Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2017. xiii, 226 pp. (Tables, maps, illustrations.) US$34.95, paper. ISBN 978-0-520-29599-5.
When John Fairbanks published his 1968 edited volume, The Chinese World Order (Harvard University Press, 1968), he could not have imagined the intensity of the academic debate that would erupt over a few broad generalizations about Chinese history. Controversial from the start, Fairbank’s notion of an enduring tributary system recently gained new traction, especially among East Asian foreign relations experts who gravitate to the concept as a way of framing the rise of China in the twenty-first century. In certain formulations, an essentialist notion of Chinese history contributes to theoretical arguments that a “return” of China to the centre stage of East Asian international relations will stabilize the region just as it had purportedly done in the past. Consequently, the Harvard Asiatic Review (June 2017) dedicated a special issue to challenge what David Howell in the “Editorial Preface” has termed the “second career” of the tributary system in IR theory. East Asian historians caution that China’s relations with its neighbours were constantly in flux, and we need to proceed with care before applying historical models to contemporary international relations.
Historical perspectives that attempt to recall a harmonious past between a Sinocentric centre and an ideal tributary state on the Korean Peninsula inevitably encounter a vast region called Manchuria that disrupts this simple narrative. Seonmin Kim’s work, Ginseng and Borderland: Territorial Boundaries and Political Relations Between Qing China and Chosŏn Korea, 1636–1912, presents a timely intervention into the ongoing debates about the East Asian tributary model through a detailed study of the relationship between the Qing China (1644–1912) and Chosŏn Korea (1392–1910). Even though Chosŏn was considered to be the model tributary of Ming China (1368–1644), Ginseng and Borderland builds on previous scholarship to show that the relationship between China, Manchuria, and Korea took a tripartite form. Chosŏn Koreans not only gave tribute to the Ming, but also received tribute from the Jurchen, who later became the Manchu. The Jurchen found opportunities within this multi-tiered tribute system to interact and gradually challenge their more powerful neighbours (31). The violent beginnings the Qing dynasty, in turn, generated tense interactions with Korea that persisted long after the Manchu invasions in 1627 and 1636. Tributary relations were significant in East Asia, but Kim’s book highlights a long history of conflict and tension that took place under the disguise of tributary rituals (9).
The first two chapters examine the entangled political relationship between Chosŏn and Qing through the lens of ginseng, which was among the “three treasures” (pearls, sable, and ginseng) of the northeast. This herb was the most valuable commodity in the trade with the Ming, and wild ginseng grew in the border area between Korea and Manchuria. Ginseng’s great commercial value framed the Jurchen’s relationship with Chosŏn and generated considerable tension. The Jurchens/Manchus identified strongly with ginseng and the harvest areas became idealized as the boundaries of their territory (20). The founder of the Qing dynasty, Hong Taiji (1592–1643), banned Koreans from trespassing in the ginseng regions of southern Manchuria and removed the commodity from the list of tribute from Chosŏn. The Qing considered ginseng to be a product native to its homeland, and it formed a key part of Manchu notions of distinctiveness. Here, Ginseng and Borderland builds upon the work of historians who demonstrate that the Qing’s policies towards Chosŏn resembled Mongolia, Xinjian, and Tibet rather than the more peaceful relations with Ryukyu Islands and Vietnam (9).
Chosŏn Koreans, in turn, held considerable antipathy towards the Qing because of the memory of conquest and because of their belief that China was ruled by a barbarian people, which left them to become the last heirs of Ming civilization (9). Koreans had no choice but to conduct tributary rituals due to the asymmetrical power imbalance but this did not mean they held respect for the Qing as a model tributary. Kim’s study shows how the undefined region between the Qing and Chosŏn became a “borderland” that contains both features of a frontier and border (15). Chapter 3 explains why the borderland became unoccupied land that generated disputes such as the 1712 Changbaishan border investigation and the 1745 attempt to build a Qing guard post at the mouth of the Yalu River. The 1745 Qing intrusion aimed at warding off ginseng poachers, but it triggered a major crisis among Koreans to preserve their territory and autonomy. The Qing eventually decided not to build the guard post, but only after King Yŏngjo (1694–1776) convinced the Qianlong emperor (1711–1799) to be benevolent to a weaker power by manipulating the traditional rhetoric of the tributary relationship to defend the region (98).
Stable relations between the Qing and Chosŏn gradually emerged but only after the establishment of an understanding that the borderland would remain empty of people. Chosŏn had to actively manage the borderlands to prevent the movement of Koreans into the region for fear of Qing retaliation. The last two chapters 4 and 5 discuss the movement of authorized trade and people through the borderlands down to the final years of the relationship between Qing and Chosŏn. As ginseng became depleted, Chinese and Koreans began to move into the region, which created entirely new dynamic in the late nineteenth century. Ginseng and Borderland demonstrates a considerable degree of Chosŏn agency under the tributary system. While the last two chapters could be better integrated into the main arguments, overall this is a highly readable and detailed study that will be of interest to both East Asian historians and IR specialists alike. The events depicted in Kim’s work may not fit well into a simplistic tributary model, but they do help shed new light on the border history between Qing China and Chosŏn Korea.
Michael Kim
Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea