The Lessons of the Long Confucian Peace

There is one thing that few people remember today: for nearly 300 years, between 1598 and 1894, China and its neighbors—Japan, Korea, the Ryukyu Kingdom, and Vietnam—lived in almost total peace with one another. There were only 22 wars between them over three centuries, a mere 4% of all the conflicts in which they were involved. How is it possible that one of the most populous and strategically important regions in the world enjoyed such long-lasting stability? The answer is counterintuitive: it was not fear, the balance of power, or deterrence, but a shared philosophy – Confucianism. Here is the argument: we think that only democracy can prevent wars between similar states, but the history of East Asia shows that other strong, shared ideologies can also act as a peaceful unifying force. It does not necessarily require the same political system: what is needed is a shared vision of what is right, of how conflicts are resolved, and of who is at the center and who is on the margins. The protagonists of this story are figures such as the Qing Emperor Kangxi, who reigned in China from 1661 to 1722, and the Korean officials of the Joseon dynasty, all of whom were educated in the Confucian classics. One episode illustrates this point: in 1712, a mistake made by a Chinese cartographer could have doubled the territory of Korea and triggered a war. However, out of respect for the Confucian hierarchy, the Koreans chose to correct the error on their own, without “disturbing” the emperor. It was not just diplomacy: it was a worldview in which peace between “cultural kin” was a moral duty. And this logic also worked in times of crisis. When China lost the war against Vietnam in 1789, instead of humiliating the victor, it immediately recognized him as the legitimate king, re-establishing the tributary relationship and the possibility of trade. Ambiguities were also tolerated to avoid conflict: Japan, although formally withdrawing from the Chinese tributary system in 1624, continued to trade and maintain indirect relations, while with Korea, the two sides interpreted diplomatic missions in opposite ways, but without clashing. The most remarkable aspect is that this peace was not merely the result of fear or expediency: it was sustained by a value system that placed greater importance on harmony than on national pride. But beware: the system collapsed when Western powers arrived and Japan abandoned Confucianism to imitate the European powers, becoming aggressive and colonial. From then on, the region once again became a theater of war. The truly striking part is that something similar happened in the Western world after 1945, but with democracy in place of Confucianism. Here, too, a shared ideology – faith in compromise, in human rights, and in common institutions – has enabled dozens of states to avoid war with one another for decades. Therefore, what matters more than the form of government is the existence of a shared philosophy that makes war between “peers” morally unacceptable. Here is the contrarian perspective: We tell ourselves that democracy is the only guarantee of peace between states, but history shows that the key lies in a shared ethical framework, even if it is not democratic. If the United States and China could find even a minimal shared value—for example, the belief that war between great powers should be avoided at all costs—they could ensure global stability just as effectively as European democracies or Confucian courts. The lesson is this: lasting peace stems less from political structure and more from a moral code shared by those in power. If this idea has helped you see the history of international relations in a new light, on Lara Notes you can mark the moment with I'm In: that way, this perspective becomes part of your way of thinking, not just a fun fact you heard. And if you feel like sharing this story with someone—perhaps the next time you talk about international politics—on Lara Notes, you can capture that conversation with Shared Offline: tag the person you were with, and a record of your discussion will remain. This Note comes from Foreign Affairs and saves you 6 minutes of reading.