Friendship or proxy war? Rethinking Burns' critique of China

Editor's note: Xin Ping is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Nicholas Burns, the former US ambassador to China, recently labeled China a "fickle friend" to nations like Iran and Venezuela, arguing that Beijing failed to offer "support" when these countries faced US pressure. It is a strange critique coming from a seasoned diplomat, one that reflects Washington's worldview that "friendship" is only authentic when it is backed by military alliances or a blank check for conflict.

Before lecturing others on reliability, Burns might better revisit a more fundamental question: What does it actually mean to be a friend?

In the Chinese tradition, a friend is an equal, not a subordinate. True friendship means sharing, not hoarding, benefits and respecting a partner's legitimate rights rather than imposing one's whims. Washington's track record, however, has fueled the grim irony whispered in the corridors of power: While being an enemy of the United States is dangerous, being its friend can be fatal.

From devastating tariff wars to the energy crises sparked by reckless sanctions, even America's closest allies have not been spared. For many Europeans, the shifting rhetoric of the US in the past decade has felt less like diplomacy than a "clash within civilization." Even Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has signaled that middle powers must prioritize strategic autonomy over following an unpredictable hegemon. Today, many nations are increasingly wary – privately if not openly – of being called a "friend" of the US, let alone an ally.

China follows a different path: building partnerships, not alliances. Instead of drawing ideological lines, China shares growth opportunities through the Global Development Initiative and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), committed to seeking common development. The World Bank estimates that BRI projects could lift 7.6 million people out of extreme poverty. This is tangible help, enabling nations to deliver better lives for their own people rather than treating them as expendable pawns on a geopolitical chessboard.

Then there is the matter of Venezuela and Iran. By the ambassador's standards, "help" apparently means bypassing international law.

In Venezuela, the US has gone as far as effectively "kidnapping" its sitting president and exploiting local resources under the guise of so-called democratization.

In the Middle East, the US and its ally launched strikes on Iran while diplomatic negotiations were underway, "decapitating" its top leadership in targeted assassinations, and threatening "regime change." This is a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter and international law as well as Iran's sovereignty. And the resulting spikes in oil prices threaten to pull the world economy down.

Now more than 40 days into the war, a fragile ceasefire has finally been agreed. Yet the US-Iran peace talks in Islamabad have stalled, and the situation remains dangerously fluid. If history teaches us anything, from the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan to the 2003 Iraq War, it is that every unjust war that begins with the flexing of overwhelming muscle ends up in strategic self-entrapment.

The world today is unstable enough. A "great power" is defined by its ability to inject certainty into the world and make it a better place, not by how effectively it adds fuel to the fire. As Chatham House recently noted, China's restraint is a sign of strategic clarity.

From its contribution of over 30% to global economic growth, to BRI projects, and to its good offices in brokering the historic Saudi-Iran rapprochement in 2023 and the Beijing Declaration by 14 Palestinian factions in 2024, China's reliability has been tangibly felt and widely recognized by the international community.

Since Burns has returned to the halls of Harvard, perhaps he should put on his professor's hat and view the world from a broader perspective. He might then realize that there is a limit to any country's reach, and the fate of any nation must rest in its own hands. To maintain a reputation, a country needs to build confidence through concrete actions, not through empty talk and certainly not by shifting the blame to those who have no interest in power rivalry.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)