Thailand and the Collapse of China's Manchu Dynasty

[Guest fountainhall]

It may be totally irrelevant to Thailand, but I think it is always helpful to look at other Asian examples of political contestation and transition.

 

Here was an Empress Dowager who took control of an imperial household and country (through a coup d'état no less!) when her own only son was nominally Emperor. The problem was that the son had no real interest or ability to run a country and was essentially a dissolute man more interested in pleasures of the flesh. But in taking control of a country in lieu of her son, the Dowager came face to face with the enormous problems of dealing with a restive country -- rebellions, corruption, everywhere -- that also faced dire external threats.

I have brought macaroni21's comments into a new thread because I feel this is a huge subject that, however relevant, cannot be dealt with in a couple of paragraphs. So here are my 2 cents worth. 2 cents? At this length it must be a few hundred bucks, at least

 

It is, I suggest, far too simplistic to blame the Empress Dowager for the downfall of the Manchu (Qing) Dynasty and what was almost the collapse of China as a nation. The fact is that the country had been restive for most of that Dynasty’s rule. Equally, throughout these centuries from 1644, there had been countless rebellions and endless corruption, and the “dire external threats” were present long before she appeared on the scene in 1861. Permit me to start my thoughts by recounting some detail of my first visit to China.

 

I visited Guangzhou (Canton of old) in the fall of 1979 as a guest of the American Consul General, Richard Williams. Dick was the first US Consul General in China for 30 years; his Consulate’s reopening a result of Nixon’s visit to Beijing. Another guest that weekend was Burton Levin, then attached to the Embassy in Bangkok and strongly rumoured to be the top CIA man in South East Asia.

 

One morning, we walked down to the area near Shamian Island by the Pearl River where the White Swan Hotel is today. I found it fascinating to be at this hugely historical site. It was here that the Portuguese merchants first commenced their trade with China in the late 16th century. Trading was limited to the winter months, with the Portuguese retiring during the summer heat to their enclave in Macau, rented from China until its return in 1999. It was here, too, that the British East India Company established its warehouse factories, storing Chinese exports until they had the funds to pay for them. It was here that ”the company”, as it was named, did everything in its power to stop the drain of silver from its coffers to pay for these exports by forcing the Chinese into accepting opium as a currency. Such imports had been forbidden for decades, but the British always found ways around the ban. Their patience at an end, the Chinese eventually seized and destroyed 20,000 chests of British opium. After this, the warmongers in the British parliament led by the hawkish Prime Minster Lord Palmerston were quickly on their soapboxes. The first opium war ensued, with the Chinese hopelessly equipped to fight. Hong Kong was then ceded to the British. In the later opium wars, Kowloon and then the New Territories were handed over, the latter on a 99 year lease.

 

With China so ill-prepared to defend its territory, other colonial powers, including the USA, got in on the act. Quite literally they raped the rotting Manchu Empire, stealing chunks of its coastline, installing their own police forces, their own system of justice and their own social mores. The loss of face to the Machu Emperors and to the Chinese nationals was utter humiliation. Would any western nation accept the Chinese assuming sovereignty over part of their coastline and voiding its laws in favour of Chinese law? Yet this is what happened, with the city of Shanghai split into four separate divisions, each with different international systems.

 

Whilst on the surface this was the straw which broke the camel’s back, the dynasty had started rotting from within not much more than a century after it grabbed power from the Ming Emperors in 1644.

 

The majority of the ethic Han Chinese did not just dislike their invading Manchu masters; they loathed them. One of the first Manchu edicts forced Han men to shave the front of their heads and grow long pigtails (queues) at the back. Anyone who failed to do this was sentenced to death. The resultant humiliation resulted in a number of rebellions during which it is estimated at least 500,000 Han Chinese were killed.

