Although the United States’ hostility toward China is unrelenting, it is nothing new. In one form or another, it has existed since the 19th century.
In context, America’s punitive sanctions, trade restrictions, export controls, Asia-Pacific expansionism, militarization of Taiwan, attempted destabilization of Hong Kong and the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, and stoking of regional tensions are but the latest manifestations of an aggressiveness deeply rooted in the past.
However, whereas the US was originally driven by notions of imperial grandeur, its actions are now fueled by paranoia and a consciousness of its own decline. As China’s influence rises inexorably in global affairs, the US, by whatever means, seeks to maintain its hegemony.
As always, the US has dragged in its Western partners to help out with the dirty work. In 2020, for example, when China acted decisively to end the insurrection that almost toppled Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” governing policy, it was not only the US that reacted furiously, hitting the city with punitive measures.
Instead of standing with Hong Kong in its hour of need, America’s sycophantic partners also put the boot in, imagining they had little to lose.
The United Kingdom, for example, despite its historical ties, hit Hong Kong hard, an act of perfidy if ever there was one. For example, it suspended its fugitive surrender arrangements with the city, provided safe haven to fleeing criminals, encouraged malcontents to relocate to Britain through an irregular passport scheme (in breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984), and ended the supply of strategic equipment to the Police Force (and froze training programs).
In Australia, fugitive surrender arrangements were also suspended, criminal fugitives were welcomed, and a crude attempt was made to destroy Hong Kong’s tourism industry (with travelers being warned against holidaying in the city with ludicrous scare stories about being whisked away to Beijing to face national security trials).
In Canada, the government prohibited the export of sensitive military items to Hong Kong, suspended the Canada-Hong Kong extradition treaty, and warned its people of nonexistent dangers and urged them not to visit Hong Kong (notwithstanding 300,000 Canadians living there).
Therefore, once Washington said “jump”, London, Canberra and Ottawa responded in unison, “How high?” It was not their finest hour, and they were starting to see the error of their ways. This is more than can be said of the leader of the pack.
Although the US is often accused of having an inconsistent foreign policy, this cannot be said of its approach to China. It has abused China not only when it is strong and can protect itself, but also in the days when it was weak and defenseless. In the late Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), when China was on its knees, the US ruthlessly exploited the situation, taking its cue from the UK, the then-dominant imperial power.
Since the 19th century, the roles of the UK and the US have been reversed. It is now the US that calls the tune on China (although Britain’s new prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, is valiantly trying to plow his own furrow). However, what has not changed has been America’s crude aggression over the years.
After the First Opium War concluded in 1842, the UK compelled China to sign the Treaty of Nanking (the first unequal treaty imposed on China), followed by the Treaty of Humen in 1843. The British acquired various rights and privileges, including Hong Kong Island, huge indemnities (21 million silver dollars), the opening of five ports for foreign trade, tariff rates determined by the UK, British jurisdiction over crimes committed by its nationals on Chinese soil, and unilateral “most-favored-nation” treatment (meaning that if any other foreign powers extorted concessions out of China, they would also be enjoyed by British subjects).
Although the terms were devastating for a sovereign state, China, with its army and navy broken, had no choice but to sign on the dotted lines.
By the 1850s, the UK was hungry for more, and it forced the issue by attacking the port cities of Guangzhou and Tianjin in the Second Opium War (1856-60). Once the conflict concluded with the Treaty of Peking (1860), Britain again hit the jackpot.
This time China was obliged to hand over Kowloon, open seven more of its ports for foreign trade and residence, waive its right to control foreign religions, reaffirm the extraterritoriality of British, American, French and Russian citizens, permit foreign vessels to navigate the Yangtze River, allow foreign countries to station a permanent diplomatic presence in Beijing, forgo the establishment of any further monopolies or cartels over its domestic trade, and pay an indemnity of 6 million taels (226,796 kilograms) of silver.
Because of the most-favored-nation clause, the US was able to obtain the same concessions that the UK had achieved by force of arms.
As if all this was not bad enough, China also had to agree to the lifting of the ban on the opium trade. The trade then flourished even more than it had before the First Opium War, causing untold harm to people’s welfare and severely depleting the national coffers. These consequences meant nothing to the UK government, whose only concern was for the profits of Britain’s opium traders (notably Jardine Matheson & Co).
