What's the Difference Between 'Foreign Forces' a Century Ago and 'Foreign Interference' Today?

When the Chinese government loudly accuses the West of interference, and Hong Kong media mentions 'hostile foreign forces' almost daily, have you ever thought that such political language actually took shape in China as early as the 19th century? Robert Nield's 'China’s Foreign Places: The Foreign Presence in China in the Treaty Port Era, 1840–1943' allows us to reacquaint ourselves with that period of history that has been repeatedly selectively forgotten—from the First Opium War in 1840 to the cessation of unequal treaties during the War of Resistance in 1943, over a hundred 'treaty ports' formed an imperial network deeply embedded in Chinese soil.

These strongholds were not only the military and economic frontlines of imperialism but also peculiar containers of cultural collision, institutional experimentation, and the modernization process. Hong Kong, as one of the most enduring and successful strongholds, is particularly worthy of re-examination in terms of its historical fate. Today, as we witness the rapid process of Hong Kong's 'Sinicization,' we may find some unsettling echoes from this period of history.

The Birth of Treaty Ports: How Did History Open the Chinese Model of 'Other Governance'?

The establishment of 'treaty ports' was a direct result of Western powers forcibly prying open China's territory. Starting with the opening of Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Xiamen, Ningbo, and Shanghai to trade under the Treaty of Nanjing in 1842, countries like Britain, France, the United States, and Russia rapidly expanded their influence, bringing dozens of cities into the sphere of colonial influence. Nield meticulously traces the birth and evolution of these strongholds, pointing out that the establishment of treaty ports was not only for trade but also created a set of 'other governance' mechanisms with colonial overtones—governance power held by foreigners, legal and tax systems disconnected from the mainland, and cultural values imported into local life.

Such a governance model not only created spatial divisions but also constructed a modern Chinese image of 'not our kind' in terms of ideology. China's sovereignty was systematically stripped away within these strongholds—and this governance experience also became the shameful starting point in the narrative of modern Chinese nationalism.