarchy. Forexample, Lake (2009)
uses the notion of‘degrees of hierarchy’ along a single-dimensional
continuum between totalanarchy and complete hierarchy to
identifydifferent forms of hierarchical relations.However, not many
scholars havespecifically examined the relationshipbetween anarchy
and hierarchy from anAsian international relations’
perspective.David Kang (2007) and Shogo Suzuki (2009)are among
those who have analysed froman Asian perspective.
Kang’s (2007) article explains that Asianinternational relations
have historicallybeen hierarchical order under Chinesedomination
prior to the intervention ofWestern powers (p. 164). Nevertheless,
itwas the hierarchical order that had createdstability in the
region as there was noevidence of external balancing or
othercoordinated efforts to constrain China.Kang derives the
hierarchic model fromassumptions that states are the main unit
ofanalysis and anarchy is the prevailingcondition for international
system.Although he draws on his argument fromrealist assumptions,
Kang rejects the neo-realist notion that ‘hierarchy’ cannot
coexistwith anarchy in the international system,and instead uses
‘hierarchy’ as “shorthandfor unequal relations amongst states,
butshort of hegemony or empire” (Goh 2009, p.107). In short, Kang
tries to combine thelogic of anarchy and hierarchy in the senseof
realist understanding.
The main premise for Kang’s argumentis that the region more
comfortable with astrong China because of “the culturalprominence
of Confucianism, the disparityin economic and military strength,
and thelong-standing influences of the tributesystem” (Kang 2010).
In contrast with neo-realist that emphasizes balancing againstthe
predominant power, Kang believes thatlesser states will most likely
bandwagon forprofit (Kang 2007, p. 167). Some of thebenefits are
security protection, biggeropportunities for market and trade,
andexternal arbitration. The hierarchical orderitself is preserved
through a combination ofbenefits and sanctions that the
centralpower provides to the lesser power.
Kang’s article provides a new analyticalframework for Asian
international relations.His elaboration shows that
Eurocentric’sinternational relations theories “do poorjobs as they
are applied to Asia” (Rother2012, p. 53). Nonetheless, his
conclusionwith the focus on bandwagoning and the
-
4 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
absence of balancing in Asian internationalrelations is not
convincing and tends to bereductionist realism. Kang’s claim
neglectedthe fact that Southeast Asia as part of theChina’s tribute
system was also dominatedby competition for survival and
dominationthroughout the pre-colonial time(Lieberman 1993).
Furthermore, states are inno position to choose black and
whitebetween balancing and bandwagoning. In thereal world, states
opt for other options suchas hedging, containment,
neutrality,engagement, and non-alignment. Therefore,Kang’s argument
is not able to decode thecomplexity of interaction between the
pre-colonial Southeast Asian and the Chineseempires.
Shogo Suzuki’s (2009) article tries toelaborate more deeply in
the East Asianinternational society. It helps tocomprehend the
complexity of the deepconstitutive values that define the
socialidentity of the state and brings discursivemechanism that
link intersubjective ideas oflegitimate statehood and rightful
stateaction to the constitution of fundamentalinstitution.
In elaborating his arguments, Suzukiadopts Hedley Bull’s view on
internationalsystem. Bull asserted that internationalsystem is a
society of states and this societyis built upon inter-subjectivity
throughcommon interests and common valueswhich they bound
themselves by a commonset of rules and institutions for the
conductof their relations (Bull & Watson 1984). Anygiven
international system does not existbecause of unchallengeable
structures, butrather “the very structures are dependentfor their
reproduction on the practices of theactors” (Koslowski &
Kratochwil 1994, p.216). Therefore, Suzuki recognizes that
theidentity of state is grounded in a largercomplex of values and
these values providestates with substantive reasons for action.
Suzuki accepts the notion of hierarchicalorder in the East Asian
international society.
However, quite different from Kang’sarguments, Suzuki uses
Reus-Smit’s (1999)conceptualization of ‘the constitutionalstructure
of international society’ to helpunderstand the dynamics of
interaction inthe East Asian international society. ReusSmit offers
three primary normativeelements that constitute the structure
ofinternational society, which are:
1) A hegemonic belief about the moral purposeof centralized,
autonomous politicalorganization. Such purposes are “moral”because
they always entail a conceptionof the individual or social “good”
servedby autonomous political organization,and are “hegemonic”
because theyconstitute the prevailing, sociallysanctioned
justification for sovereignrights.
