The First Opium War marked a major transition in Chinese history as it brought the nation into a modern, Eurocentric interstate system and global economy. China would become exposed to Western imperialism, and such foreign aggression and encroachment epitomizes what the Chinese call the “Century of Humiliation” – the beginning of the period being attributed to this war. The question that is posed today is whether China could have avoided humiliation. I believe that the answer is no, and such an event was inevitable due to the irreconcilable cultural traditions of China and the West. Also see how tradition may have placed China at a disadvantage

First, it is important to address the worldviews belonging to both China and the West. For China, their world was based upon the precepts of Confucianism, which preordained the natural order. Heaven was the source of all authority and men were subject to the will of heaven. The emperor received authority from heaven and has absolute power. The result is a natural hierarchic order that makes inequality a fundamental part of society, reflected by the kowtow (explain) which would be performed to one’s superiors. China applied these norms of internal society to the international, thereby claiming to be the central state and creating what is known as the Sino-centric international system, based upon the belief in their cultural superiority and claim to universal kingship. THose beyond its borders were looked down upon as barbarians. This creates a lack of intergovernmental relations. Instead, interaction between China and other units came through a system of tribute, where countries such as Japan and Korea acknowledged China’s supremacy by sending periodic tribute missions to the Middle Kingdom.

On the other hand, the traditional image of the world order in the West hails from the Westphalian model, which emphasizes a multipolar nation-state system, where states conduct relations as sovereign equals – equality persists in society. These incompatible traditions of east and westwould plague sino-western relations, as the Chinese refused to see Europeans as equals, but instead dealt with them as “barbarians”, demanding that they acknowledge China’s supremacy and standard of civilization which included abiding to traditional codes of chinese justice (concept of group responsibility) and ritual practices. Diplomats were constantly frustrated by this, best illustrated in Lord Macartney’s failed mission in 1793 to negotiate trade when he refused to kowtow. The situation for foreign merchants was also frustrating. The Confucian view placed merchants as the lowest class as their role to them really consisted of just buying and selling what others made (no intellectual or physical effort). Coupled with the fact that China feared “barbarian influence” from foreign trade threatening its already declining Qing dynasty, merchants were therefore restricted to enclaves and were to abide by tough rules. To add further fuel to the fire, China’s perception of being the Middle Kingdom also entitled it to feel self-sufficient, and therefore required and I quote from a letter to George III “no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce. But as the tea, silk and porcelain which the Celestial Empire produces, are absolute necessities to European nations and to yourselves, we have permitted, as a signal mark of favour, that foreign hongs [merchant firms] should be established at Canton, so that your wants might be supplied and your country thus participate in our beneficence” superior-vassal. The Chinese would only want silver in return for their produce, and this ultimately led to a trade deficit favouring the Chinese, and going against the western tradition of commerce as capitalist free trade.

It is important to realize that the concept of sinocentrism and the Chinese world order had been cultivated and carried out over many centuries. As suggested by Suisheng Zhao, such political domination was often accompanied by political isolation – “Culturally, the system reinforced the preeminence of Confucian culture, which precluded the Chinese from accepting other cultures to an appreciable extent. It built up an attitude of superiority for the Chinese that made it difficult for them to adjust themselves to new and different systems” and we can see the difficulties the chinese had in accommodating the west. Indeed, it would have been hard for both China and the west to cooperate when they were both very much entrenched in their own traditions – So, hegemonic nature of chinese culture essentially gave rise to false security among emperors that world hierarchy was universal and that there were no other hierarches or sources of power in the world – this is because china rarely had a significant rivalry with anyone else – such isolationism has its problems – psychologically left China unprepared to meet new challenges – for one, China’s isolationism left them completely unaware of the technological developments that were occurring in Europe – they were taken by surprise militarily – unaware of steamship development which was a major factor that allowed the british to strike into the heartland of china and overcome the riverine operations necessary to bringing china to its knees.

Ultimately, china’s Confucian understanding of its own supremacy which espoused a sense of self-sufficiency that had no need for Western goods. Again, this is due to their contempt for foreigners and their cultural view of merchants would create a problem, whereby the Europeans were paying too much silver for tea and porcelain products of China. To remedy this, the British found their solution in the smuggling of opium, which reversed that trend. The Chinese would discover the dangers of opium to society and attempt to put a stop to this and this ultimately escalates to the war resulting in China’s loss.

Now, I believe that the conflict is generally an issue of Western Imperialism. We have to remember that during this period, Europe was going through the industrial revolution – which was a rapid development in industry, and the Europeans needed access to markets. For merchants, what they faced in the Chinese was no direct access to markets – accepting prices offered by Chinese without objection – no free trade prior to the signing of the various treaties. However, it should be remembered that the EIC held a monopoly over trade in China and despite the restrictions and obstacles posed by the Chinese, they were in fact reluctantly willing to oblige to the Chinese. However the British government banned its monopoly in 1833 which flooded China with private merchants who were bent on opening China up to free trade. So it is possible to posit that the clash of cultural traditions that limited the West’s attempt at opening free markets in China may have prompted the government to take more forceful action against China, and the cultural antagonism between these two worlds would have built up enough animosity and provided the British with enough rhetoric such as legal inequality, lack of diplomatic representation, and what they saw was unjust laws applied to their people, to launch an attack. The conflict escalated when Comissioner lin burned a large quantity of opium shipments, and a clash of villagers and sailors prompted, a British expeditionary force to be sent (no hesitation) So china became a victim a clash of culture, endangering them to growing European expansionism as a result of industrialization as well as technological inferiority for the Chinese which allowed them to be promptly defeated in the Opium War, opening up the country to invasion and concession.