For the past decade, confronting the reality of China's peaceful rising, certain American politicians, army-men and scholars have been vigorously preaching the “China Threat Doctrine”. Through the historical mirrors, it is not hard to discern that such doctrine is nothing but a current “variant” under contemporary situations of the once clamorous “Yellow Peril Doctrine” fabricated and preached by Russian Tsar and German Emperor in 19th century. Both the past and the current version of such doctrines share the same DNA in distorting the historical mainstream of Sino-foreign interactions for the past thousands of years, as well as in playing certain political legerdemain. They are endeavoring to spiritually and publicly mobilize people for invasive activities and aggressions against China. Thus, they are essentially slogans of traditional colonialism and imperialism. Based on the historical facts of Sino-foreign economic interactions and the jurisprudential principles therein, this Article discloses that such Doctrines have severely deviated from historical truth. Furthermore, this Article reminds all decent people not to take a casual attitude on the practical outcome of “Yellow Peril Doctrine” and “China Threat Doctrine”. On the contrary, people shall be aware of and prepare for the danger in times of peace, and shall not act as cat's paws for American hegemonists.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
In the year of A.D. 1206, Genghis Khan, as military and political leader of Mongolian Nation, united all tribes in Mongolian region, and established The Great Mongol Empire, with himself as the Lord Dread. In A.D. 1219, the authorities of Khorazm (a powerful country to the west of Mongolia) slaughtered four hundred people of a Mongolian trade caravan, and robbed off all their belongings. The emissary sent by Mongolian authorities to negotiate on this issue was also killed later on, which set Genghis Khan on such a furor that he led out an army of 200,000 marching to the west. The army penetrated into Central Asia unchecked, and captured Samarkand, capital city of Khorazm, whose king fled westwards. This Mongolian army pursued after the king across Caucasia between Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, penetrating right into Russ (Russia), and defeated the allied force of Kipchak and Russ. In 1225, Genghis Khan returned back to the east with his victory. After Genghis Khan died in 1226, his third son Ogodei inherited the crown in 1229. In A.D. 1235, Ogodei dispatched his nephew Batu to command an army westwards. Khorazm was annihilated completely. After it invaded into Russ and seized various cities as Moscow and Kiev, this army divided into several forces and pushed forward vital parts of Europe. Northern division of this army defeated the allied force of Poland and Germany in Southwestern Poland in 1241, while the central division, as its main force, penetrated through Hungary. Before long, Batu led the Mongolian army back to east when Ogodei demised in 1242. Owing to their shock, European Caucasians referred to this invasive incident of short duration by yellow-raced Asian Mongolians as “Yellow Peril”. This became a sharp contrast against “White Peril”, a phrase used to refer to European Caucasians who launched a colonial invasion into the East by the 19th century Asians nearly 600 years later. See: Bai Shouyi (editor-in-chief), Comprehensive History of China (in Chinese), Revised Edition, People's Press of Shanghai, 2004, Vol. VIII – “first half of Yuan Period”, pp. 355–356, 372–376, 385–386. See also: Han Rulin (ed.), History of Yuan Dynasty (in Chinese), (designated as teaching material for postgraduates majoring in History by a number of universities in China), People's Press (China), 1986, Vol. I, pp. 83–84, 141–156, 157–162, 263–265, 290–293. See also: Song Lian et al. (of Ming Dynasty), History of Yuan (collated edition), Publishing House of China, 1978, Vol. I, pp. 12–13, 20–22, 34, 63–65. As to these two occasions of Westward March, are they attributed to early hording Mongolians or civilized Chinese? There is no agreement among various opinions of historians from China and abroad. Yet the following points are beyond doubt. Firstly, the Great Mongol Empire was established by Genghis Khan in 1206, and Mongolians had not entered and hosted Central Plains and the southern region of China while Genghis Khan led his army for the first Westward March during 1219 to 1225. Secondly, Mongolians had not yet entered and hosted Central Plains and the vast southern region of China while Batu, grandson of Genghis Khan, launched the second Westward March during 1235 to 1242. Thirdly, it was 46 years after Genghis Khan's First Westward March and about 30 years after Batu's Second Westward March, when Kublai, the other grandson of Genghis Khan, led another branch of Mongolians southwards to seize and capture China's Central Plains and its southern vast areas, and then established China's Yuan Dynasty in 1271. In other words, Yuan Dynasty of China had not at all been established until 1271. Fourthly, as leader of that branch of Mongolians, Kublai adopted the institutional system of Han Nationality in Central Plain (“to carry out Han customs”) after the formal establishment of China's Yuan Dynasty. Confucianism was held in esteem and Mongolians were allowed to intermarry with Han Chinese. In this way, these two nationalities gradually merged into one. It was not until 1638 when Zhu Yuanzhang of Han Nationality led a peasant revolting force and defeated the ruling class of Mongolians, that these Mongolians retreated back to MoBei (漠北 MoBei, literarily meaning “north of deserts”, refers to the northern regions to HanHai 瀚海, i.e. a group of vast deserts in the north center of China, around what is now Mongolian plateau and Lake Baikal of Russia. MoBei was the heart and ganglion of Mongolians, and was the base for northern nomads of Huns and Mongolians to launch invasions against Han Nationality in Central Plains of China.). These retreated Mongolians then stood in the north of Ming Dynasty, and changed its national title into Tatar (鞑靼) later. In other words, Yuan Dynasty of China had never sent a single soldier to invade Europe during its 98 years of existence. It could therefore be inferred that, fifthly, the popular yet vague statements such as that “Yuan Dynasty of China sent a large army to invade Europe and caused Yellow Peril” did not accord to historical facts. With regard to this phase of history and contentions therein, Mr. Lu Xun (a worldwide renowned Chinese writer) once wrote with his specific humorous and pungent tone that: … In my childhood, I already knew that after Pan Gu [creator of universe in Chinese mythology] created heaven and earth, there existed in line Three Emperors and Five Sovereigns and … Song Dynasty, Yuan Dynasty, Ming Dynasty and “Our Great Qing Dynasty”. And at the age of 20, I heard that it was “our” most glorious time when “our” Genghis Khan conquered Europe. It was not until I reached the age of 25, did I realize that the so-called “our”-most-glorious-time was in fact a period when Mongolians conquered China, and turned us into slaves. And it was till August of this year [i.e. 1934] when I browsed three copies of Mongolian history in search for some information, did I realize the fact that Mongolians’ conquest of Russia and their invasion of Hungary and Austria were even before Mongolian's conquest of whole China. Genghis Khan was not yet “our” Khan at that time. So it could be fair to say that Russians were prevenient and senior slaves compared to Chinese. It should be Russians to say that it was “our” most glorious time when “our” Genghis Khan conquered China. See: Lu Xun, Leaf Through Casually, in Complete Works of Lu Xun (in Chinese), People's Literature Publishing House, Vol. VI, p. 142.
See: Sec. 1202, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, pp. 271–272, electronic copy available at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN01059:|TOM:/bss/d106query.html| (Last accessed on November 10, 2011)
See: Sec. 1238, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, pp. 336–338, electronic copy available at:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR04205:|TOM:/bss/d106query.html| (Last accessed on November 10, 2011) In light of this Section, the Annual Report issued by the U.S – China Security Review Commission shall include, at a minimum, a full discussion of 9 specific aspects. The following points are extremely emphasized: the portion of trade in goods and services with the United States that the People's Republic of China dedicates to military systems or systems of a dual nature that could be used for military purposes; the effects on the national security interests of the United States of the use by the People's Republic of China of financial transactions and capital flow and currency manipulations; etc.
In 1206, Mongolian aristocracy crowned Temujin as Lord Dread at the source of Onon River, with an esteemed title as Genghis Khan, thus The Great Mongol Empire (Yeke Mongghol Ulus) was established. After the demise of Mongke Khan in 1259, his forth brother Kublai and seventh brother Arik-buga were dragged into a war for the throne, and The Great Mongol Empire was split into “Khan's Country” and four other Khanates, namely the Kipchak Khanate, the Ogodei Khanate, the Yili Khanate and the Chagatai Khanate. Arik-buga was defeated in 1264 while Kublai acquired the highest reigning power and became the king of Mongol Empire. After he seized and captured the vast areas of Central China, Kublai established Yuan Dynasty of China in 1271 and claimed himself as the Emperor of China in the capital city Peking. Although the already separated four other Khanates nominally admitted the suzerainty of China's Yuan Court, they were in fact all independent and were not directly affiliated to Yuan Emperor. Territory of China's Yuan Dynasty reached as north as Siberia, as south as South Sea of China. Its southwestern region included Tibet and Yunnan of today, and its northwest reached Central Asia of today, while its northeast reached Outer Xing’an Ridge and the Sea of Okhotsk. See: Bai Shouyi (editor-in-chief), supra note 10, pp. 355–356, 551–584. See also: Han Rulin (ed.), supra note 10, pp. 201–207, 263–265, 290–293, and the illustration on p. 298. See also: Song Lian et al. (of Ming Dynasty), supra note 10, pp. 12–13, 20–22, 34, 63–65.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1095 | 254 | 16 |
Full Text Views | 160 | 8 | 3 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 97 | 20 | 8 |
For the past decade, confronting the reality of China's peaceful rising, certain American politicians, army-men and scholars have been vigorously preaching the “China Threat Doctrine”. Through the historical mirrors, it is not hard to discern that such doctrine is nothing but a current “variant” under contemporary situations of the once clamorous “Yellow Peril Doctrine” fabricated and preached by Russian Tsar and German Emperor in 19th century. Both the past and the current version of such doctrines share the same DNA in distorting the historical mainstream of Sino-foreign interactions for the past thousands of years, as well as in playing certain political legerdemain. They are endeavoring to spiritually and publicly mobilize people for invasive activities and aggressions against China. Thus, they are essentially slogans of traditional colonialism and imperialism. Based on the historical facts of Sino-foreign economic interactions and the jurisprudential principles therein, this Article discloses that such Doctrines have severely deviated from historical truth. Furthermore, this Article reminds all decent people not to take a casual attitude on the practical outcome of “Yellow Peril Doctrine” and “China Threat Doctrine”. On the contrary, people shall be aware of and prepare for the danger in times of peace, and shall not act as cat's paws for American hegemonists.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1095 | 254 | 16 |
Full Text Views | 160 | 8 | 3 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 97 | 20 | 8 |