Who Was Anson Burlingame? Anson Burlingame, a name of which most people have probably never heard, was a unique diplomat. He was appointed by President Abraham Lincoln as the U.S.’ Ambassador to China [1] in 1861-1867. Then, China appointed him as China’s Ambassador [2] to All the Treaty Powers, including the U.S., in 1867-1870, when on a mission to Russia he caught pneumonia and died at the early age of 49 in St. Petersburg.
Mark Twain wrote the following obituary for Burlingame: “In real greatness, ability, grandeur of character, and achievement, Anson Burlingame stood head and shoulders above all the Americans of to-day, save one or two…He was a good man, and a very great man. America lost a son, and all the world a servant, when he died.”
The middle of the 19th century was a period where China was forced to sign many unequal treaties with various foreign powers, including the U.S. China was essentially partitioned so that she did not even have sovereignty over her own country. China became weaker physically, militarily, and economically. Many of her citizens were addicted to opium initially brought in and sold by Britain, but unknown to most Americans, many Americans were also directly involved and enriched themselves greatly from the opium trade with China. [3] These unequal treaties caused the Chinese people to have strong sentiments against the foreign powers. Burlingame, as the U.S. Ambassador to China, saw that this kind of foreign policy was not just immoral and unjust, but had the foresight to realize that, in the long run; this kind of foreign policy was not in the best interests of the U.S. and the American people. If this continued, sooner or later the Chinese people would rise up and throw out all the foreign powers. Then, the U.S would be shut off from a huge market for American products and access to the vast Chinese natural resources and cheap labor.
Burlingame began making changes in the U.S. foreign policy starting with allowing Chinese citizens to be witnesses in the American courts in China. Taking the cue from the American domestic abolitionist movement of 1860s promoting the “equality of men,” he worked with Secretary of State William H. Seward to change the American foreign policy toward China to be based on the “equality of nations.” China sensed that Burlingame was a man of integrity and wisdom and had the vision to see what, in the long term, was in the best interests of the U.S. and China. So, China offered Burlingame the job of China’s Ambassador to All the Treaty Powers, including the U.S. Realizing that this is an opportunity to alter the relationship between the U.S. and China that would benefit both nations, Burlingame set aside his personal goal of running for higher office in the U.S. and accepted the position.
Burlingame Treaty of 1868: It was not an easy task to persuade the U.S. Senate to change a foreign policy of unequal treaties to a foreign policy based on the equality of nations. Using all his oratorical skills and working closely with Secretary of State Seward, Burlingame was successful in persuading the U.S. Senate to ratify what came to be known as the Burlingame Treaty, which President Andrew Johnson signed in 1868. This treaty was based on equality of nations and provided reciprocity on various foreign relationships between the U.S. and China.
Such a treaty would have established a solid foundation for selling American products in China, accessing China’s vast natural resources, and utilizing China’s cheap labor, and would have resulted in a win-win situation for both countries. Unfortunately, Burlingame died in February 1870 while on a mission to Russia. Most of the treaty was never implemented. Furthermore, with the assassination of President Lincoln and the stall of the reconstruction movement, the Burlingame Treaty was basically repealed in the following decade. The U.S. continued her imperialistic attitude toward China based on military might, and extremely anti-Chinese discriminatory laws were passed in the U.S., with the most noteworthy being the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which is the only law in American history to deny citizenship or entry based on a specific nationality. This act remained in effect until 1943 when the U.S. and China were allies during WWII.
America’s Foreign Policy Toward China Since the Late 1940s: Let’s look at American foreign policy toward China since WWII. Ever since the late 1940s when it appeared that the Chinese Communists would win the civil war in China, the U.S. has adopted a China policy that is not based on equality of nations but rather a policy to surround, isolate, and weaken China.
The first policy was the decision not to prosecute Emperor Hirohito, even though he was a hands-on emperor who was fully aware of and approved what Japan did during the war. [4][5] If the Emperor of Japan did not do anything wrong, then Japan does not have to apologize for its massive atrocities during WWII, which Japan still has not, even though 71 years have passed since the end of WWII.