 

One of the Manchu’s major problems was controlling a land as vast as China. The Emperor had to contend with the rise of feudal lords and rebellions. Eventually, it was decided that one way of consolidating power was to reinforce the old system of centralized examinations for entry into the civil service and expanding that service, so that there was a cadre of loyal lieutenants throughout the country. The problem was that this centralized power, leading inevitably to a dearth of initiative and stagnation.

 

By the 19th century, the Emperors were well and truly losing control. All manner of rebellions broke out, economic stagnation took hold and there was an explosion in population growth. In mid-century, over the 14 or so years of the Taiping Rebellion, some 20 – 30 million people lost their lives. This is generally agreed to have been the costliest war in terms of loss of life prior to the 20th century’s World Wars.

 

Add to that mix of rotting garbage the rape of its coastal cities, and the ruling dynasty had completely lost control. Into this mess stepped the Empress Dowager, a much-caricatured figure who had been the concubine of the Xiangfeng Emperor. On the Emperor’s death in 1861, she muscled her way to the seat of power, where she was to remain for 47 years, ruling from “behind the curtain” whilst pulling the strings of the Emperors in front of it. A bitter reactionary, she staunchly denied all calls for reform, until after the boxer Rebellion when she changed her tune. Too late, though. The dynasty collapsed in 1912 bringing 2,000 years of Imperial rule to an end.

 

A new republican government emerged with Sun Yat Sen at its head, formed in the southern city of Guangzhou. Yet even this could not unify the country. After Sun’s death from cancer, warlords carved out their own territories again, with Chiang Kai Shek, the tough take-no-prisoners general wheeling and dealing with anyone who would help his rise, including at times the Shanghai gangs and the emerging communists of Mao Tse Tung, both of whom he would later turn against. In the ultimate battle between Chiang and Mao, Chiang as we know lost, retreating to Taiwan – incidentally taking with him most of China’s artistic treasures. If you happen to visit Taiwan, a trip to the National Museum in Taipei is an absolute must, for it is here that many of China’s great national treasures are displayed.

 

The internal convulsions resulting from the collapse of the dynasty continued right through to Mao’s disastrous national campaigns and the horrendous Cultural Revolution. My 1979 visit to Guangzhou took place only 10 years after the end of those horrors; yet there was not much sign of the revolution that had just taken place, nor of the hugely constructive one that Deng Xiao Ping was about to start. Mao suits were everywhere, along with labourers in less formal pants and skimpy shirts. A few girls wore pretty floral dresses, but most were dressed in drab grey ill-fitting costumes.

 

Yet, Guangdong province with Guangzhou at its heart was to be the cradle for Deng’s reforms. The rest, as they say, is history. In not much more than 30 years, China has dragged more people out of poverty than at ay time on the history of the world, Shanghai is a more exciting city than Hong Kong, and China will be the world’s next superpower – perhaps in time its only superpower.

 

I have indulged myself in a critique of the Manchu dynasty and what followed only to illustrate that the Empress Dowager entered the stage as the entire edifice that was China was already on the point of collapse. Not by any stretch of the imagination can she be described as having caused it. She probably hastened its end by a few years through her implacable opposition to any reform. And perhaps in that sense, she – and only in that sense - may be likened to the elite who rule Thailand at present.

 

But there, I believe, the similarity ends. The Han had never regarded the Manchus as Chinese. They were foreigners from the north. This is not true in Thailand. China had no entrepreneurial class. The nearest they had to a middle class were the civil servants and the compradors who acted as go betweens attached to the overseas merchants, successfully extracting “squeeze” from both sides and some becoming fabulously rich. There may be some similarity here, but Thailand is certainly more entrepreneurial.

 

The mass of the Han Chinese were all but starving. They may have had little love for their rulers and the landowning class, but they loathed the fact that large tracts of their country were ruled by foreigners. Thailand has great number of urban poor, but you cannot compare their lot to that of the hundreds of millions of Chinese poor, many of whom died in continuing famines. When Sun Yat Sen established his republican government, helped by revolutionary ideas flooding in from overseas, it was far from universally accepted. The revolutionaries themselves were totally divided as to their main objectives. The end result was more rebellion, warlords, violent gangs, the rise of communism – and a general period of collapse of authority.