In the 1830s, the Chinese commissioner responsible for eliminating the opium trade, Lin Zexu, had written to Britain’s Queen Victoria. He said her subjects were “selling products injurious to others in order to fulfill your insatiable desire”, and that if this happened in Britain, she would “deeply hate it and be bitterly aroused”. Although he asked, “Where is your conscience?” he received no reply, undoubtedly on the advice of Lord Palmerston, the foreign secretary.
Palmerston was an arch-imperialist who, as the future prime minister, William Gladstone explained, was oblivious to the moral evils of opium which the Chinese government was valiantly trying to suppress. However, Lin courageously took matters into his own hands, dumping opium chests into the sea and burning others. He also held the British drug dealers to account, which infuriated Palmerston.
For almost 200 years, therefore, China has been the victim of US scheming and aggression. However, the days when it had to turn the other cheek have gone. As it showed in 2020, when attempts were made to wreck Hong Kong, it will do whatever it takes to protect its territory and protect the interests of its people
After the Treaty of Nanking was signed, the US had no hesitation in also taking advantage of the dire circumstances in which China found itself. Notwithstanding the deaths of thousands of Chinese (including many civilians) at British hands and the country’s parlous finances, it demanded its own share of the pie. It showed China no mercy, despite being a supposedly Christian nation.
It may be that the then-US president, John Tyler — similar to his modern-day successors’ behavior in the Middle East — imagined that what he was doing in China was legitimate, and a reflection of what is now described as the “international rules-based order”. However, for China, America’s actions spelled disaster, but it had to acquiesce.
Before the First Opium War, the US had also been heavily involved in the opium trade. Although it did not want to participate in the fighting, the former US president, John Quincy Adams, had defended British aggression, and the American government sent its East India squadron to China in a show of support for the British. An envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, Caleb Cushing, was sent to China, accompanied by three warships. His instructions were to acquire the same trade conditions as those given to Britain in the newly opened ports and to tell China that if it refused, it would be regarded as a hostile act and there would not be peace.
Under compulsion, the Qing Dynasty government signed the Treaty of Wangxia (a Macao suburban village) with Cushing in 1844. It not only gave the US the privileges the British had already acquired but also resulted in extra benefits, causing greater resentment. Cushing wrote to the US State Department to say that his country should thank the UK for having opened the door with the Treaty of Nanking, but that Britain should also thank the US for having opened the door even wider, and his point was valid.
The Treaty of Wangxia’s terms were both harsh and humiliating. The US acquired the rights to try its own citizens for crimes committed in China (extraterritoriality), to control (and vary) trade tariffs, to have its ships enter or leave China’s territorial waters without any controls by the host country, to learn Chinese (foreigners were previously forbidden to do so), and to buy land in the treaty ports and erect churches and hospitals there. If US warships entered Chinese ports, they had to be received and accommodated by the Chinese authorities, the ultimate humiliation.
With the unequal treaty under his belt, then-president John Tyler, who, like Palmerston, advocated Asian expansionism and foreign conquest, was able to claim that it proved the success of what he called his “national greatness” policy at home and abroad. The treaty marked the start of American penetration of the Far East, and it paved the way for the US takeover of the Philippines in 1898 (which, in all but name, still continues). The policy, with its anti-China overtones, evolved steadily over the years, leading, for example, to the Vietnam War, to Japan and South Korea becoming US client states, and to the weaponization of Taiwan.
For almost 200 years, therefore, China has been the victim of US scheming and aggression. However, the days when it had to turn the other cheek have gone. As it showed in 2020, when attempts were made to wreck Hong Kong, it will do whatever it takes to protect its territory and protect the interests of its people. It now has the credibility, maturity and stature the US lacks and is able to provide the global leadership of which the West is no longer capable.
China, like many other places, including, most recently, Gaza and Lebanon, has suffered greatly at the hands of the US and its proxies, but it has emerged stronger from its experiences. Although it was unable to protect Hong Kong in the 19th century, it can do so now. Having experienced Western interference and brutality, China can now credibly say, “Never again.”
Although, unlike China, the US has not learned the lessons of history, so anything is still possible. After all, at Christmastime, the message of repentance always looms large, and this year, it is more urgent. If the US could reflect on the negativity of its foreign policy and the harm it has caused, a safer world might yet emerge. This may be wishful thinking, but hope springs eternal.
In 1862, the US president, Abraham Lincoln, said, “If we never try, we shall never succeed.” Given the horrors of their ongoing conflicts and the futility of their inane provocations, his successors would be wise to embrace peace and harmony. If, as they say, the peacemakers are blessed, so also are those who are big enough to learn from past mistakes and chart new directions.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