After the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established in 1949, U.S. did not recognize PRC for 30 years. U.S. orchestrated the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty that was the official treaty ending WWII with Japan. China, the country that suffered the most damage from Japan, was not (neither the PRC or Republic of China) invited to attend, although over 50 other countries were invited. This treaty only stated that Japan should relinquish former Chinese territories such as Taiwan, but did not explicitly say that they should be returned to China. This intentional twisting of history by the U.S. to the detriment of China has since been repeated on several occasions by U.S. senior government officials that the agreement was that Japan would give up their jurisdiction over Taiwan, Penghu, and other territories, but the receiving country of these territories was not specified. For example, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, co-author of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, said in 1955 “the treaty ceded Taiwan to no one; that Japan merely renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, and that America cannot, therefore, admit that the disposition of Taiwan is merely an internal problem of China.” Therefore, as early as 1951, it was already fairly clear about the imperialistic intention of the U.S. toward China and their planting the seed to ally with Japan to isolate and weaken China.
On December 25, 1953, the U.S. Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (also known as Okinawa Prefecture) issued, with no legal grounds whatsoever, Civil Administration Proclamation No. 27 and unilaterally included the Diaoyu Islands as part of the Ryukyu Islands whose administrative rights would be handed over to Japan in 1972. Although on many occasions the U.S. would state that it does not take a position regarding the territorial sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands, the U.S. would also claim that these islands are covered under the Japan-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty. This complicity of the U.S. helped to create a dispute which should not have existed in the first place. In other words, U.S. showed itself willing to go to war with China with no moral or legal justification.
Regarding the South China Sea dispute, American mass media and speeches of American political leaders constantly criticize China for violating international laws as specified under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, studying the facts about this issue will lead to the conclusion that, yes, there is an abuse of power, but the country doing the abuse is the U.S., not China. [6] The U.S. has accused China of military aggression and creating instabilities in the world, but it is the U.S. that has military bases all around China, and has military alliances with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand. The U.S.’s huge 7th Fleet is patrolling the waters all around China with 60-70 ships and submarines, 200 to 300 aircrafts, and about 40,000 sailors and marines.
The so-called pivot to Asia by the U.S. is really just an intensified continuation of her long policy to surround, isolate, and weaken China.
Is the American Foreign Policy Toward China in the Best Interests of the U.S. and the American People? During the 65+ years of the U.S.’s surround/isolate/weaken foreign policy toward China, China might have been surrounded and often isolated, but she is definitely not getting weaker nor isolated. Based on the number of countries showing interest in China’s “One Belt One Road” initiative to interconnect China and most of Asia and Europe and the related Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), China is growing economically stronger, and more connected with the global economy.
Of course, every country’s first priority is for the welfare of their country. I have no quarrel with that. I do, however, wonder if U.S. foreign policy toward China is in the best interests of the U.S. and the American people over the long term.
Allying so closely will Japan could result in irreparable damage to the U.S.’ claim as an advocate of justice and human rights, since Japan has not admitted and apologized for the massive and inhumane atrocities that she inflicted all over Asia during WWII.
Through various mutual-defense treaties, the U.S. is ready to go to war with China over disputes that the U.S. has no legal or moral reasons to be involved. A war with China would be an extremely costly and protracted war, perhaps involving nuclear weapons. There will be no winners in a nuclear war in the 21st century between the world’s top two economies.
While competing with China, instead of adopting an uncalled-for antagonistic attitude, the U.S. should work together with China to solve many of the world’s critical problems, such as fighting against terrorism, environmental protection, world hunger, and world peace. At the same time, the U.S. can join China and other countries to improve inter-country, inter-continent infrastructure, e.g., transportation via high-speed trains. Working together on these projects not only is beneficial to the world, but U.S. companies and workers would also share in the benefits of working on these huge, cutting-edge, and profitable projects, which could lead to vast economic opportunities that these projects might open up.
Instead of adopting a Tonya Harding-like foreign policy to unfairly attack her main Olympics ice skating competitor Nancy Kerrigan, the U.S. should focus its energy to look within herself to improve her country’s competitiveness as a whole, which should bring vast economic benefits to the American people.
In the long run, the current U.S. policy to surround, isolate, and weaken China is not in the best interests of the U.S. and the American people. U.S. should pursue a win-win-win strategy: Win for the U.S., win for China, and win for world peace.
With the recent change of political leadership in the U.S., it is an opportune time for the Trump administration to take a fresh look at the U.S.’s foreign policy toward China. Since President-Elect Trump’s selection as the U.S. Ambassador to China, Iowa governor Terry Branstad, has a long relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping, it could lead to warmer relationship with China. On the other hand, Trump has always been a severe critic of China. Will he heighten the U.S.’s policy to surround, isolate, and weaken China, or will he, perhaps after some twists and turns, realize that the best interests of the U.S. and the American people will be served by a policy that is based on equality of nations. We just have to wait to see which path that policy will turn out.
