Openness matters

The rise and fall of Yuegang offers enduring lessons on the value of opening-up, connectivity and mutually beneficial cooperation

Today, visitors walking through the ancient town of Yuegang in Zhangzhou, East China’s Fujian province, find little to suggest that this quiet waterfront once stood at the center of one of history’s most remarkable trading networks.

Four centuries ago, merchant ships crowded its crescent-shaped harbor, loading silk, porcelain and tea, which they would transport across the South China Sea, mostly to Manila, where they joined the famed Manila Galleons bound for the Americas. Silver from the mines of Mexico and Peru returned along the same route, while crops such as sweet potatoes and maize entered China, reshaping its agriculture. Historians increasingly recognize Yuegang as one of the principal hubs of the world’s first truly global economy.

Its disappearance is as instructive as its rise. Yuegang prospered because China then chose engagement over isolation. It declined when political turmoil, shifting trade routes and renewed restrictions on maritime commerce gradually weakened the networks that had sustained its prosperity.

At a time when geopolitical tensions and economic fragmentation are once again reshaping global trade, Yuegang offers a timely reminder that openness has repeatedly proved a stronger foundation for long-term prosperity than isolation.

During the late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), Yuegang became China’s only officially authorized port for private overseas trade after the Longqing Opening of 1567. The policy marked a pragmatic shift away from decades of restrictive maritime bans that had failed to stop overseas commerce. Instead, the prohibitions had encouraged widespread smuggling, reduced government revenue and weakened the coastal economy. Recognizing reality, the Ming imperial court chose regulation over prohibition, allowing commerce to flourish under official supervision.

The results were extraordinary. Chinese merchants established regular commercial routes linking Fujian with Southeast Asia, especially Manila, then Spain’s Pacific gateway to the Americas. Chinese silk, porcelain and handicrafts crossed the Pacific, while American silver became the backbone of China’s monetary system. New World crops introduced through these maritime exchanges improved agricultural productivity and helped sustain China’s growing population.

Yuegang’s story also challenges a common misconception that globalization was solely a Western creation. Long before the Industrial Revolution, merchants from China, Southeast Asia, Europe and the Americas had already formed an interconnected commercial network spanning the Pacific. Rather than being a passive participant, China was an active contributor whose merchants, goods and entrepreneurial spirit helped shape the emerging global economy.

Yet globalization was never simply about commerce. Yuegang became a meeting point where cultures, technologies and ideas traveled alongside merchandise. Chinese merchants who settled in Manila served as intermediaries between civilizations. Chinese porcelain influenced tastes in Mexico. American silver transformed China’s economy, while crops from the Americas reshaped Chinese agriculture. Each society influenced the others, demonstrating that globalization has always been a process of mutual exchange rather than one-way diffusion.

History, however, offers another lesson that deserves equal attention. Yuegang’s prosperity did not last forever. During the late Ming and early Qing periods, warfare along China’s southeastern coast, renewed maritime restrictions and the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) government’s “Great Clearance” policy severely disrupted overseas commerce. Later as political stability returned, international trade increasingly shifted toward other ports. By the 18th century, Yuegang had largely disappeared from the map of global commerce.

Its decline was not caused by a single event, nor simply by the silting of its harbor. More fundamentally, it reflected the country’s gradual weakening of the international connections that had once made the port indispensable. Prosperity depends not only on favorable geography but also on stable networks that allow goods, capital, people and ideas to move with confidence. When those connections are broken by conflict, excessive restrictions or political fragmentation, commercial vitality inevitably suffers.

This is the mirror image of Yuegang’s earlier success. If openness transformed a modest coastal harbor into one of East Asia’s busiest international ports, diminishing connectivity gradually reduced it to a quiet historical town. The contrast illustrates a broader historical truth: societies generally prosper when they remain connected to regional and global networks and struggle when those networks become fragmented.

That lesson feels strikingly relevant today when the world is witnessing growing trade tensions, supply chain restructuring, export controls and increasing calls for “de-risking” and “decoupling”. Governments understandably seek greater resilience in an uncertain geopolitical environment. Yet resilience should not be confused with isolation. Yuegang suggests that secure, diversified and well-governed connections are a source of strength rather than vulnerability. The challenge is not whether countries should engage with the world, but how they can do so while safeguarding national interests.

Yuegang’s experience also offers valuable insights into China’s neighborhood diplomacy. Long before China traded extensively with Europe and the Americas, Yuegang’s merchants sailed primarily to Southeast Asia. Manila became a pivotal gateway because of its location within regional maritime networks, while ports across what are present-day Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines formed an interconnected trading system that generated prosperity through mutual benefit.

Those early maritime links helped lay the foundations for a regional economy built on complementarity rather than confrontation. Merchants crossed borders because each side possessed something others needed. Economic interdependence emerged not through coercion but through shared interests.

Today, China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are each other’s largest trading partners, connected by increasingly integrated supply chains, expanding infrastructure and growing people-to-people exchanges. Although today’s geopolitical landscape differs dramatically from that of the 16th century, the underlying logic remains remarkably similar. Geographic proximity creates opportunities for cooperation, while mutually beneficial economic ties generate shared interests and contribute to regional stability. Yuegang reminds us that neighboring countries generally gain far more from connectivity than from division.

The port also highlights an often-overlooked dimension of globalization: its human foundation. Too often, globalization is portrayed as a project designed by governments or multinational corporations. Yuegang tells a different story. Its success rested on countless ordinary merchants, sailors, craftsmen and migrants who built relationships across cultures through everyday exchanges. Likewise, today’s entrepreneurs exploring overseas markets, innovators collaborating across borders and students and scholars studying abroad continue to strengthen international cooperation one connection at a time.

The challenges of today including climate change, pandemics, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity are vastly different from those confronting Yuegang’s merchants centuries ago. But they share one essential characteristic: none can be solved by any country acting alone. They demand cooperation, trust and sustained dialogue across borders.

The harbor that once connected China to the world is now largely silent. Yet its history continues to speak with surprising clarity. Yuegang’s rise demonstrates the opportunities created by openness. Its decline reminds us of the costs when those connections erode. Together, they offer a powerful historical lesson for an increasingly fragmented world: lasting prosperity is built not by closing doors, but by keeping channels of cooperation open, well-governed and mutually beneficial.

Du Guodong is an adjunct fellow at the College of Media and International Culture at Zhejiang University and a PhD researcher at Beijing Foreign Studies University. Yu Shougang is an associate professor at the College of International Cooperative Education at Harbin Engineering University.

The authors contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.