Rethinking chaogong and China's global engagement

This year, a steady stream of foreign leaders has visited China. Yet some Western media outlets have reached for an outdated label to describe these exchanges as the so-called tribute system. Implicit in their coverage is the notion that Beijing is acting like a feudal overlord receiving vassals. That framing misreads both Chinese history and contemporary diplomacy. Three conceptual errors underlie this narrative.

Difference between tribute and tributary system

The English word "tribute" comes from the Latin tributum — a tax imposed by Rome on its provinces. In medieval Europe, it evolved into payments exacted by force from subordinate states, carrying connotations of plunder, exploitation and coercion. Later, during the Age of Discovery, European fleets sailed with cannons, colonized lands, and looted gold and silver. That, historically, is what the Western "tribute system" looked like.

China's chaogong system operated on a different logic. During the Ming Dynasty, a famous Chinese navigator Zheng He led seven voyages overseas in the 15th century, with fleets of over 27,000 men and hundreds of large ships. Despite commanding overwhelming military power, he did not occupy territory, colonize, plunder, or coerce. Instead, he offered silk, porcelain, tools and medical knowledge to help local communities — and he did so with courtesy and sincerity. Not long after his fleet departed, envoys from the distant lands began arriving in quick succession, bearing gifts and ceremonial jade tablets as tokens of respect.

In the Chinese context, chao referred to admiration for the Chinese civilization and a desire to build friendship; gong meant voluntary acts of goodwill from local sovereigns — closer to gift-giving than to compulsory taxation. The Chinese imperial court often gave back far more than it received, sometimes even limiting the frequency of these missions because the cost of reciprocity was so high.

As French entrepreneur and commentator Arnaud Bertrand observed, China's ancient chaogong system was not about making itself "so threatening that nobody dares leave", but rather "so generous that everyone wants to join".

No resemblance between ancient and modern

Contemporary Chinese foreign policy has inherited the peaceful traditions of its history — a longstanding commitment to non-conquest, good-neighborliness and harmony — but it has left behind feudal hierarchies. Since 1949, China has upheld the principle of sovereign equality among all nations, regardless of size or power. It does not impose its values or claim civilizational superiority. Instead, it respects diversity and seeks harmony without uniformity through dialogue.

Today, China pursues partnerships and win-win cooperation rather than alliances. It does not use military or economic pressure to make others give up their share; rather, it works to expand the pie for everyone. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the Global Development Initiative offer public goods that help developing countries build infrastructure, foster industries, and improve livelihoods, free of political strings and exclusionary monopolies. In the process, China itself has prospered through opening up, and has become a stabilizer for the global economy. This kind of beneficial cooperation has broadened China's circle of friends and drawn an increasing number of countries to join in these shared efforts.

Setting global narratives

This is not merely a debate about historical terminology. It is about who defines China today. Using "tribute" as a loose equivalent for chaogong is not just a linguistic inaccuracy — it projects Western imperial history onto China. The same pattern of thinking distorts the Belt and Road Initiative as a "debt trap" and frames normal trade as "economic coercion". At its core, this mirroring reveals a fear that China may offer a genuine alternative to a zero-sum international order.

But this also invites a moment of self-reflection: in our eagerness to make Chinese concepts understandable to Western audiences, have we sometimes fallen into the trap of explaining ourselves in their terms?

In fact, original Chinese notions such as "a community with a shared future for humanity" and the Global Development Initiative are gradually becoming international common sense. For uniquely Chinese concepts like chaogong, we have options. We can simply use the transliteration — chaogong — and explain it on its own terms. Or we can adopt descriptive alternatives like the "Treasure Ship Model" or "Jade-Silk Covenant". There is no need to frame our concepts through a Western lens.

The real power of our story lies in concrete examples: How the China-Laos Railway turned Laos from a landlocked to a land-linked country, or how Juncao technology helped Pacific Island nations lift themselves out of poverty. These facts speak louder than borrowed labels.

With 5,000 years of civilization, more than seven decades of diplomatic practice, and a strong sense of global responsibility, China has every reason to tell its own story with confidence. Its path, distinct from Western hegemonic logic, has been tested and proven workable. Why squeeze one's own feet into someone else's shoes? Told in its own words, China's vision is persuasive enough, because it reminds the world that every nation deserves shoes that fit.

The author is a commentator on international affairs.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.