Like Anson Burlingame’s vision, a 21st century U.S. policy toward China must also be based on equality of nations. It must be based on understanding history and culture and that different countries with different historical and cultural backgrounds may do things differently. Treating other countries as equal will lead to long-term friendships, cooperation, and win-win for everyone.
Which American leaders will stand up head and shoulders above the others? The U.S. and the American people, as well as the rest of the world, will benefit from such leadership. Using Mark Twain’s words, who will become this great man, a son of America, and a servant of the world? [7]
——————————-
* A slightly shorter version of this article of the same title is published in December 20, 2016 of China-US Focus: English version: http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/us-china-relationship-can-use-another-anson-burlingame. Chinese version: http://cn.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/20161219/11328.html
[1] His official title was “Minister to Qing Empire,” but it is equivalent to today’s “Ambassador to China.”
[2] His official title was “Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary,” but it is equivalent to today’s “Ambassador.”
[3] Among them were Warren Delano (President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s maternal grandfather), Caleb Cushing, Francis Blackwell Forbes (Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry’s great-grandfather), John Murray Forbes, John Cleve Green, Abiel Abbot Low, Thomas H. Perkins, and Samuel Russell. This group of people, all made their huge fortunes from the opium trade with China, then invested their fortunes in various industries, such as railroads, mines, manufacturing, technology, real estates, that helped to transform the U.S. in the second half of the 19th century. They also contributed greatly to the financial support of various Ivy League universities. For more information, see James Bradley, The China Mirage: The Hidden History of American Disaster in China, Little Brown and Company, 2015.
[4] Herbert P. Nix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd; 2001.
[5] David Bergamini, Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy, William Morrow, 1971. I thank Adam Jonas Horowitz for informing me about David Bergamini and his 1971 book.
[6] For background information and a discussion of this issue, see Don M. Tow, “South China Sea Dispute: Abuse of World Power,” China-US Focus, September 15, 2016: http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/south-china-sea-dispute-abuse-of-world-power.
[7] More information on Anson Burlingame can be found in the following two articles in my website:
U.S.-China Relationship Can Use Another Anson Burlingame*
Who Was Anson Burlingame? Anson Burlingame, a name of which most people have probably never heard, was a unique diplomat. He was appointed by President Abraham Lincoln as the U.S.’ Ambassador to China [1] in 1861-1867. Then, China appointed him as China’s Ambassador [2] to All the Treaty Powers, including the U.S., in 1867-1870, when on a mission to Russia he caught pneumonia and died at the early age of 49 in St. Petersburg.
Mark Twain wrote the following obituary for Burlingame: “In real greatness, ability, grandeur of character, and achievement, Anson Burlingame stood head and shoulders above all the Americans of to-day, save one or two…He was a good man, and a very great man. America lost a son, and all the world a servant, when he died.”
The middle of the 19th century was a period where China was forced to sign many unequal treaties with various foreign powers, including the U.S. China was essentially partitioned so that she did not even have sovereignty over her own country. China became weaker physically, militarily, and economically. Many of her citizens were addicted to opium initially brought in and sold by Britain, but unknown to most Americans, many Americans were also directly involved and enriched themselves greatly from the opium trade with China. [3] These unequal treaties caused the Chinese people to have strong sentiments against the foreign powers. Burlingame, as the U.S. Ambassador to China, saw that this kind of foreign policy was not just immoral and unjust, but had the foresight to realize that, in the long run; this kind of foreign policy was not in the best interests of the U.S. and the American people. If this continued, sooner or later the Chinese people would rise up and throw out all the foreign powers. Then, the U.S would be shut off from a huge market for American products and access to the vast Chinese natural resources and cheap labor.
Burlingame began making changes in the U.S. foreign policy starting with allowing Chinese citizens to be witnesses in the American courts in China. Taking the cue from the American domestic abolitionist movement of 1860s promoting the “equality of men,” he worked with Secretary of State William H. Seward to change the American foreign policy toward China to be based on the “equality of nations.” China sensed that Burlingame was a man of integrity and wisdom and had the vision to see what, in the long term, was in the best interests of the U.S. and China. So, China offered Burlingame the job of China’s Ambassador to All the Treaty Powers, including the U.S. Realizing that this is an opportunity to alter the relationship between the U.S. and China that would benefit both nations, Burlingame set aside his personal goal of running for higher office in the U.S. and accepted the position.