 

Yes, I suppose a look at other country’s revolutions and social change can provide pointers to potential ones in another. But Thailand in the early 21st century, I believe, bears little similarity to China in the late 19th century, other than a reluctance on the part of some to enact reforms. The reasons why reform is deemed necessary and the background to those reasons are, I suggest, quite different.

[Guest kjun12]

This isn't just a post. It's a novel.

[Guest fountainhall]

This isn't just a post. It's a novel.

Novel? Sorry, kjun12. That's just the preface. Chapter One starts soon

[pong]

yes, history always repeats itself-but with those little changes you and I and noone knows beforehand. Sama-same with all those economists who say they can predict the shares+stock-exchanges. Or about countries who fail and those that reinvent themselves.

I do not really know the nrs of poeple in China before 1900-but I somehow guess it it roughly equal to those living in Europe by that time. Industrial revolution of those years has also brought substantial better standard of living to about any European. Comparable in nr to the masses of China and its dire poverty of then is maybe India-which ahs no more real royal family as ruler.

[Guest fountainhall]

Industrial revolution of those years has also brought substantial better standard of living to about any European. Comparable in nr to the masses of China and its dire poverty of then is maybe India-which ahs no more real royal family as ruler.

I may agree in general that history has a tendency to repeat itself, but the reasons for revolutions are not, I think, anywhere near the same. The industrial revolution in Europe was not a revolution of the people, but a revolution of the means of production. It brought immense wealth, but only to certain very small groups of people who became obscenely rich. The poor in most cases remained horribly poor. In the UK, for a time children had to work down the coal mines or in factories in 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week. Only when parliamentary reformers pushed through laws to ease the burden on working people did living begin to be anything other than an unending grind of degrading slavery.

 

The UK also had a very strict heirarchical class system. With rare exceptions, not even the rich industrialists, most of whom became far richer than the aristocracy, could move upwards. Breaking out of your class was almost as difficult as it used to be in India (remember that wonderful 1970s TV series "Upstairs Downstairs"?). Revolution did not change this. Historical circumstances and the First World War did. And yet Britain still retains its monarchy.

 

The Indian monarchs ruled states, not the country. They were phased out with promises to be kept after India became independent, promises that in most cases were not kept. So again, with respect, I do not see much parallel to China or Thailand.

[TotallyOz]

This isn't just a post. It's a novel.

 

LOL It was a great post with amazing information that I didn't know. I admit that I know little of the history of China or Asia for that matter and this post got me interested in learning more. Thank you FH!

[Guest fountainhall]

To learn more about much of this period, read the superb book "Foreign Mud" by Roger Collis. 'Foreign Mud' was the name given by the Chinese to opium. The book itself largely covers the Opium Wars when Hong Kong was ceded to the British. But it goes into a lot of very useful and interesting background as well, and is a wonderful and easy read. I thought it was no longer in print, as I read it a good 30 years ago, But I see from amazon that is now back again and gets rave reviews. As amazon's own reviewer describes it, Foreign Mud "is a historical narrative the reader will find more entertaining than any Spielberg film."

 

http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Mud-Imbroglio-Anglo-Chinese-Directions/dp/0811215067

[macaroni21]

Oh dear, I wasn't intending to open a whole new discussion on China when I made the brief mention of the Empress Dowager

 

What I really wanted to do, but I guess I was too subtle and so the message was lost, was to point out that one has to be careful when thinking about royal succession. One cannot assume that when a king passes on, a crown prince fully takes over.

 

Bob for example, said in a different thread that:

 

"Perhaps someday there is a new monarch who for whatever reason wants to promote his own agenda - which might even be a surprising turn to more true democracy and reduction of rampant corruption."

 

History never totally repeats itself, that is true, but the twists and turns of other people's pasts can remind us there will be twists and turns in the present and future. History itself can suggest the different possible outcomes should we find ourselves in an analogous situation today.

 

One outcome that Chinese history has suggested is that it's the dowager who may be the more important person to watch as the linchpin of the future, than the crown prince. Empress Dowager Cixi totally overshadowed her own son, the new Emperor. She maintained control of the state; he was neither interested nor capable of doing so.

 

And yet, maintaining control of the state is not the same as getting one's way. Taking on ruling powers means taking on all the problems of ruling a country. Even the Thai army knew this: Look how quickly they wanted to relinquish day-to-day control back to a new constitution and elections after General Sonthi Boonyaratglin seized power in September 2006 -- elections which backfired when it returned a pro-Thaksin government.

 

What I also wanted to suggest by mentioning Empress Dowager Cixi's example, was that there are forces of history greater than any government's control. This is especially true when a palace faction seizes power with the intention of resisting reform.

 

Whereas in Japan, the Meiji Restoration launched a reform process that created the first Asian industrial economy and military power that could stand up to the encroaching Western powers by the turn of the 20th Century, the contemporaneous rule of Cixi, resisting reform, only led to the further weakening of China. The outcome was greater misery for its people and a more violent series of revolutions as history caught up.

 

Khor Tose said in that other thread that:

 

"economics, while still an important factor, is not the principal motivating issue behind the democratic movement.. What I see is the real core of this democratic movement is a strong desire to have a real voice in their government, and greater control of their lives."

 

Exactly. There are forces in motion that too many upper-middle-class Bangkokians don't seem to be fully aware of, as can be seen by what Fountainhall has reported -- that in Bangkok, all he hears are slanted viewpoints.

 

Well, that was all I wanted to suggest by mentioning Chinese history: that nothing may change even if a new king emerges and thus the stalemate can continue for a long time. And yet at the same time, change continues -- in the form of pressure building up inexorably until it blows. Like in China. Like in Imperial Russia of the same time period. Like in Iran 30 years ago. Like in Nepal very recently.

 

Or then again, not. Has it blown in Myanmar yet? In North Korea?

[KhorTose]

Oh dear, I wasn't intending to open a whole new discussion on China when I made the brief mention of the Empress Dowager

 

What I really wanted to do, but I guess I was too subtle and so the message was lost, was to point out that one has to be careful when thinking about royal succession. One cannot assume that when a king passes on, a crown prince fully takes over.

 

I did get your point. However, I do see a correlation between what happened in China and Thailand., and saw it as an excellent example to expand on what happens when a rigid conservative government fails to adapt to a new reality. It has been the fashion recently in Chinese history to blame the collapse of Imperial China on the incursions by the imperialist Europeans. Heaven forbid that we admit that a rigid, conservative, and corrupt Chinese government could be the blame for China's collapse. Of course when we are dealing with the collapse of a nation or an empire many factors do contribute. However, in the case of China the overwhelming major factor was the rule of Dowager Empress Cixi.

 

This is a brief synopsis. Please feel free to read some history or google some.

 

• The empress seized power from the regency appointed by the late emperor and executed some of them.
• While technically she ruled with the Dowager Cian (who later died mysteriously) ((poison?)) she was the real ruler even during her son's rule and later during the Guangxu Emperor's rule
• She failed to provide the necessary education and discipline to her son, who later died of syphilis (???), or smallpox after being publicly overruled by his mother.
• At her son's death she appointed another line to be emperor (Emperor Guangxu) but when he tried to impose reforms she drove him into exile and picked yet another line by appointing 14 year old prince Phuyi as crown prince. Thus making a mockery of the appointed by heaven idea of the imperial throne.
• She opposed all political and economic reforms until after the Boxer rebellion.
• She initially supported the modernization of the military and the nation and even sent students to the USA to study. However, she stole 30 million taels of silver from the army to celebrate her 60^th birthday and 100 million taels of silver from the navy for her summer palace. She allowed a train to be built but required it to be pulled passed her palace by horses as she did not like the noise. Later she began to distrust many of these foreign trained students. Therefore, her support of modernization is at best half hearted.
• Finally, she had appointed General Ronglu as head of her army. In spite of his loyalty to her, his actions during the Boxer rebellion lead to the Europeans being able to enter Beijing. Ronglu did not properly support General Nie, who did win the initial battles and who could have defeated the Europeans. He did not take the legations and withheld the necessary artillery that could have done so. He did not tell general Nie to stop killing the Boxers, even though the Dowager had so ordered. He allowed the railroad to remain intact and it was used to facilitate the Europeans entrance into Beijing. To the end he was the loyal and rumored consort of the Dowager Empress and to this day the reasons for his betrayal during the Boxer revolution remain a mystery. (I am reminded of another General who seems to be appointed just for his loyalty.)

The main lesson I get from the Dowager's rule is that rigidity and conservatism in the face of a new reality can, and often does, lead to political collapse. A lesson that I think Thailand needs to heed.

 

One further note. Up until the Boxer rebellion the USA was a friend of China and did its very best to moderate the imperialist ambitions of the Europeans. After the Boxer rebellion when it was obvious to all that collapse was immanent we joined the Europeans to get our share of the dead horse.

[KhorTose]

Or then again, not. Has it blown in Myanmar yet? In North Korea?

 

No it has not blown in these countries yet, because now it is possible to have the rule of the gun.Which sort of makes my point as to one possible solution for the palace and the military.

[Guest fountainhall]

Oh dear, I wasn't intending to open a whole new discussion on China when I made the brief mention of the Empress Dowager

You mean my book has to remain unwritten?

 

Of course when we are dealing with the collapse of a nation or an empire many factors do contribute. However, in the case of China the overwhelming major factor was the rule of Dowager Empress Cixi . . . The main lesson I get from the Dowager's rule is that rigidity and conservatism in the face of a new reality can, and often does, lead to political collapse. A lesson that I think Thailand needs to heed.

Whilst KhorTose’s interpretation of Cixi’s role in the collapse of imperial China may have been the traditional view, it is now being very seriously questioned. As wikipedia also points out, more and more are coming to the view that the state was so rotten before she took power that, even had she been a saintly reformer with an iron will from day one, there was virtually nothing she could have done to prevent its collapse, which is what I was trying to suggest in my initial post. (I guess we need to be a bit more direct in future ).

 

Historians from both Kuomintang and Communist backgrounds have generally portrayed her as a despot and villain responsible for the fall of the Qing Dynasty, but in recent years other historians have suggested that she was a scapegoat for problems beyond her control, a leader no more ruthless than others, and even an effective if reluctant reformer in the last years of her life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Dowager_Cixi

 

Going back to macaroni21’s point, though, I do agree that a transfer of power can bring enormous unexpected change, sometimes good, often not so good. Who would want to go through the decades following the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, times when lawlessness prevailed, supposed enemies of the new state were executed in vast numbers, and the general populace subjected often to worse conditions – and in two of these cases, to mass murder on a monstrous scale - than had existed before?

 

It’s not only when a member of a royal household takes over, or even a royal dynasty is extinguished. Even those who then came to power were often unable to use their ultimate power to quell internal strife amongst their comrades. Lenin begat Stalin, Mao begat Jiang Jing, moderates like Necker and Mirabeau begat Robespierre, and so on.