2) An organizing principle of sovereignty thatdifferentiates
political units on the basisof particularity and exclusivity,
creatinga system of territorially demarcated.
3) 3) A norm of procedural justice. Thesenorms specify the
correct proceduresthat “legitimate” or “good” statesemploy,
internally and externally, toformulate basic rules of internal
andexternal conduct. (Reus Smit 1999, pp.30-33)Grounding on Reus
Smit’s three
normative belief, Suzuki explains that the‘moral purpose of the
state’ within the EastAsian international society was derivedfrom
Confucianism that aimed “the supportand maintenance of the moral,
social, andcultural order of social peace and harmony”(Suzuki 2009,
p. 34). As a consequence, thejustificatory foundations for the
principle ofsovereignty within the order were tomaintain the social
hierarchy that wouldpromote cosmic harmony. Moreover,drawing his
analysis from the time of theMing (1368-1644) and Qing
(1644-1911),Suzuki (2009) claims that the systemic normof
procedural justice were the Tribute
-
Journal of ASEAN Studies 5
System that prescribed ‘rightful’ state action(p. 37-38).
Both Kang’s and Suzuki’s article aregiving insights into an
Asian internationalrelations. Nevertheless, the position of
othernon-Chinese states within the hierarchicalorder has not been
really elaborated. InSuzuki’s (2009) article, he admits that
theposition of non-Chinese states depended onthe degree to which
the Chinese judgedthem to have been assimilated into Chineseculture
and their geographical proximity toChina (pp. 37-38). Hence, it is
necessary toexplores pre-colonial Southeast Asia asthere are
evidences of interactive dynamicsthat constitute international
structurewithin that region.
Having been comparing and contrastingKang’s and Suzuki’s
article, this paper triesto synthesize their arguments to
understandthe dynamic of interaction between the pre-colonial
Southeast Asian Empires and thehierarchical East Asian
international society.The paper explores the pre-colonialSoutheast
Asian empires using Reus Smit’sthree normative beliefs of
constitutionalstructure and draws on Wendtianconstructivism to
explain the logic ofanarchy that shaping the interaction.
Wendt (1992) makes his famous claimon the logic of anarchy that
‘anarchy is whatstates make of it’. He asserts that theabsence of
hierarchic authority in theinternational system does not
inevitablyequate to perpetual interstate conflict in aself-help
environment, as neo-realistscontend. Moreover, Wendt argues
thatanarchy is only a permissive cause ofconflict and not an
efficient cause.
In relation to Kang’s article, Wendt istaking different position
as he argues that itis the social and ideational, rather
thanmaterial aspect of international politicswhich determines how
actors behave.Furthermore, Wendt also asserts that stateshave the
ability to transform the socialstructure within which they operate.
From
this understanding, Wendt creates theconcept of ‘culture of
anarchy’ which is thebodies of norms and institutions that makeup
an international social structure (Flawith2011, p.266).
Wendt argues that there are at leastthree configurations that
the internationalsociety may take, the ‘Hobbesian’, ‘Lockean’,and,
‘Kantian’ anarchies. A Hobbesiananarchy refers to the true
‘self-help’ systemwhere there are constant existential threatsof
warfare between states (Wendt 1999, pp.259-260). Lockean anarchy is
characterisedby a rivalry and as a consequence, stateswill form
‘status-quoism’ towards eachother. Moreover, violence is recognised
as alegitimate way to settle disagreements andwarfare is one way to
form a balance ofpower (Wendt 1999, pp. 279). WhereasKantian
anarchy is the most cooperativeculture of anarchy in which states
identifythe other as friends and collective security isthe dominant
norm (Wendt 1999, p. 297).However, these three configurations are
notmutually exclusive. As Wendt furtherexplains, there are still
rooms for differentconfigurations based on different
identitiesbecause states have the ability to transformthe social
structure within which theyoperate (Rother 2012, p. 57)
Before elaborating the dynamics ofinteraction between the two
regions, therehas to be an understanding of whatconstitute the
pre-colonial Southeast Asianinternational structures in which
isdiscussed in the following section.
TheMajapahit Empire and The SoutheastAsian International
Society
In the course of Asian studies prior tothe European intrusion in
the Indianarchipelago in mid-19th Century, thetraditional
international order is oftenconsidered consisted of civilized
(China)and barbarians (Southeast Asian states). As
-
6 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
Kang (2007) points out in his article, theChinese emperor
required the barbarians todemonstrate formal obedience in the
formof kowtow in order not to be invaded (p.169). In Kang’s view,
Southeast Asia was aperipheral region, a part of the “rim land”.The
minimal role of Southeast Asiacontinued to play until well into
thetwentieth century where both the US andthe Soviet Union,
superpowers at that time,were vitally interested in the politics
andthe economic potential of the region.
Despite very few studies havespecifically examined
pre-colonialSoutheast Asian region from an IRperspective, this
region was in factinteresting to examine due to its
uniquestructures. The Southeast Asian region isnot a unit in the
religious, historical,geographical, or ethnic senses. There are
atleast four different religions in SoutheastAsia, which are Islam,
Hinduism,Buddhism, and Christianity. Historically,the whole
Southeast Asia never came underthe rule of a single state or
empire. On themainland, the Khmers created a largeempire, which at
its height in the 9th to the13th Centuries embraced the region
fromBurma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, andSouth Vietnam (SarDesai
2010, p. 2). Therewere other large polities in
pre-colonialSoutheast Asia, but they did not cover theentire
region. However, during the goldenera of the Majapahit Empire
notably underthe Prime Minister, Gajah Mada (1331-1364), large area
of Southeast Asia wasunder the Majapahit Empire.
Therefore, in the pre-colonial SoutheastAsia era, the greatness
of the MajapahitEmpire could not be neglected. TheMajapahit,
literally means the bitter fruit,was an empire of 98 tributaries
stretchingfrom Sumatra to New Guinea whichconsists of present day
Indonesia,Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, SouthernThailand, the
Philippines, and East Timor(SarDesai 2010). Moreover, the capital
of
Majapahit was situated in Trowulan, EastJava. It was one of the
last major empires ofthe region and considered to be one of
thegreatest and most powerful empires in thehistory of Southeast
Asia due to its political,economic, and social influences.
Scholars who study the MajapahitEmpire are mostly interested in
the courseof history, the matter of structure, foreignrelations,
and how the Majapahit shapeinternational relations in the
regionunfortunately have been neglected for manydecades. In this
part, an attempt has beenmade to examine the structure of
theMajapahit, the type of order, and the sourcesof legitimacy that
bounded the empire.
The constitutional structures of theSoutheast Asian
international society wereprimarily derived from ancient
Indianpolitical discourse based on the book ofArthasastra by
Mauryan Chief Minister,Kautilya in the 4th Century (Boesche 2003,
p.9). Furthermore, Kautilya’s concept, theMandala was then adopted
by Wolters(1968) to denote pre-colonial SoutheastAsian political
formations. The regionalsystem was built of larger political unit,
inwhich the dependencies preserved a greatdeal of internal autonomy
in exchange foracknowledging the pole’s spiritualauthority (Gesick
1983, p. 3). SoutheastAsian polities did not conform to theChinese
view as the polity defined by itscentre rather than its boundaries,
and itcould be composed of numerous othertributary polities without
undergoingadministrative integration (Dellios 2003).
The Mandala displayed thecosmopological characteristics of
Hindu-Buddhist persuasion prior to the expansionof European
international society. Mandalais a Sanskrit word for ‘sacred
circle’ inwhich humans become ‘centred’ and diffusethat state of
being outwards into action(Grey 2001, p. 2). Therefore, the
Mandalahighlights the importance of charismaticleadership in a
political system that
-
Journal of ASEAN Studies 7
fluctuates. Moreover, whoever can claim thecentre of this
system, can claim the title ofuniversal emperor, ‘the
cakravartin’.
The Mandala in its sacred dimensions isa centring device for
spiritual purposes.When this idea was applied to the politicalfield
within religiously oriented society, itpermits a political leader
to claim a degreeof divinity. Such was the case in theMajapahit
Empire, particularly when itsPrime Minister Gajah Mada took his
famousoath ‘Sumpah Palapa’. Gajah Mada saidthat he would not taste
“palapa” (fruits /spices) until he could unify externalterritories
under the Majapahit (Purwadi2004, p. 157). It can be seen that
GajahMada’s oath was based on the Mandalaphilosophy that requires
recognition of theemptiness. The notion of centre consisted ofpower
that is personal and devotionalrather than institutional. It was
the ability ofGajah Mada to tap into ‘cosmic power’through virtuous
behaviour that created thepower of conquest. Thus, Gajah
Madarepresented the charismatic centre of aMandala and is
considered a person of‘prowess’ (Wolters 1968, pp. 94-95).