Burlingame Treaty of 1868: It was not an easy task to persuade the U.S. Senate to change a foreign policy of unequal treaties to a foreign policy based on the equality of nations. Using all his oratorical skills and working closely with Secretary of State Seward, Burlingame was successful in persuading the U.S. Senate to ratify what came to be known as the Burlingame Treaty, which President Andrew Johnson signed in 1868. This treaty was based on equality of nations and provided reciprocity on various foreign relationships between the U.S. and China.
Such a treaty would have established a solid foundation for selling American products in China, accessing China’s vast natural resources, and utilizing China’s cheap labor, and would have resulted in a win-win situation for both countries. Unfortunately, Burlingame died in February 1870 while on a mission to Russia. Most of the treaty was never implemented. Furthermore, with the assassination of President Lincoln and the stall of the reconstruction movement, the Burlingame Treaty was basically repealed in the following decade. The U.S. continued her imperialistic attitude toward China based on military might, and extremely anti-Chinese discriminatory laws were passed in the U.S., with the most noteworthy being the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which is the only law in American history to deny citizenship or entry based on a specific nationality. This act remained in effect until 1943 when the U.S. and China were allies during WWII.
America’s Foreign Policy Toward China Since the Late 1940s: Let’s look at American foreign policy toward China since WWII. Ever since the late 1940s when it appeared that the Chinese Communists would win the civil war in China, the U.S. has adopted a China policy that is not based on equality of nations but rather a policy to surround, isolate, and weaken China.
The first policy was the decision not to prosecute Emperor Hirohito, even though he was a hands-on emperor who was fully aware of and approved what Japan did during the war. [4][5] If the Emperor of Japan did not do anything wrong, then Japan does not have to apologize for its massive atrocities during WWII, which Japan still has not, even though 71 years have passed since the end of WWII.
After the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established in 1949, U.S. did not recognize PRC for 30 years. U.S. orchestrated the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty that was the official treaty ending WWII with Japan. China, the country that suffered the most damage from Japan, was not (neither the PRC or Republic of China) invited to attend, although over 50 other countries were invited. This treaty only stated that Japan should relinquish former Chinese territories such as Taiwan, but did not explicitly say that they should be returned to China. This intentional twisting of history by the U.S. to the detriment of China has since been repeated on several occasions by U.S. senior government officials that the agreement was that Japan would give up their jurisdiction over Taiwan, Penghu, and other territories, but the receiving country of these territories was not specified. For example, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, co-author of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, said in 1955 “the treaty ceded Taiwan to no one; that Japan merely renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, and that America cannot, therefore, admit that the disposition of Taiwan is merely an internal problem of China.” Therefore, as early as 1951, it was already fairly clear about the imperialistic intention of the U.S. toward China and their planting the seed to ally with Japan to isolate and weaken China.
On December 25, 1953, the U.S. Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (also known as Okinawa Prefecture) issued, with no legal grounds whatsoever, Civil Administration Proclamation No. 27 and unilaterally included the Diaoyu Islands as part of the Ryukyu Islands whose administrative rights would be handed over to Japan in 1972. Although on many occasions the U.S. would state that it does not take a position regarding the territorial sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands, the U.S. would also claim that these islands are covered under the Japan-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty. This complicity of the U.S. helped to create a dispute which should not have existed in the first place. In other words, U.S. showed itself willing to go to war with China with no moral or legal justification.
Regarding the South China Sea dispute, American mass media and speeches of American political leaders constantly criticize China for violating international laws as specified under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, studying the facts about this issue will lead to the conclusion that, yes, there is an abuse of power, but the country doing the abuse is the U.S., not China. [6] The U.S. has accused China of military aggression and creating instabilities in the world, but it is the U.S. that has military bases all around China, and has military alliances with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand. The U.S.’s huge 7th Fleet is patrolling the waters all around China with 60-70 ships and submarines, 200 to 300 aircrafts, and about 40,000 sailors and marines.
The so-called pivot to Asia by the U.S. is really just an intensified continuation of her long policy to surround, isolate, and weaken China.
Is the American Foreign Policy Toward China in the Best Interests of the U.S. and the American People? During the 65+ years of the U.S.’s surround/isolate/weaken foreign policy toward China, China might have been surrounded and often isolated, but she is definitely not getting weaker nor isolated. Based on the number of countries showing interest in China’s “One Belt One Road” initiative to interconnect China and most of Asia and Europe and the related Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), China is growing economically stronger, and more connected with the global economy.
