The enduring shadow of Europe’s colonial engagement in China, particularly the Opium Wars (1839–1842 and 1856–1860) and the subsequent system of treaty ports and unequal treaties, casts a long and complex pall over contemporary Chinese perceptions of European elites and nations. This history is not merely a dry academic subject in China; it is a foundational, emotional, and politically salient component of modern Chinese nationalism, encapsulated in the powerful narrative of the "Century of Humiliation" (1839–1949).

The memory of European imperial actions has indelibly shaped a modern Chinese worldview that is deeply suspicious of Western motives, hyper-focused on national sovereignty, and inherently validates the current Chinese leadership's authority as the restorer of national dignity.

The Historical Crucible: Opium, Gunboats, and the Unequal Treaties

The period from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century saw the proud Qing Empire systematically dismantled by technologically superior European powers—primarily Great Britain, France, and later Germany and Russia—along with the United States and Japan. The foundational acts of this humiliation were the Opium Wars.

The Opium Wars were, in the Chinese narrative, a moral outrage in which Britain used military force to compel China to accept the illegal importation of opium—a highly addictive substance—to correct a trade imbalance that favored China. The resulting treaties, such as the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and the Treaty of Tianjin (1858), were the first of the infamous "unequal treaties."

The Legacies of the Treaty Port System

The treaties imposed two specific and deeply offensive conditions that remain symbolic of lost sovereignty:

1. Treaty Ports and Concessions: The treaties forced China to open numerous coastal and river cities—the treaty ports (like Shanghai, Tianjin, and Guangzhou)—to foreign residence and trade. Within these ports, foreign powers established self-governing "concessions" that operated outside Chinese jurisdiction. These areas, often affluent and physically distinct, featured foreign architecture, police forces, and municipal laws, standing as physical symbols of China’s partition and helplessness. For Chinese citizens of the time, the sight of European flags and the reality of a foreign-controlled enclave within their own cities was a daily, visible reminder of national subjugation.

   • Contemporary Echo: Modern China's immense pride in the transformation of cities like Shanghai—where gleaming Chinese-built skyscrapers now dwarf the old European Bund architecture—is a symbolic reclamation of these spaces, a narrative of having fully re-integrated the nation's economic and physical territory.

2. Extraterritoriality: This was perhaps the most humiliating legal concession. It stipulated that foreign nationals accused of crimes in China would be tried by their own consular courts under their home country's laws, rather than by Chinese courts.⁶ This system effectively declared Chinese law and sovereignty beneath the standard of European justice, rendering European citizens a privileged class above Chinese law.

   • Contemporary Echo: Chinese elites and diplomats are exceptionally sensitive to issues of legal and judicial sovereignty today. Any foreign criticism of China's legal system, human rights record, or judicial processes is often instantly framed as an attempt to re-impose a sense of foreign legal superiority, evoking the principles of extraterritoriality and the historical insult to Chinese sovereignty.

The "Century of Humiliation" and Modern Political Legitimacy

The period of European (and later, Japanese) encroachments became codified in Chinese historical consciousness as the "Century of Humiliation" ($\text{Băinián Guóchǐ}$), a narrative central to the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) legitimacy.

The Role in Official Narrative

The CCP successfully positioned itself as the force that finally "stood up" (Mao Zedong's famous declaration in 1949) to foreign aggression and "ended the state of separation" and humiliation. This narrative is relentlessly taught in schools, celebrated in national media, and articulated by state leaders.

• Victimhood and Resilience: The narrative portrays China not as a failed state, but as a great, ancient civilization that was victimized by barbaric and avaricious foreign powers. This frames the current national resurgence not as a process of adoption of Western practices, but as the natural restoration of China's rightful global status.

• The CCP as the Sole Defender: By ending the Century of Humiliation, the CCP cemented its unique claim to lead the nation. Therefore, any contemporary European challenge to Beijing on issues like Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, or the South China Sea—all viewed by Beijing as attempts to interfere with internal sovereignty—is interpreted not as a principled stand, but as a throwback to the 19th-century imperialist agenda of carving up China.

Influence on Current Perceptions of European Elites

The historical trauma provides a critical lens through which Chinese elites—including political leaders, media figures, and strategic thinkers—view their European counterparts. This results in three key perceptual tendencies:

1. Inherent Distrust and the Primacy of Power

The memory of the Opium Wars fundamentally teaches a lesson about realpolitik: European elites, when dealing with a weaker China, chose profit (opium) over morality and used military force to impose their will.

• Motive Assessment: Chinese elites are thus inclined to view European actions, especially multilateral ones like those of the European Union, with a deep suspicion that liberal rhetoric (e.g., human rights, democracy, multilateralism) is a convenient disguise for continued economic and geopolitical self-interest. They look past the stated principles of European leaders and seek the underlying power dynamic and economic agenda, much as their ancestors learned to do during the age of unequal treaties.

• Contempt for Hypocrisy: This historical memory fuels an acute sensitivity to perceived Western hypocrisy. When European nations demand reciprocal access to Chinese markets while simultaneously placing restrictions on Chinese investment, or when they criticize China's internal politics while ignoring their own colonial past, Chinese elites see a direct line to the "gunboat diplomacy" that enforced the opium trade.

2. The Doctrine of Non-Interference as a National Security Imperative

For China, the core trauma of the unequal treaties was the loss of sovereignty—the right to govern itself without foreign interference. The current Chinese foreign policy principle of non-interference in internal affairs is thus not just a diplomatic stance; it is a profound historical defense mechanism.

• When European elites make statements or take actions that criticize Chinese governance, such as sanctions against officials over human rights abuses, these are immediately framed in official and public discourse as a contemporary continuation of the imperialist intrusion. It is an attempt by foreign powers to dictate China's internal conduct, precisely what the unequal treaties enabled.

• This framing allows the Chinese government to unify domestic support, casting internal critics who echo Western concerns as modern-day "compradors"—a historical term for Chinese businessmen who worked for and benefited from foreign firms in the treaty ports, often viewed as collaborators or traitors.

3. The Ambivalence of Modernization

The treaty ports were centers of early Chinese modernization, introducing Western banking, industry, and urban planning. This legacy creates a complicated, dualistic view of Europe:

• The Source of Technological Advancement: European nations are respected for their science, technology, and economic models—the very sources of power that made them dominant in the 19th century. Modern Chinese leaders continue to seek beneficial economic partnerships and technological exchange, treating Europe as a necessary partner for continued development.

• The Cultural Threat: Despite economic engagement, there is an official (and often popular) push to guard against what is perceived as "cultural pollution" or the importation of destabilizing political ideologies. This reflects the historical experience where European missionaries and cultural influences accompanied the gunboats, threatening the established Chinese social and political order.

The Opium Wars and the treaty port system are not ancient history in China; they are a living memory that informs the calculus of every major foreign policy decision involving European elites. The historical trauma of the "Century of Humiliation" instilled in the Chinese elite and general populace an abiding distrust of Western motives and an absolute inflexibility on matters of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Contemporary interactions with European elites are fundamentally filtered through a historical prism that sees any pressure, criticism, or perceived slight as an attempt to revive the unequal relationship of the 19th century.

This ingrained suspicion compels the Chinese leadership to emphasize China's renewed strength, demanding to be treated as an equal—a nation that has finally cast off the shadow of humiliation—while simultaneously leveraging that historical victimhood to justify its assertiveness and consolidate its domestic political authority. The European Union and its members, therefore, face a partner and competitor whose strategic culture views them not merely as trading partners, but as the descendants of powers that once attempted to subjugate and divide the Chinese nation.