International relations as the topic usually is taught at the university has next to no historical depth. In an introductory class your teacher might tell you that the basic rules of international politics were established in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War in the seventeenth-century, or you might hear something about European colonialism in the nineteenth-century and perhaps a word or two about the First World War. Once the class gets going, however, historical references are unlikely to stretch further back than to 1945. It is as though the world was created less than a hundred years ago.
In addition, international politics as it usually is taught is hopelessly Eurocentric. That is, the discipline takes Europe as the standard by which every other part of the world is measured — although “Europe” here also includes the United States and other places where the Europeans have settled. The European model is obviously the most important one, your teacher will imply, since this is the model that came to organize international politics everywhere else. The world in which we live today is the world which the Europeans made in their own image.
One of the most important things you learn at the university is to question authorities, and this includes the authority of your teachers. No matter how smart or well read, your teacher’s perspective will always be only one perspective among many. There is always another story to tell. In this book we will tell other stories. Our historical perspective goes back to the first millennium CE and our perspective is explicitly non-European. This is a textbook on international politics which takes history seriously and which puts Europe firmly in its place. Europe matters too of course but, as it turns out, not all that much — not once we take at historical look at the world as as a whole. It is simply not the case that the history of other parts of the world began the day the first European colonizers arrived. The Europeans did not, as a previous generation of scholars used to argue, “awaken” the natives, or “invite them into world history.” Non-Europeans were always plenty awake, thank you very much, and the idea that the history of Europe is equal to history of the world is just ridiculous. In this book it is these non-European histories we are going to tell, and we will try to tell them on their own terms, not as they were impacted by, or had an impact on, Europe.
And, just to be clear, this alternative perspective is not motivated by an attempt to be ”politically correct.” The aim is not to set the record straight out of a concern for balance or respect for people who are marginalized and silenced. These are worthwhile concerns to be sure, but our task is far more fundamentally to provide the kind of information you need in order to understand today’s world. History is constantly making itself present and today people and countries outside of Europe are asserting themselves. The world is once again changing and changes, once under way, can be quick and dramatic. Today Europe and North America play a far less important role in world politics than in the past century, and in the future this role is likely to become less important still. The world is about to flip and our perspective on the past must be revised. The traditional European version of world history is no longer valid.
As you soon will discover, this book is very much an introductory textbook and anyone with a proper background in world history is bound to find the text far too basic. Yet chances are you do not have a proper background in world history, and if that indeed is the case, there is a lot here for you to learn. Think about the text that follows as a form of remedial education. It provides a chance for you to make up for the gaps that exist in your knowledge of things that all educated people should know.
Comparative international systems
A textbook on world history might appear to be a somewhat mad undertaking. A book which discusses “everything that ever happened” would surely have to be just as long as history itself. Yet this is not that book. We are not all that interested in events, wars, names and dates. Instead the aim is to introduce you to a field which we might call the “comparative study of international systems.” A system, any system, consists of units which are independent of each other but which at the same time interact on a sufficiently regular basis for it to be impossible to explain the behavior of one them without considering the behavior of all others. There is a systemic effect exercised not by the units but by the terms on which they interact.
An international system is a system made up of political entities that act independently of each other, yet their interaction is sufficiently regular for each one of them to be dependent on all the others. The international system provides an environment which determines, in broad outline, how political entities define their goals and the means to attain them, how they act or refrain from acting, and which rationale they give both for their actions and inactions. The reason the international system can have this impact is that it too has a certain logic. This logic is expressed in institutions, rules and norms. When studying an international system we study the institutions that have been created, the rules by which the interaction takes place and the norms that obtain.
A comparative study of international systems is a study which compares the norms, rules and institutions in different international systems. Yet today there is only one international system. Today international politics is organized in only one way and follows only one logic. Our present international system originated in Europe in the centuries around the year 1500 and spread to the rest of the world only as a result of European colonialism in the nineteenth-century. The rules of international politics are European rules and the norms and institutions are European norms and institutions. There is consequently nothing with which the present international system can be compared.
This is why a comparative study of international systems must be a historical study. There have been many international systems in the past and some of them existed simultaneously and more or less independently of each other. Going back no further than to the middle of the nineteenth-century, we find distinctly non-European ways of organizing international politics and the non-European examples multiply the further back we go in time. These systems had other institutions and they followed other rules and norms. As a result, their members acted differently and for different reasons. Reading about them allows us to take leave of our present world and to visit some very different places. The kind of international politics which your teachers have taught you thus far, it turns out, is only one possible kind of international politics. In this book we will introduce others.
More concretely, we will discuss six different world regions: China and East Asia, India, the Muslim caliphates, the Mongol khanates, India, Africa and the Americas. There is no separate chapter on Persia, although the Persian influences on India and on the Muslim world will be discussed; there is nothing on Australia, and apart from a brief discussion of Hawai’i we will not discuss the Pacific islands; Southeast Asia will be mentioned but only in the context of Indian cultural influences. The final chapter deals with the European expansion and colonialism, but there is no separate chapter on Europe as such.
In addition to the main chapters there are a large number of boxes in which more specific topics are introduced. Many of these topics expand on the story told in the main chapters, but some introduce new material. The purpose is to show the contemporary relevance of the historical material, but also to provide a sense of the culture and traditions of each respective part of the world.
Institutions, rules and norms
An international system consists of political entities, we said, and normally we would simply call them “states.” This is at least what they have been called in the European international system since the beginning of the sixteenth-century CE. From about the same time states have been thought of as “sovereign.” A sovereign state is a state which exercises supreme authority within a given territory. A sovereign state determines its own affairs in accordance with its own interests and aspirations; or rather, in the sixteenth-century, in accordance with the interests and aspirations of its ruler.
Sovereignty is a basic institution of the European international system and as such it implies a number of social practices and administrative arrangements. There are borders to be identified and protected, border-crossings to be guarded, passports to be issued, flags to be flown and national-anthems to be sung. These practices and arrangements are, in turn, associated with various rules and norms. One rule says that all states are equal to each other. All states are the same kinds of entities, doing the same kinds of things, and they all have the same status as members of the same system. They are functionally equal, that is, despite the fact that some obviously are far larger, richer and more powerful than others. As far as the norms of the system are concerned, one example is the norm which says that sovereignty must be respected. States should not interfere in each other’s domestic affairs. All states have a right to self-determination.
In an international system made up of sovereign states there is no common authority. Each state looks after itself and no one takes any responsibility for the system as a whole. The term which scholars of international relations use for this condition is “anarchy.” In an anarchical international system states are permanently insecure and war is a constant threat. Since they cannot trust their neighbors to behave peacefully towards them, each state must be prepared to defend itself, with weapons if need be. Yet this, in turn, only makes the neighbors feel more insecure and they too must arm themselves. States that fail to respond to this logic — states that pursue a more conciliatory policy towards their neighbors — are punished for their naivety. In the end the search for security makes everyone more insecure. And ever so often the threat of war is replaced by actual cases of warfare. Since its inception the European international system has been extraordinarily violent. In the twentieth century alone next to 100 million people died in European wars.
Other international systems have other institutions, other rules and norms. They are all different from each other, to be sure, but also all different from the European system. For one thing, non-European international systems have often contained other political actors than states and in many of them empires have play a prominent role. Moreover, territory has often been understood quite differently. Where land is endlessly abundant, such as on the steppes of Central Asia, possessing a particular piece of it is not important. As a result, borders have a different meaning. Where the borders should be drawn between two countries may matter far less than the relationship which both of them have toward a powerful state in the center of the system. The map of the international system looks like a subway map – it does not tell you much about the features of the land but it tells you how to get from one place to the other.
In such an international system, sovereignty is not going to be a commonly invoked notion. Or rather, sovereignty is not an absolute value as much as a variable. Some political entities are fully independent while others are far less so. Here different political entities are not functionally equal to each other and there is no absolute norm of non-interference. The system is not anarchical in the same way as the European system. In fact, many non-European international systems have been quite hierarchical and held together by means of a common culture and a shared set of values, often under the auspices of a state with imperial ambitions. As a result, its has been possible to assure a measure of prosperity and peace. Yet one should not romanticize. Wars have been common, and horrendously destructive, outside of Europe too.
If we return to Europe with these lessons in mind, we will discover that the European international system looks quite different. From our new, non-European, point of view, we are able to see a number of things that we previously failed to notice. In the European system too, it turns out, there are not only states but a large number of other political entities, and here too empires have often played a prominent role. In general, sovereignty is not the absolute principle which it has been taken to be and the functional equality of states is rarely respected. The European international system too is actually quite hierarchical. Indeed, also Europe is united around a common culture and a set of shared values. By relativizing Europe in this fashion, we can learn more about the rest of the world, but we can learn more about Europe too.
Even from an alternative perspective, however, there will be many things that we cannot see. Indeed, every perspective allows us to notice some things while making us blind to other things. For example, by focusing on states and their relationships we take it for granted that states are the proper subject of history. We assume that world history is equal to the history of the state. There are good reason to question this conclusion.
Today the world is completely divided up between political entities. All territory belongs to one state or another and no land belongs to more than one state. States are mutually exclusive and together exhaustive of political space. Yet this has not always been the case. It was only as a result of the introduction of farming some 12,000 years ago that the first states appeared. Before that, during some 95 percent of human history, we were hunters and gatherers who moved around in response to the seasonal variations in the availability of food. Since they often move, hunters and gatherers are difficult to control. As a result they live in “stateless” societies. Moreover, since they constructed only temporary buildings, there are few ruins for archaeologists to investigate. There are even few graves. As a result, a history of a society of hunters and gatherers is difficult to write. Hunters and gatherers “have no history.”
Farmers are far easier to subdue and exploit. They live in a particular place and cultivate a given plot of land. After the harvest the tax-collectors dispatched by the king show up and demand their due. This is how the first states were established in the valleys of great rivers — the Nile, Euphrates and Tigris, and a few others — some three thousand years BCE. The transition to agriculture and the rise of the state, we have often been told, constituted a great improvement. It was only now that human beings left enduring traces of their activities. This was when culture began. This was when human history started.
Whether the shift to agriculture constituted an improvement can be questioned. Hunters and gatherers seem to have enjoyed a more varied diet than farmers and they were less exposed to contagious diseases. In addition, stateless societies were far more egalitarian than state-dominated societies. The buildings constructed by the first states tell the story. A common form of architecture was the pyramid — the Egyptians famously built them, but so did people in Mesopotamia and in Central America too. The pyramid is the perfect symbol of a hierarchical society. Standing on top of the pyramid, the rulers would look down on their subjects while the subjects all would be forced to look up to the rulers.
There are still hunters and gatherers in the world today but they are not many [Read more: “People of the forest“] Yet there are other kinds of people who make a living by moving around from place to place. Pastoralists are one example and they have been at least as difficult for states to control. Pastoralists are people who keep animals such as sheep, cattle, horses and yaks. Their animals graze the land and when they run out of food in one place the pastoralists move in order to find new pastures for them. As a result, pastoralists too are difficult to tax and they have little respect for borders. Many pastoral societies are stateless, but there are also the occasional pastoral states – the Mongol empire most famous among them. [Read more: ”The Mongol khanates”]
The interior of the Eurasian continent, but the savannas of Africa too, have been good places for pastoralists. Here farming has been impossible to pursue since there is little rain and not many rivers. What there is, however, is an abundance of grassland. As a result, the steppes of Central Asia have been dominated by pastoral groups. These groups have been impossible for the surrounding states to control. [Read more: “The Xiongnu Confederation“] Relying on their fast horses, they have raided the sedentary communities of farmers and laid their hands on all kinds of things that life on the steppe cannot provide. Such “barbarian invasions” is a theme in both Chinese and Indian history. Indeed, invasions by peoples of the steppes have been important in European history too. [Read more: “The Mongol invasion of Europe“]
The point, for our present purposes, is that a study of comparative international systems will misrepresent the past by telling the history of the state, not the history of stateless people. Or rather, when stateless people show up, they do so only to the extent that they impact on states and their sedentary subjects. How incomplete this account is becomes obvious when we remember that much of the world until recently was populated by nomads. It was only in the 1890s, when the first railways were built, that the interior of the continents came under the effective control of states. It was only now that the government of the United States finally subdued societies of native Americans and that the Chinese government was able to properly police its borders with Mongolia. Throughout the nineteenth-century, moreover, much of the interior of Africa was still inhabited both by pastoralists and by hunters and gatherers. States, until recently, were like little islands in a large stateless sea. A comparative study of international systems is a study of these islands.
Walls and bridges
There is probably no prejudice which is as widely shared as the prejudices which sedentary people express towards people who are on the move. And, one might add, for good reason. The societies of pastoralists that periodically swept into China, India and Europe, had formidable armies that looted, killed and destroyed. One thing they destroyed were the fences that the farmers had build around their plots. Fences, to pastoralists, are offensive since they prevent grazing animals from moving around. The nomads besieged cities too and destroyed city-walls. Moreover, the Mongols were notorious destroyers of culture. When Genghis Khan entered Bukhara in 1220, he rounded up all the inhabitant in the city’s main mosque, informed them that he was a punishment sent by God, and proceeded to kill them all. [Read more: ”A nomadic state”] Likewise when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258, they destroyed libraries, killed scholars, poets and artists, and put an end to the Arab “golden age.”
Yet to call Mongols and other nomadic tribes ”barbarian” might be unfair. Better perhaps to say that they have a different outlook on life. Compare the close connection between culture and agriculture. “Culture” refers to cultivation, to the “tilling of the land.” To cultivate a plant is to care for it and to make it grow. In order to protect what we grow, we drive stakes into the ground and build fences which separate what is ours from that which belongs to others. Private property requires walls and good walls make good neighbors. Walls are also needed if we are to create a home for ourselves. On this side of the wall, we are safe and we are with people like ourselves; on the other side of the wall, we are away from home and we interact mainly with strangers. Cultures, we believe, must be nurtured and protected in much the same fashion. A culture is always our culture, it belongs to people like us, to the place where we live and it defines our way of life. The walls that surround us protect our culture and allow us to continue to be who we are.
Some international systems are surrounded by walls, actual well as metaphorical. As a result, interaction with the rest of the world is limited. The international system is isolated from external influences but also independent and self-sufficient. Much as a biological species which is confined to a specific ecological niche, the international system evolves in its own fashion. The most striking example are the international systems of the Americas which developed entirely without connections to the rest of the world. [Read more: ”The Columbian exchange”] Yet for extensive periods in its history, the leaders of the Chinese empire too sought to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, foreign trade was limited, and they built walls to keep foreigners out. Read more: [”The Great Wall of China doesn’t exist”] Japan was officially closed to the outside world from the year 1600 to 1868 CE. [Read more: ”A Japanese international system?”] In fact, before the year 1500 CE, Europe too showed only limited interest in the rest of the world.
But there are also international systems that display the opposite logic. These international systems are outward-looking and expansive and seek to connect different parts of the world with each other. The Mongol khanates in the thirteenth-century CE is an example, but there are many others. In the seventh century CE, the Arabs expanded rapidly from the Arabian peninsula, conquering the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa and the Iberian peninsula. In 732, a hundred years after the death of Muhammad, the Arab armies had reached as far as central France. Yet an international system can be outward-looking and expansive without being violent. This is the case with the international systems that have existed around the Indian Ocean. Thanks to the monsoon winds and light, fast, sailing vessels it has been easy to communicate even with distance places. People around the Indian Ocean have interacted with each other from the earliest times. This is why we find shards of Chinese pottery in archaeological sites in southern Africa and why people throughout Southeast Asia to this day are Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims – all three religions originally brought here from India. [Read more: ”Indianization”]
This, let us argue, is how civilization spreads. If culture finds its metaphorical basis in agriculture, civilization finds it in exchange. When our society is connected to other societies, and we are connected to other people, things can suddenly be compared and judged in relation to each other. As a result we have a choice between better and cheaper options, between the newer and the never-before-tried. Such choices broaden our horizons and improves our lives. This is why civilization depends on the unencumbered circulation of goods, people, ideas, faiths and ways of life. When societies interact, we are bound to come across unexpected things and strange people. The effect may be unsettling but also liberating. We no longer have to be confined to, and carry the burden of, our culture; we no longer have to be who we are. Civilization provides us with a means of escape. Or, differently put, exchange is often the enemy of culture. When presented with alternatives, we give up our old ways and switch to other, newer, better, ways of doing things. As a result, we no longer do the things we used to do and no longer are the people we used to be. In this way, civilization undermines culture.
The Mongols provide an example. In their short-lived, world-encompassing, empire people interacted and trade was flourishing. The Mongols destroyed walls to be sure but they were very good at building roads. The caravan routes of Inner Asia connected China with India, India with Persia, and Persia with the Middle East. [Read more: ”Sogdian letters”] Europe too was for while a part of this vast trading network. Or take the example of the Muslims in al-Andalus. [Read more: ”The Arabs in Spain”] The Arabs civilized Spain in the ninth century CE by connecting its cities to the great centers of culture in the Middle East. They connected Spain to Persian culture too, and to India, Central Asia and even to China. As a result of these connections, the people of Spain came to eat lemons, play the lute and compose far better poetry; they used better plows and irrigation techniques, put on deodorants and brushed their teeth with tooth-paste. [Read more: “Deodorants and the origin of flamenco”] The great library in Córdoba was far larger than any library in Christian Europe and it contained the entire canon of classical Greek texts, saved for posterity by the caliphs of Baghdad. [Read more: “The translation movement”] In the thirteenth-century CE, these books were translated and became available in Latin for the first time. The Europeans were later to refer to his as “the Renaissance.”
Or, and more controversially, compare the impact which the European expansion has had on the rest of the world. For much of their history the Europeans were not that interested in other continents, but around the year 1500 – at the time of the rise of the sovereign state – this changed. The Europeans began looking for ways to trade, above all with India and China, and little by little they came to acquire colonies overseas. For a while, at the time of the First World War, they had colonized much of the rest of the world. The European expansion had a profound, destructive, impact on the cultures of the societies with which they came into contact. When all parts of the world suddenly were connected to the same global network of trade, and politically dominated by Europe, it was no longer possible to live as before and to be what one previously had been. And yet, the benefits are undeniable. Today, in the wake of the cultural devastation brought by the Europeans, people around the world are far better educated, in a much better state of health, and with far more opportunities open to them. Cultural devastation is a tragedy, but civilization is a blessing. It is not obvious how to assess these contradictory effects and this is why the history of European expansion still is a controversial topic.