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 atpandu.manggala@anu.edu.au

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.