 

As macaroni21 also emphasized, revolutionaries are too often so wrapped up in the process of revolution that far too little thought is given to the consequences of their actions. Referring back to Thailand – and putting to one side all consideration of events which are not directly related to the political - the red shirts want power for the people who want a say in their own destiny. I consider that a laudable aim. But I don’t recall seeing much about what happens after power changes hands. What is the manifesto? What are the objectives, other then control of the apparatus of state? What is the policy on one of the most evil aspects of life in Thailand – the acceptance of corruption at every level of society? Will that be eradicated? If so, how? What are the policies on education and land reform? How will these be paid for and carried out? What is the policy on healthcare? It is perfectly obvious from recent media reports that the Bt. 30 scheme cannot continue because hospitals will simply go bankrupt. How will this be reformed?

 

Did I simply miss something? Or is the assumption of power the end in itself?

[macaroni21]

Did I simply miss something? Or is the assumption of power the end in itself?

 

I doubt if any internally coherent program has been enunciated by the Red Shirts. This may sound like criticism, so I need to expand on it a little.

 

Of the Red Shirts, one has to distinguish between what I'd call

 

Tier 1: the leadership (of which there are subgroups, I'm sure),

Tier 2: the committed organisers and mid-level activists, and

Tier 3: the mass base of supporters and sympathizers.

 

It does look as if for tier 1, you are right -- the assumption of power is the end in itself. Many of them were turfed out after the coup and banned from participating in politics from the dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai party. It is totally understandable that reversing their political exile is their chief objective, and to do that, they have to regain power.

 

Tiers 2 and 3 very likely think like most supporters of ideologies anywhere around the world. They don't ask searching questions of their own leaders with respect to programs/manifestoes. Instead they extend their trust, believing that the leaders have their interests in mind and will do "the right thing" when they come to power. I know this sounds awfully like the characterisation made of Red Shirts by the establishment's propagandists (that Red Shirt supporters are gullible, have been duped, etc), but this same characterisation (trusting/faith) can be made of Yellow Shirts, of supporters of the French Socialist Party, of the millions of Filipinos who voted strongly for Benigno Aquino, of tea-party supporters of Sarah Palin, etc. It's just a universal phenomenon.

 

The difference is that in a free democratic setting, there is the independent media, non-aligned academics etc, who take on the role of asking searching questions and critiquing party programs. Having to respond to them is the chief reason for politicians explaining themselves.

 

The trouble with Thailand now is that that space for a non-aligned independent free media is much reduced. The tenor of the times forces everybody to take sides. Censorship closes more doors. The politics of civil debate have been squashed leaving only the politics of megaphones and the street. Nowhere in the world are manifestoes explained clearly in the politics of the street. Thailand is no different.

 

It may well be that there are intelligent, serious people among the Red Shirts organisers (tier 2) who are asking precisely these questions - so what shall we do after we have won? - but they probably feel that open debate among themselves might give the impression of disunity at a time when they are facing daily threats. So either the discussion is held behind closed doors or it is postponed till after they have gained power.

 

Again, while it may sound like criticism, let's be fair: Is any US presidential campaign all that different?

[Guest fountainhall]

while it may sound like criticism, let's be fair: Is any US presidential campaign all that different?

I suggest it is different- at least to an extent. The US presidential candidates run on a platform and debates are held between them during which the platforms can be explored. Of course, once in power the platform can be ditched depending on the circumstances which the successful candidate finds on entering office. But at least there is a manifesto of basic beliefs and objectives.

 

As I said at the outset, one issue which concerns the elite is the very lack of any programme. Announcing a programme might well win over some moderates. No programme and the fear is inevitably that chaos in some degree with ensure.

[KhorTose]

As I said at the outset, one issue which concerns the elite is the very lack of any programme. Announcing a programme might well win over some moderates. No programme and the fear is inevitably that chaos in some degree with ensure.

 

They do announce programs, they just have a habit of not living up to them. But then Thaksin did not live up to some of the programs he announced either.

 

Question: You keep spelling program as programme, is this British?

[Guest fountainhall]

Question: You keep spelling program as programme, is this British?

Indeed it is! The Americans corrupted the spelling of quite a number of English words! You can spell it that way too if you just change your computer's language from US English to UK English