With the Mandala being a significanttradition of knowledge in
pre-colonialSoutheast Asia, the fundamental interests ofstates, the
Majapahit and other politiesbecame those of enhancing and
protectingthe society and its values. The Mandalabecame the moral
purpose of the Majapahitthat spoke universality through
moralconquest (Dellios 2003).
The organizing principle of sovereigntywithin the Southeast
Asian internationalsociety was thus along the networks ofloyalties.
The Majapahit integrated verticallywith the divinity as well as
horizontallyacross a territory of people, land, andresources
organised in the form of ‘vassalloyalties’ (Tucci 1961, p. 25). In
regards tothis, the principle was applied in thegeopolitical term.
Geopolitical Mandala, asmentioned by Kautilya was about how the
cakravartin being able to deploy his friendsto contain his
enemies. As such, the Mandalaconsists of circles of mitra
(friends), ari(enemies), madhyama (medium power) andudasina (major
powers) with the Vijigisu asthe centre.
In relations to this concentric circle, theMajapahit foreign
relations also adopted thegeopolitical of Mandala. The
Majapahitcreated its concentric circle, defining itsmitra, ari,
madhyama, and, udasina.Nagarakretagama book by the poet
Prapancanoted there were several neighbouringforeign polities that
in friendly terms withthe Majapahit, among those were
Syangka,Ayudhya (Siam), Rajapura, Champa,Kamboja and Yawana
(Slametmuljana2006).
Three important friendly polities of theMajapahit, Champa,
Syangka, and Ayudhyaare worth to be observed. The
Majapahitattempted to build a friendly relations withthe Champa in
particular because theChampa was perceived as rear-friend of
theMajapahit as it had also refused to allow theMongol to use its
harbor for embarkinglogistics during the great invasion of
KublaiKhan upon Java in the end of 13th Century.The similar case
applied to the Syangka thathad been seen opposed the
Chola’sdomination in Indian sub-continent, inwhich the Majapahit
also refused to accept.The Majapahit maintained a good
relationswith the Syangka because it adopted thedoctrine “my
enemy’s enemy is my friend”.While for the Ayudhya, the
Majapahitmaintained relations with the Ayudhyabecause it had
established over thepopulations of the Central Indo
ChinesePeninsula where there was no record of theinfluence of the
Majapahit Empire(Slametmuljana 1976, pp. 144-146). Theobservation
shows that in the first twocases, the Majapahit tried to assure
that hisari (The Mongol and Chola) wasaccordingly counterbalanced
by his mitra(the Champa and Syangka). Whereas the
-
8 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
latter case shows that the Majapahit foreignrelations also tried
to accommodate theinterests of its empire as well as themadhyama
(the Ayudhya). The followingdiagram tries to illustrate the way
geopolitical Mandala being contextualize bythe Majapahit:
Diagram 1. TheMajapahit’s GeopoliticalMandala
Adopted from Rosita Dellios’ (2003) description of the statal
circle
The third normative belief, which is thesystemic norms of
procedural justice, laid inthe conduct of diplomacy within
thestructures. There were two distinguishedforms of diplomacy that
the Majapahitexercised, which were through smalltributary system
and marriage. Thetributary system, although it was a smallannual
tribute, had a role as a ‘ritual justice’within the Southeast Asian
internationalsociety. The Majapahit required only a smallamount of
tribute from the ruler of anycountry to be recognized as the
Majapahit’ssuzerainty and to be classified as a‘dependency’
(Slametmuljana 1976, p. 136).By giving a small tribute,
dependencieswere promised effective protection againstpotential
threats. However, unlike theChina’s tribute system, the
Majapahit’s
dependencies were required to makesubstantive contribution to
the wealth oftheir suzerain (Shu 2012b, 50). To be morespecific,
the highly regarded substantivecontribution was to present valuable
localproducts as their tributes annually.
The other form of diplomacy wasforming alliance through
marriage. Oneprominent example of this was whenHayam Wuruk, the
Majapahit’s king duringits golden era, decided to marry a
princessof Sunda named Dyah Pitaloka as an effortto obtain the
Kingdom of Sunda in 1357.Unfortunately, the effort failed because
ofthe Maharaja of Sunda rejected Gajah Mada’srequest to delineate
the marriage as atribute to the Majapahit.