Of course, every country’s first priority is for the welfare of their country. I have no quarrel with that. I do, however, wonder if U.S. foreign policy toward China is in the best interests of the U.S. and the American people over the long term.
Allying so closely will Japan could result in irreparable damage to the U.S.’ claim as an advocate of justice and human rights, since Japan has not admitted and apologized for the massive and inhumane atrocities that she inflicted all over Asia during WWII.
Through various mutual-defense treaties, the U.S. is ready to go to war with China over disputes that the U.S. has no legal or moral reasons to be involved. A war with China would be an extremely costly and protracted war, perhaps involving nuclear weapons. There will be no winners in a nuclear war in the 21st century between the world’s top two economies.
While competing with China, instead of adopting an uncalled-for antagonistic attitude, the U.S. should work together with China to solve many of the world’s critical problems, such as fighting against terrorism, environmental protection, world hunger, and world peace. At the same time, the U.S. can join China and other countries to improve inter-country, inter-continent infrastructure, e.g., transportation via high-speed trains. Working together on these projects not only is beneficial to the world, but U.S. companies and workers would also share in the benefits of working on these huge, cutting-edge, and profitable projects, which could lead to vast economic opportunities that these projects might open up.
Instead of adopting a Tonya Harding-like foreign policy to unfairly attack her main Olympics ice skating competitor Nancy Kerrigan, the U.S. should focus its energy to look within herself to improve her country’s competitiveness as a whole, which should bring vast economic benefits to the American people.
In the long run, the current U.S. policy to surround, isolate, and weaken China is not in the best interests of the U.S. and the American people. U.S. should pursue a win-win-win strategy: Win for the U.S., win for China, and win for world peace.
With the recent change of political leadership in the U.S., it is an opportune time for the Trump administration to take a fresh look at the U.S.’s foreign policy toward China. Since President-Elect Trump’s selection as the U.S. Ambassador to China, Iowa governor Terry Branstad, has a long relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping, it could lead to warmer relationship with China. On the other hand, Trump has always been a severe critic of China. Will he heighten the U.S.’s policy to surround, isolate, and weaken China, or will he, perhaps after some twists and turns, realize that the best interests of the U.S. and the American people will be served by a policy that is based on equality of nations. We just have to wait to see which path that policy will turn out.
Like Anson Burlingame’s vision, a 21st century U.S. policy toward China must also be based on equality of nations. It must be based on understanding history and culture and that different countries with different historical and cultural backgrounds may do things differently. Treating other countries as equal will lead to long-term friendships, cooperation, and win-win for everyone.
Which American leaders will stand up head and shoulders above the others? The U.S. and the American people, as well as the rest of the world, will benefit from such leadership. Using Mark Twain’s words, who will become this great man, a son of America, and a servant of the world? [7]
——————————-
* A slightly shorter version of this article of the same title is published in December 20, 2016 of China-US Focus: English version: http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/us-china-relationship-can-use-another-anson-burlingame. Chinese version: http://cn.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/20161219/11328.html
[1] His official title was “Minister to Qing Empire,” but it is equivalent to today’s “Ambassador to China.”
[2] His official title was “Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary,” but it is equivalent to today’s “Ambassador.”
[3] Among them were Warren Delano (President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s maternal grandfather), Caleb Cushing, Francis Blackwell Forbes (Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry’s great-grandfather), John Murray Forbes, John Cleve Green, Abiel Abbot Low, Thomas H. Perkins, and Samuel Russell. This group of people, all made their huge fortunes from the opium trade with China, then invested their fortunes in various industries, such as railroads, mines, manufacturing, technology, real estates, that helped to transform the U.S. in the second half of the 19th century. They also contributed greatly to the financial support of various Ivy League universities. For more information, see James Bradley, The China Mirage: The Hidden History of American Disaster in China, Little Brown and Company, 2015.
[4] Herbert P. Nix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd; 2001.
[5] David Bergamini, Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy, William Morrow, 1971. I thank Adam Jonas Horowitz for informing me about David Bergamini and his 1971 book.
[6] For background information and a discussion of this issue, see Don M. Tow, “South China Sea Dispute: Abuse of World Power,” China-US Focus, September 15, 2016: http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/south-china-sea-dispute-abuse-of-world-power.
[7] More information on Anson Burlingame can be found in the following two articles in my website: