View the H-Empire Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Empire's July 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-Empire's July 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-Empire home page.
> From: Frank Conlon <conlon@u.washington.edu> > Subject: REVIEW: Smith on Mosca, -From Frontier Policy to Foreign Policy: The Question of India and the Transformation of Geopolitics in Qing China > [cross-post from] H-ASIA > July 8, 2013 > > Book Review (orig. pub. H-Diplo) by Richard J. Smith on Matthew W. Mosca. From Frontier Policy to Foreign Policy: The Question of India and the Transformation of Geopolitics in Qing China. > > (x-post H-Review) > ************************************************************************ > From: H-Net Staff <revhelp@mail.h-net.msu.edu> > > Matthew W. Mosca. From Frontier Policy to Foreign Policy: The > Question of India and the Transformation of Geopolitics in Qing > China. Stanford Stanford University Press, 2013. 408 pp. $60.00 > (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8047-8224-1. > > Reviewed by Richard J. Smith (Rice University) > Published on H-Diplo (July, 2013) > Commissioned by Seth Offenbach > > Matthew W. Mosca has made a graceful and substantial contribution to > our understanding not only of late imperial China (the expansive and > multicultural Qing Empire in particular) but also of Inner Asian > politics, the growth of "British" India, and the nature of global > interactions during the period from 1750 to 1860. His basic interest > is in the way that China's rulers, officials, and scholars > interpreted the rising power of the British in India, and how their > understanding of the unfolding geopolitical situation on China's > remote southwestern borders influenced Qing policymaking. In the > process, he traces, as the title of his book suggests, the > transformation of China's "frontier policy"--one based on "regionally > specific" political and military strategies--into a genuine "foreign > policy," predicated on the idea of "a single hierarchy of imperial > interests framed in reference to a unified outside world" (pp. 2-3). > > Ultimately, the author argues that "this shift in outlook led to a > revolution in how Qing rulers and subjects perceived their position: > no longer unique, the Qing empire became one among several large > entities locked in [international] competition" (p. 3). One may > question, however, how truly "revolutionary" this transformation > was--especially since the author's chronological framework ends at a > point where China's engagement with "modern" Western diplomacy had > just begun. From that time onward, it seems to me, there remained > significant vestiges of a "frontier" mentality on the part of many > Qing officials and even some "progressive" scholars. Perhaps the > subtitle of Mosca's conclusion--"Between Frontier Policy and Foreign > Policy"--would be a more apt description of the period covered by his > book than the actual title. Still, there can be no question that > significant changes took place during the time under discussion, and > these changes had important implications for China's foreign > relations throughout the remainder of the Qing period. > > Mosca's introduction lays out with admirable clarity the > historiographical and interpretive issues that frame his study. He > addresses, for example, the debate surrounding the idea of a Chinese > "tributary system," as well as the question of the degree to which > the vast Qing Empire was truly integrated. Mosca's approach to these > issues, based on a careful analysis of Chinese policy toward British > India from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century, involves > judicious compromises between contending poles of scholarship. > > With respect to the tributary system, for instance, he shows that in > most spheres of Qing policy toward India the formalized features and > ritual procedures associated with tribute giving had little to do > with either the decisions that were made or the actions that were > taken. But he also recognizes that tributary relationships were not > entirely irrelevant to the conduct of Qing foreign relations. His > discussion of the Anglo-Nepal War of 1814-16 sheds important light on > the way the tributary system often worked in practice, with each > party attempting to use the formalized relationship to its own > advantage. > > At this particular time, the Gurkhas, as rulers of Nepal and > tributaries of the Qing, were threatened not only by the British but > also by a tribal group known as the Pileng people. The Gurkhas, > viewing their relationship to the Qing in terms of a strategic > alliance, sought assistance from the Jiaqing emperor against both > adversaries. The Qing government, however, did not credit the claims > of the Gurkhas and refused to help. In fact, the Jiaqing emperor > rebuked the Gurkhas for their narrow self-interest and their apparent > deceit, informing them that failure to deliver their tributary > products on time would be considered "treason" (_beipan_). In short, > from the Qing government's standpoint, tribute was exclusively > bilateral. As long as it was submitted on schedule, "the Qing > [rulers] would neither constrain their agreements with other states > nor [necessarily] support them in their quarrels" (p. 179). To be > sure, there were occasions when the Chinese state gave substantial > military assistance to its tributaries (notably to Korea in the late > sixteenth century), but it did so almost exclusively in defense of > its own strategic interests. > > As to the issue of the degree to which the Qing Empire was > "integrated," Mosca argues that "before 1800, the Qing realm was an > amalgamation of diverse conquered peoples united by common > subordination to the same ruling house. Although the emperor and a > small cohort of high advisers had a panoramic view over the entire > domain, on the ground the administration of different regions relied > heavily on indigenous power holders following their local political > traditions" (p. 3). But around 1800, as the capabilities of the > imperial court began to diminish, networks of Han Chinese literati > (as opposed to Qing bureaucrats) eventually produced a relatively > coherent vision of the threat posed by European imperialism. They > also devised a more or less coordinated strategy for dealing with it. > > Mosco's first chapter 1 ("A Wealth of Indias: India in Qing > Geographic Practice") demonstrates vividly that information about the > world beyond China's borders was abundant but extremely varied in > quality. It is not quite correct to assert (as the author does, > probably for rhetorical effect) that in the early Qing, "Chinese > geographers had too much information about the outside world" (p. > 26). It is perhaps more accurate to say that they had too much _bad_ > information about the outside world, and they lacked mechanisms by > which to sort it out effectively. This produced what Mosca calls > "geographic agnosticism"--the idea that "some claims [about the > outside world] might be preferred and others doubted, but none could > be absolutely endorsed or eliminated" (p. 26). > > The author goes on to recount some of the problems and confusions > that this situation produced for Qing policymakers. One of the main > difficulties was a lack of consistency in the transliteration of > foreign names. In the absence of any clear conventions, and > complicated by the problem of several different dialects (for an > example in Western transliteration, compare Beijing [Mandarin > pronunciation] and Peking [Cantonese pronunciation]), there might be > any number of names for the same place. "India," variously rendered > as Tianzhu, Shendu, Yindu, Xindu, Xindusi, Yingdiya, etc., is a case > in point. Traditional Chinese mapmaking produced similar problems. > Although Chinese cartographers were capable of making mathematically > precise renderings of space, a great number of different types of > maps circulated in Qing times, many produced for reasons that had > little to do with calibrating precise distances or conveying accurate > proportions. > > Chapter 2 ("The Conquest of Xinjiang and the Emergence of > 'Hindustan,' 1756-1790") does a splendid job of recounting and > explaining Qing political and military policy in Central Asia at a > time that coincided, more or less, with the decline of the Mughal > Empire (conventional dates: 1526-1857). Mosca's discussion is > extraordinarily nuanced and, as with several other sections of the > book, it is not designed for people who describe themselves as "not > good with names." In addition to detailing military operations and > diplomatic negotiations, Mosca explains--both in this chapter and the > next ("Mapping India: Geographic Agnosticism in a Cartographic > Context")--why it was that, despite the Qianlong emperor's earnest > efforts to acquire and "synthesize" knowledge of India during the > course of his campaigns in Xinjiang (the "New Territory"), the Qing > court failed to achieve a meaningful degree of data coordination. As > Mosca puts it: "the centrifugal force of an influx of new terminology > and information overpowered even the centripetal pull of the court's > ordering efforts" (p. 70). > > The great achievement of chapter 3 is its cogent analysis of the vast > surveying projects undertaken by the Qing court under the Kangxi, > Yongzheng, and Qianlong emperors. This discussion, which emphasizes > the understudied mapping projects of the Yongzheng reign, nicely > complements the cartographically oriented work of scholars such as > Laura Hostetler (_Qing Colonial Enterprise, Ethnography and > Cartography in Early Modern China_ [2001]). It also indicates with > new research both the achievements and the limitations of the Jesuit > missionaries who were employed as technicians by the Qing court. A > point of particular interest in this chapter is the way that certain > inherited assumptions about the shape of the Chinese Empire--Tibet in > particular--influenced maps of India. Mosca asks and answers: "would > the imperially approved image of Tibet, made by trusted Qing > surveyors, yield to the latest European data? It would not" (p. 115). > > Chapter 4 ("Discovering the 'Pileng': British India Seen from Tibet, > 1790-1800") describes the place of Tibet in Chinese strategic > calculations at a time (the 1760s) when the British "began to eye the > Himalayas as a potential route of trade with China" (p. 129). Here we > see how the Qing government's decisive conquest of the Junghars (aka > Dzungars), which took place from 1755 to 1759, lured the Manchus into > a false sense of security. As Mosca indicates in his introduction, > "Qing policy diverged from that of its neighbors, ultimately at great > cost to its security." Why? Because after this resounding victory, > the Manchus "had a completely different perception of prevailing > geopolitical dynamics and the extent of foreign threats" (p. 9). One > of the most interesting sections in chapter 4 is Mosca's analysis of > the possible influence of the Gurkha Wars (1788-93) on the outcome of > the famous mission of Lord George Macartney to China in 1793-94. > Although the evidence is both ambiguous and contradictory, it is > possible that Lord Macartney was at least partially correct in > surmising that the negative Qing reaction to his embassy "was > conditioned by the court's knowledge of British power in India" (p. > 150). > > Although virtually every page of Mosca's book brings new information > to light, and in many of these pages we find sharp and valuable > insights, chapters 5 ("British India and Qing Strategic Thought in > the Early Nineteenth Century") and 6 ("The Discovery of British India > on the Chinese Coast, 1800-1838") seem particularly fresh and > illuminating. In them, Mosca examines the dramatic rise of British > power in Asia from three perspectives: the eastern seacoast, Tibet, > and Xinjiang. In the case of the China coast, Great Britain's > presence in the early nineteenth century was not only economic (as is > well known), but also military (for example, the British made two > attempts to occupy the Portuguese port of Macao). And yet, as Mosca > points out, officials in south China, including the strategically > important area of Guangzhou (aka Canton), had little interest in > learning about British India. > > Meanwhile, on the Tibetan frontier, as discussed earlier, the Qing > government evinced no real concern with the British role in the > Anglo-Nepal War, and felt "no moral or strategic need to defend the > Gurkha regime by force," despite its tributary status (p. 184). The > same was true for Central Asia (Xinjiang), despite British efforts to > extend their influence into the area (for example, the so-called > Moorcroft Expedition). Mosca concludes: "Seen in Eurasian > perspective, the most striking feature of official Qing strategic > thought between 1790 and the 1830s is that it remained unaltered by > the rise of British power in Asia" (p. 191). The author ascribes this > situation less to inadequate intelligence gathering than to a lack of > centralization in the process. > > Chapter 6, which more or less parallels chapter 5 chronologically, > shifts the focus of inquiry from official policies and procedures to > the new role assumed by Han literati after 1800. Here we see evidence > of the emerging "private" study of India on the maritime frontier. > Many of the names are familiar to students of nineteenth-century > Chinese history--Ruan Yuan, Chen Lunjiong, Li Zhaoluo, Li Mingche, > and Bao Shichen--but many are not, including figures such as Yan > Ruyi, Xie Qinggao, Yi Kezhong, and Xiao Lingyu. In any event, Mosca > sheds new light on their ideas and influence. Taken together the > writings of these scholars "began to corrode the three major pillars > of the frontier policy"--the uncritical accumulation of local data, > the loose link between geographic research and strategic policy > proposals, and the tendency to focus on individual cases or "units of > responsibility" rather than a broader perspective (pp. 232, 233). > > Chapter 7 ("The Opium War and the British Empire, 1839-1842"), like > chapter 6, covers familiar territory, but again presents new > perspectives. Here, Commissioner Lin Zexu naturally looms large, but > the emphasis, to a much greater extent than in previous > Western-language studies of the man, is on the remarkable and > previously underappreciated mechanisms of intelligence gathering > during the first Opium War. Of particular interest in this chapter is > the author's description of Commissioner Lin's efforts to acquire > information from China's southern and western frontiers. "By 1842," > Mosca writes, "lines of intelligence gathering using multiple sources > in different places had underscored India's key role in British > power" (p. 269). And yet within the Qing bureaucracy, the empire's > strategic position was still seen through the prism of frontier > policy. > > Chapter 8 ("The Emergence of a Foreign Policy: Wei Yuan and the > Reinterpretation of India in Qing Strategic Thought, 1842-1860") > revisits the much-studied career of Wei Yuan (1794-1856) and his > famous book, _Haiguo tuzhi_ (Illustrated treatise on the maritime > kingdoms (1844). Here, too, Mosca makes a valuable contribution by > focusing in particular on Wei's analysis of British India, and the > problems he faced in deciphering and correlating vast amounts of > geographical and other data for his book. Mosca also sheds useful > light on such individuals as Wei's collaborator and fellow > researcher, Yao Ying, who assisted in intelligence gathering in > Tibet. > > In placing Wei in broader perspective, Mosca points out that "a cause > and consequence of Wei's geographic achievement [the _Haiguo tuzhi_] > was a growing rapprochement between text and map" (pp. 279-280). > Indeed, his work marked a "watershed" in the history of Qing > geographic research on the "outside world" because it "succeeded in > bringing into dialogue elements from virtually all geographic > traditions within the Qing empire" (p. 285). And on the basis of his > careful research, Wei devised a foreign policy that "put him on > common ground with at least some Russian, Nepali and British > geo-strategists" (p. 301). This policy, as Mosca convincingly > demonstrates, did not involve any of the traditional "ideological > ties binding tributary states to the Qing emperor" (p. 302). > > As indicated above, I believe that Mosca has somewhat overstated the > degree to which, by the mid-nineteenth century, "multiple sources of > intelligence, once virtually incommensurable, were now coordinated > and interpreted with relative ease even if certain details remained > problematic" (pp. 308-309). It is true, of course, that the conduct > of Qing foreign relations became increasingly coordinated after 1860, > "buttressed by new institutions" (such as the Zongli Yamen, a > proto-foreign office created in 1861 as a subcommittee of the Grand > Council) (p. 309). We should remember, however, that the Zongli Yamen > was an ad hoc institution essentially forced upon the Qing government > by the Conventions of Beijing (1860), which mandated official > diplomatic representation at the Chinese capital. Moreover, the > presence in Beijing of foreign diplomats (such as Frederick Bruce) > and foreign advisers (such as Robert Hart) during the remainder of > the Qing period did much to shape official Chinese perceptions of the > world. > > Mosca ends his book with a number of useful research suggestions, one > of which is a plea for further investigations into "the way > information circulation had a differential impact on various groups > within the Qing empire between 1860 and 1911 as they interpreted how > external trends impinged upon the continued viability of its internal > political order" (p. 310). This sort of research, if carried out as > carefully and creatively as Mosca has done, would be most welcome > indeed. > > Citation: Richard J. Smith. Review of Mosca, Matthew W., _From > Frontier Policy to Foreign Policy: The Question of India and the > Transformation of Geopolitics in Qing China_. H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. > July, 2013. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=38738 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > --
|