Vijigisu (centre)The Majapahit
Udasina (Major Power)China (Ming Dynasty)
Mitra (Friend)Syangka
Madhyama (Middle Power)Ayudhya
Mitra (Friend)Champa
Other Mandalas in GreaterMekong
Other Mandalas in MalayPeninsula
Ari (Enemy)The Mongol
Ari (Enemy)The Chola Dynasty
-
Journal of ASEAN Studies 9
From the above exploration of theconstitutional structures of
Southeast Asianinternational society with the Majapahit as afocus,
one remaining question lies: “howdid the structures shape the
Majapahit’sinteraction with the East Asian internationalsociety?”
The next part discusses how theMajapahit identities informed
fundamentalinterest in its interaction with the China’stributary
system and its implication to theanarchy-hierarchy understanding
withinthe region.
TheMajapahit and the China’s TributarySystem: TheMandala Culture
of Anarchy
The previous part has informed that thepre-colonial Southeast
Asian internationalsociety had different constitutionalstructures
to the East Asian. There was alsoa Southeast Asian Empire, the
Majapahitthat ruled over large area of Southeast Asia.The
interaction between the Chinese empireand pre-colonial Southeast
Asian politieswas relatively limited in the early imperialperiod.
The historical interactions of Chinaand pre-colonial Southeast Asia
werestarted from 6th Century onwards,predominantly constructed by
merchants,traders, and missionaries passing throughthe region (Peng
Er & Teo 2012, p. 4).
Trade in the form of tributary systemwas therefore the dominant
practices in theinteraction. The narrative of the Chineseworld
order has been grand to examine thepattern of interaction. It has
been said thatthe vassal states had to pay tribute to theChinese
Emperor confirming thesuperiority of the Chinese culture
andcivilization (Peng Er & Teo 2012, p. 5).
Having examined the differentconstitutional structures of
Southeast Asianinternational society, this section debatesthe
nature of the act of paying tribute to theChinese Emperor. The
tribute was actuallythe practice of ‘trade strategy’ for a
better
market access to the major Kingdoms inEast Asia, rather than
acknowledgement oftheir superiority. It debates Kang’s
(2010)argument that China for most of the timehad been culturally,
economically, andmilitary dominated the region. Moreover,the paper
also debates Shu’s (2012a)argument that Southeast Asian polities
werekeen to be involved in the hierarchical EastAsian international
society to seek imperialrecognition (Shu 2012a, p. 15-16).
TheMajapahit apparently did not seekrecognition when it “paid”
tribute to theChinese emperor as many scholars havesuggested.
From the interpretation of itsgeopolitical Mandala, the
Majapahit wasalways perceived its interaction with theChinese
Empire as engaging with theudasina (major powers) in order to build
afavourable regional architecture. It iswithout doubt that the
Majapahit hadregularly dispatched its own envoys to theMing
Dynasty, but it was carried out tomanage the constantly changing
andevolving regional challenges (Pramono2010). Moreover, the
fundamental interestof the Majapahit was to benefit from thehighly
profitable trade, to open access to theChina’s market and
products.
Furthermore, unlike Suzuki’s (2009)claim that the lesser states
never challengedthe constitutive norms of the order (p. 35),
theMajapahit had challenged the system severaltimes. For instance,
when the Ming envoywent to Brunei in 1370 to demand the polityto
acknowledge the Chinese power for areturn of full protection
(Laichen 2010, 46),The Majapahit soon warned the Brunei notto pay
tribute to China. Had the Majapahitwas considered itself to be in
the samestructure with the hierarchical East Asianinternational
society, the Majapahit wouldnot have interfered to the Ming
Envoy’srequest.
Furthermore, the immediate reactionfrom the Majapahit was
because Brunei had
-
10 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
been one of the vassal polities of theMajapahit. Hence, Brunei
conformed to theMajapahit order and thus only sent onemission to
China and continued to payannual tribute to the Majapahit (Wang
1968,p. 51). The best analysis on why Bruneidecided to act in
favour of the Majapahitwas because the geopolitical Mandala
madeSoutheast Asian polities to perceive theirintensified security
threats came from theirneighbours, rather than from China. At
thattime, Brunei saw the Majapahit as the onethat could give better
protection thananyone else.
The other analysis for Brunei behaviourcan be scrutinized by
examining thedifferent values and norms that both theBrunei and the
China held. Confucianismwas of little significance to the
pre-colonialSoutheast Asian polities. As Wolters (1999)points out,
most of the pre-colonialSoutheast Asian Empires practiced
theMandala’s knowledge. Due to lack of sharedcultural understanding
and a commonvalue system, China’s intention towardsBrunei was
misunderstood and resisted(Shu 2012b, pp. 50-51). China, therefore,
hadfailed to generate desired outcomes on pre-colonial Southeast
Asia.
Nonetheless, there had also been severalmoves from China to
balance the power ofthe Majapahit in the region. One examplewas
when the Ming Dynasty created newalignments of power in
pre-colonialSoutheast Asia with the Kingdom of Melakain the 15th
Century. The move had greateffects on the political topography as
thesupport provide by the Ming helpedMelaka to experience a rapid
rise during theearly of 15th Century (Wade 2010, p. 31).The rise of
Melaka, which was an IslamicKingdom, squeezed the Majapahit
influencein the first quarter of the 16th Century(SarDesai 2010,
pp. 53-54).
As the Majapahit declined because of itsbad governance following
the demise ofPrime Minister Gajah Mada and the death
of the charismatic leader Hayam Wuruk in1389, the Chinese
trading fleets started todominate most of the trading activities
inpre-colonial Southeast Asia. As Reidsuggested, it was the
starting point for the‘Age of Commerce’ to emerge in the
region,introducing spices to the world (Wade 2010,p. 4).
The dynamic interactions between thepre-colonial Southeast Asian
Empire withthe China’s tributary system haveenlightened the nature
of order in pre-colonial Southeast Asian region. The
aboveexploration demonstrates that hierarchicalChina’s tributary
system was not embeddedin pre-colonial Southeast Asian region.
Assuggested above, the relations between theMajapahit and Chinese
Empires in particularthe Ming Dynasty was merely traderelations and
the Majapahit did not consentto the hierarchical China’s tributary
system.In regards to the pre-colonial SoutheastAsian region, the
hierarchical structure ofEast Asian international society came to
bereplaced by the geopolitical Mandala. TheMajapahit transformed
the social structurewithin which it operate under the logic
ofMandala. Therefore, adopting Wendt’sfamous quote, ‘hierarchical
tributary system iswhat Chinese Empires made of it’.
Furthermore, the pre-colonial SoutheastAsian international
society had beendefining its own approaches to the culturesof
anarchy. The pre-colonial SoutheastAsian international society
positioned itslogic of anarchy in between the Lockeanrivalry and
the Kantian peace. There werestill rivalries in the region as the
Majapahithad been striving for the ‘centrality’ of itspolitical
position in the regional politicallandscape. However, the principal
way toform a balance of power was not throughwarfare but instead
through cooperation.The geopolitical Mandala advised thatstrategic
grouping, manifested in deployingas many friends for the vijigisu
remains vitalin preserving peace, common stability, and
-
Journal of ASEAN Studies 11
common security. From this understanding,states and norms in the
pre-colonialSoutheast Asian international society hadworked to
produce their own logic ofanarchy.
Conclusion
This paper proposed a model based onarea studies and IR theories
to challenge theview that pre-colonial Southeast Asia hadlong been
dominated by China under thetribute system. Many scholars
havesuggested that China influence through thetributary system
wasso prominent for boththe Northeast and Southeast Asian
regions.However asthis paper has examined,international relations
in the pre-colonialSoutheast Asia featured a complex
politicalstructures. The region had developed itsown culture of
anarchy under the Mandalavalues.
The paper has elaborated theconstitutional structures of
internationalsociety in the pre-colonial Southeast Asia,drawing
upon the Majapahit Empire. In thecase of the pre-colonial Southeast
AsianEmpire, the legitimate state was expected topreserve the
Mandala values as a sacredcircle and a cosmic power. It is designed
forthe protection of society and its values Incontrast with the
Confucianism; theMandala was not so much about territory,but about
the relationship between theleader and his/her people. The polity
wasdefined by its centre rather than itsboundaries and it could be
composed ofnumerous other tributary polities withoutundergoing
administrative integration(Dellios 2003). Hence, the
geopoliticalMandala as the organizing principle ofsovereignty was
materialized. The Majapahitmaintained its relationship with
otherpolities based on the concentric circleapproach. Accordingly,
the conduct ofdiplomacy in the form of small tributary
system and building alliance throughmarriage occurred as the
systemic norms ofprocedural justice.
