Two Models Of Traditional China's Foreign Relations

In ancient China, nine dynasties beginning from Qin and Han achieved the unification of central Huaxia Area,altogether accounting for 1499 years out of China's alleged 5000 years history. Through comparative study, case study and statistical method, this paper expounds and proves that these dynasties simultaneously carried out two entirely different foreign relations models. In southeast tributary system, these dynasties mainly carried out a non-expansion and irenical foreign relations model. Although these dynasties always possessed a monopole power over South Asian states, none of them ever tried to militarily conquer or control these tributary states to achieve hegemony for long. Wars and conflicts seldom took place. Peaceful co-existence characterized the long evolution of the relationship between China and its tributary states. In contrast, towards the northwest nomadic tribes, these dynasties carried out a typical realpolitik model with a preference for offensive strategies: seeing the tribes as enemies or adversaries, these dynasties tried to eliminate them through the use of force. The choice between offensive and accommodation depended upon the comparative strength between two parties.Therefore, any attempt at generalizing about the behavior of traditional China's foreign relations from only one single model risks bias and one-sidedness.In order to explore the root of these two models, the paper establishes a framework for analyzing a country's behavior: a country's foreign policy is driven and limited by two kinds of factors: national interests cognition (mainly including security interests and economic interests) and systematic structure (mainly including the distribution of material capabilities and the distribution of shared ideas).Based on this framework, the conclusions of the paper are as follows:Firstly, in ancient China, the thought of emphasizing agriculture while restraining commerce constructed particular national economic interest cognition: food production is national wealth, with agriculture being the only source of national wealth; in order to develop agriculture, commerce must be restrained. This cognition made peninsula or island states in tributary system unattractive to the emperors of ancient China because their lands were not good for farming. Restraining commerce at home, the emperors also strictly limited overseas trade. In Chin's history, they never invaded the tributary states in order to seize commercial profit. This made a sharp contrast with Western countries'behavior in colonial system in 16th-19th centuries. Therefore, as the weak tributary states were not threats to the dynasties'security, the emperors were satisfied with a non-expansion and irenical foreign relations model. A Kantian-like systematic structure appeared between the dynasties and other tributary states.Secondly, in northwest direction, natural selection resulted in a lasting Hobbesian systematic structure between the dynasties and northwest nomadic tribes. These tribes, characterized by strong military and deprived economy, posed a grave threat to the dynasties'security. According to the logic of Hobbesian anarchy, what states facing an enemy must do, in sum, is engaging in no-holdsbarred power politics. So the dynasties'foreign policy in this direction embodied a typical realpolitik model.The research on traditional China's foreign relations also suggests that the special factors underlying the two fundamental historical models have diminished over the years. Therefore, directly copying historical models cannot predict the future of rising China's foreign policy. In order to answer the questions like"whither china?"people must analyze contemporary China's cognition about its own core interests and the characteristics of international systematic structure in which China places itself.