Questions regarding Imperialism in Southeast Asia

Résumé du document

The concept of Southeast Asia first appeared in the 1920s. It was seen as an intermediary region between India and China and was at that time essentially a trade region, because of the size of its coast and because of the many rivers that went through it. It was the "land below the winds", hence its importance for navigation. So the concept of Southeast Asia used to be a geographical expression to designate an important, yet intermediate area, only valuable for trading. We can see that in the early European maps, which focus on mountains, rivers, coasts rather that borders between the countries.

Then the concept evolved to become a regional one and nowadays Southeast Asia is no more an intermediate region, but a "full" region. The term is no more used only to designate the country east of India and south of China. Now those countries are part of a region. We can see that on the modern maps of the region, what matter are the political and territorial delimitations of the countries. Southeast Asia has its own identity. How did that happen?

Extraits

[...] With the treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 both countries demarcated their spheres of influence. They chose a meridian, and land to the east was for the Portuguese, to the west for the Spanish. So the Spanish Empire expanded westwards towards the Americas while the Portuguese Empire expanded towards the east. So the Portuguese reached Asia via the Cap of good Hope (they discovered it in 1488) while the Spanish tried to reach it via the Americas. But the Empires actually visited few of the land that they claimed as “theirs”. [...]

[...] It was a war theater during the war, and became an even more important one with the cold war. A regional economic zone (ASEAN) was created, which shows the unity of the region. How are pre-modern states and politics in Southeast Asia different from modern states? What are the key bases of such politics? The modern states are defined by their territory whereas the pre-modern states were defined by inter-personal relations. That is to say what matters in pre-modern states and politics in Southeast Asia is not the territorial control but the control of people. [...]

[...] Zheng He led the seven expeditions that took place between 1405 and 1430. Those expeditions had a great importance in China's interactions with Southeast Asia as it was the first major armed Chinese expedition. It further increased Chinas power over the area by establishing direct diplomatic relations with the countries. We can talk about imperialist expeditions. Yes, Zheng He did not colonize the countries he reached: contrary to the western explorers, he went back to his country. The expeditions are often described as peaceful. [...]

[...] How was the Portuguese Empire different from the Spanish Empire in Southeast Asia? The Portuguese Empire was, like the Spanish Empire, religious and commercial, but was not territorial. While for Portuguese the aim was to establish commercial relations with Asia (and as such, it was the first European direct participation in Asian trade), the Spanish sought to colonize Southeast Asia (and as such, it was the first European colonial project in the area). So the Portuguese wanted to create a commercial Empire, notably by controlling the trade of pepper and all spices in general. [...]

[...] Questions regarding Imperialism in Southeast Asia What are the beginnings of Southeast Asia as a concept? How has it evolved since 1945? The concept of Southeast Asia first appeared in the 1920s. It was seen as an intermediary region between India and China and was at that time essentially a trade region, because of the size of its coast and because of the many rivers that went through it. It was the “land below the winds”, hence its importance for navigation. [...]