In addition, the investigation of the pre-colonial Southeast
Asian internationalsociety has help to understand the
interplaybetween the Majapahit Empire and theChina-centred tribute
system. The paperquestioned the view that pre-colonialSoutheast
Asian polities were willing tosubmit to the hierarchical order in
East Asiaby taking part in the China-centred tributesystem.
Politically, the pre-colonialSoutheast Asian Empire, particularly
theMajapahit had never been under China’scontrol. The Majapahit
managed to assertstrategic partnership with China as theudasina in
its geopolitical Mandala. Hence,the relationship was merely a
traderelations with the Chinese Empire and not aform of tribute
trade.
Theoretically, this paper has suggestedthat the Southeast Asian
internationalsociety had built their own logic of anarchybased on
the region ideas and culture. The -pre-colonial Southeast Asian
internationalsociety had successfully implemented theMandala from
ancient Indian politicaldiscourse origin with the Southeast
Asianelaboration, building the Mandala culture ofanarchy that focus
on cooperation.
Lastly, theory-guided historical analysiscan also sheds light on
the understanding ofcontemporary international relations.
Eventhough there is no straight line leading fromthe Majapahit
Empire to the modern day ofSoutheast Asia, there has to be
resonancesas norms are rooted in the cultural memoryof a region.
The geopolitical Mandalaremains vital for Southeast Asian states
inconducting their foreign policy. Forinstance, the priorities of
Indonesian foreignpolicy are still determined using theconcentric
circle perspective. Moreover, theway ASEAN manages its
regionalarchitecture by building strategic groupingfrom ASEAN+1,
ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6 to
-
12 The Mandala Culture of Anarchy
East Asia Summit could be the illustrationof ASEAN asserting the
Mandala culture ofanarchy.
About Author
Pandu Utama Manggala, an IndonesianDiplomat, is a Graduate
student at theAustralian National University, Canberra.He is one of
the recipients of the AustraliaAwards scholarship in 2012 and is
currentlyserving as the President of the IndonesianStudents’
Association in the AustralianCapital Territory (PPIA ACT). He
receivedhis Bachelor of Social Science degree, CumLaude in
International Relations from theFaculty of Social and Political
Sciences,Universitas Indonesia (FISIP UI). Hiswritings have been
published in manyjournals and newspaper. His latest piecewas
published in the Ritsumeikan Journalof Asia Pacific, Japan. He is
also the bookeditor in 'Mengarungi Samudera YangBergolak: Sumbangan
Pemikiran DiplomatMuda Indonesia’, published by Center forEducation
and Training, IndonesianMinistry of Foreign Affairs in 2010. He
canbe contacted [email protected]
References
Acharya, A 2003, “Will Asia’s Past Be ItsFuture?”, International
Security, vol. 28, no. 3,pp. 149-164.
Boesche, R 2003, Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra onWar and Diplomacy in
Ancient India, Journal ofMilitary History, vol. 67, no. 1, pp.
9–37.
Bull, H & Watson, A (eds) 1984, TheExpansion of
International Society, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
Dellios, R 2003, “Mandala: From SacredOrigins to Sovereign
Affairs in TraditionalSoutheast Asia”, CEWCES Research Paper,
no.10.
Evans, G & Newnham, J 1998, The PenguinDictionary of
International Relations, PenguinGroup, London.
Flawith, RW 2011, “The Regressing‘Culture of Anarchy’ in Ancient
China and itsImplications for Wendt’s ProgressiveConstructivism”,
Australian Journal ofInternational Affairs, vol. 65, no. 3, pp.
263-282.
Gesick, L 1983, 'Introduction', in L Gesick(ed), Centres,
Symbols, and Hierarchies: Essayson the Classical States of
Southeast Asia,Monograph No. 26, Yale University SoutheastAsia
Studies, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 1-8.
Goh, E 2009, ‘Hegemony, Hierarchy, andOrder’, in WT Tow (ed),
Security Politics in theAsia Pacific: A Regional-Global
Nexus?,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.101-121.
Grey, M 2001, “Encountering the Mandala:The Mental and Political
Architectures ofDependency”, The Culture Mandala, vol. 4, no.2, pp.
1-13.
Kang, D 2007, China Rising: Peace, Power,and Order in East Asia,
Columbia UniversityPress, New York, Chapter 4 ‘Hierarchy
andStability in Asian International Relations’.
Kang, D 2010, East Asia before the West:Five Centuries of Trade
and Tribute, ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York.
Koslowski, R & Kratochwil, FV 1994,‘Understanding Change in
International Politics:the Soviet Empire’s Demise and
theInternational System‘, InternationalOrganization, The MIT Press,
Massachusetts
Laichen, S 2010, ‘Assesing the Ming Rolein China’s Southern
Expansion’, in G Wade & SLaichen (eds), Southeast Asia in the
FifteenthCentury: The China Factor, National Universityof Singapore
Press, Singapore, pp. 44-79.
Lake, D 2009, Hierarchy in InternationalRelations, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca andLondon, Chapter 2 ’International
Hierarchy’.
Lieberman, V 1993, “Local Integration andEurasian Analogies:
Structuring Southeast AsianHistory, c. 1350 -- c. 1830”, Modern
AsianStudies, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 475-572.
Munandar, AA 2008, Ibukota Majapahit,Masa Jaya dan Pencapaian
(The MajapahitCapital, its Golden Age and Achievements),Komunitas
Bambu, Depok.
Peng Er, L and Teo, V (eds) 2012, SoutheastAsia Between China
and Japan, CambridgeScholars Publishing, Newcastle.
Pramono, S 2010, “Negara Nusantara andHer Regional
Architecture”, paper presented in
-
Journal of ASEAN Studies 13
seminar titled “The Emerging Powers andGlobal Governance”, held
by China Centre forContemporary World Studies and RosaLuxemburg
Foundation of Germany in Beijing.
Purwadi, DR 2004, Jejak NasionalismeGajah Mada (Gajah Mada’s
Nationalism), DivaPress, Jogjakarta.
Reus Smit, C 1999, The moral purpose ofthe state, Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Reynolds, CJ 2008, Early Southeast Asia:Selected Essays O.W.
Wolters, CornellUniversity, Ithaca.
Rother, S 2012, “Wendt Meets East:ASEAN Cultures of Conflict and
Cooperation”,Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 47, no. 1, pp.
49-67.
Sardesai, DR 2010, Southeast Asia Past andPresent: Sixth
Edition, Westview Press,Colorado.
Shu, M 2012a, “Balancing in a HierarchicalSystem: Pre-Colonial
Southest Asia and theTribute System”, Waseda Global Forum, no.
8,pp. 1-30.
Shu, M 2012b, “Hegemon and Instability:Pre-Colonial Southeast
Asia under theTributeSystem”, WIAS Research Bulletin, no. 4, pp.
45-62.
Slametmuljana 1976, A Story of Majapahit,Singapore University
Press, Singapore
Slametmuljana 2006, Negara Kretagama,LkiS, Jogjakarta.
Suzuki, S 2009, Civilization and Empire:China and Japan’s
Encounter with EuropeanInternational Society, Routledge, London
and
New York, Chapter 2 ‘The East AsianInternational Society’.
Tucci, G 1961, The Theory and Practice ofthe Mandala, Rider
& Co, London.
Wade, G 2010, ‘Southeast Asia in the 15thCentury’, in G Wade
& S Laichen (eds),Southeast Asia in the Fifteenth Century:
TheChina Factor, National University of SingaporePress, Singapore,
pp. 3-43.
Wang, G 1968, ‘Early Ming Relations withSoutheast Asia: A
Background Essay’, in JK,Fairbank (ed), The Chinese World
Order:Traditional China’s Foreign Relations, HarvardUniversity
Press, Cambridge, pp. 34-62.
Waltz, KN 1979, Theory of InternationalPolitics, Addison-Wesley,
Reading.
Wendt, A 1992, “Anarchy is what statesmake of it”. International
Organization, vol. 46,no. 2, pp. 379–396.
Wendt, A 1999, Social Theory ofInternational Politics, Cambridge
UniversityPress, Cambridge.
Wolters, OW 1968, ‘Ayudhya and theRearward Part of the World’,
Journal of theRoyal Asiatic Society, no. 3 & 4, pp. 166-78.
Wolters, OW 1999, History, Culture andReligion in Southeast
Asian PerspectivesRevised edition, Southeast Asia
ProgramPublications (SEAP) in cooperation with TheInstitute of
Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS),Ithaca & Singapore.