중국의 ‘다민족 통일 국가론’과 당대의 국제질서 (The Unified Multiethnic State Theory of China and the International Relations in Tang Dynasty)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 수선사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 사림 / 31호 / 255 ~ 284페이지
· 저자명 : 김정희

초록

Tang(唐) tried to establish a China-centric world order by incorporating the neighboring countries into four categories according to the degree of her power infiltration: localized area, Jimifuzhou(羁縻府州), tributary-appointment relationship area, simple tributary region. If possible, Tang wanted to put the area it dominated under loclaized area that is, the jurisdiction of regular prefecture. Alternatively, Tang made out Jimifuzhou system or the loose-rein prefectures, which bestowed titles and granted authorities to local chiefs at the border of Tang proper. The third way to rule foreigners that were either voluntarily or unvoluntarily subdued was to hand out titles to the rulers of independent political entities. In exchange, Tang received an annual tribute from these countries. Simple tributary area means totally independent foreign countries over whom Tang exercised no political influence. However, the above-mentioned relations were changeable. A area under the jurisdiction of regular prefecture could be one under the Jimifuzhou as the case may be.
According to diverse records of Tang, there were about three hundred countries who disappeared after paying an tribute to her. There were still seventy countries that must pay an tribute. Among them, some were simply groups that were not yet have a shape of state-country, and others, as contemporary Chinese scholars examine, were not belong to any local district of the dynasty such as Japan, Silla, Saracens, Persia, and India. Tang established 856 Jimifuzhou. But the Jimi administrative units were merely formal in that neither the dynasty appointed any central government official nor took the census in each region. The Tang dynasty did not even impose a tax both on a person and land. In this concern, it is arguable to recognize the Jimifuzhou as a local administrative unit of Tang. In other words, the argument based on the tributary-appointment relationship and the Jimi system was none the less nonsense from the outset. Furthermore, there must have been a lot of changes in character of the administration system of Tang as international power relations had been changed. Without a deep concerns about these kinds of changes, no one can insist whether Koguryo and Balhae were belong to Chinese local administrative units or were independent countries. Rather, this argument implies the current territorial problems and the minority problems.
According to Chinese historical researches and textbooks, there has been a tendency to idealize the theory of unified multiethnic state. In addition, they evaluate the founding of neighboring countries as a simple development of China's peripheral local regions. If the history of neighboring countries of Tang such as East Turks, Uighur, Tibet, Koguryo and Balhae is understood as a mere development of China's peripheral local regions, this interpretation is nothing but an unilateral argument.
Now, we all talks about international peace and partnership in the twenty-first century of northeast Asia. But, China, unfortunately, led up to many trobles and threats in northeast Asia due to her idealization of the theory of unified multiethnic state and making up history of the minorities as history of China. If China continue to argue either neighboring countries were belong to Chinese local region or the history of neighboring countries were the Chinese local history by exaggerating Tang's system such as tributary-appointment and Jimi it should be their own view within their own country only.

영어초록

Tang(唐) tried to establish a China-centric world order by incorporating the neighboring countries into four categories according to the degree of her power infiltration: localized area, Jimifuzhou(羁縻府州), tributary-appointment relationship area, simple tributary region. If possible, Tang wanted to put the area it dominated under loclaized area that is, the jurisdiction of regular prefecture. Alternatively, Tang made out Jimifuzhou system or the loose-rein prefectures, which bestowed titles and granted authorities to local chiefs at the border of Tang proper. The third way to rule foreigners that were either voluntarily or unvoluntarily subdued was to hand out titles to the rulers of independent political entities. In exchange, Tang received an annual tribute from these countries. Simple tributary area means totally independent foreign countries over whom Tang exercised no political influence. However, the above-mentioned relations were changeable. A area under the jurisdiction of regular prefecture could be one under the Jimifuzhou as the case may be.
According to diverse records of Tang, there were about three hundred countries who disappeared after paying an tribute to her. There were still seventy countries that must pay an tribute. Among them, some were simply groups that were not yet have a shape of state-country, and others, as contemporary Chinese scholars examine, were not belong to any local district of the dynasty such as Japan, Silla, Saracens, Persia, and India. Tang established 856 Jimifuzhou. But the Jimi administrative units were merely formal in that neither the dynasty appointed any central government official nor took the census in each region. The Tang dynasty did not even impose a tax both on a person and land. In this concern, it is arguable to recognize the Jimifuzhou as a local administrative unit of Tang. In other words, the argument based on the tributary-appointment relationship and the Jimi system was none the less nonsense from the outset. Furthermore, there must have been a lot of changes in character of the administration system of Tang as international power relations had been changed. Without a deep concerns about these kinds of changes, no one can insist whether Koguryo and Balhae were belong to Chinese local administrative units or were independent countries. Rather, this argument implies the current territorial problems and the minority problems.
According to Chinese historical researches and textbooks, there has been a tendency to idealize the theory of unified multiethnic state. In addition, they evaluate the founding of neighboring countries as a simple development of China's peripheral local regions. If the history of neighboring countries of Tang such as East Turks, Uighur, Tibet, Koguryo and Balhae is understood as a mere development of China's peripheral local regions, this interpretation is nothing but an unilateral argument.
Now, we all talks about international peace and partnership in the twenty-first century of northeast Asia. But, China, unfortunately, led up to many trobles and threats in northeast Asia due to her idealization of the theory of unified multiethnic state and making up history of the minorities as history of China. If China continue to argue either neighboring countries were belong to Chinese local region or the history of neighboring countries were the Chinese local history by exaggerating Tang's system such as tributary-appointment and Jimi it should be their own view within their own country only.

참고자료

· 없음