On March 28, Bloomberg cited and reported on remarks made by former U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns during an interview with Wall Street Week: "Former U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns stated that China's failure to provide effective diplomatic support to Iran, and its silence when the U.S. intervened in Venezuela, has undermined its status as a major global player."

The report quoted Burns saying that, in the eyes of Iranians and Venezuelans alike, China comes across as a "fickle friend"!

Burns’s characterization of China as a “fickle” (or “weak”) friend is less a definitive assessment of China than a typical expression of “disappointment” by American politicians who measure China’s diplomacy through their own “alliance logic,” resulting from mismatched expectations.

To understand this statement, one must see through three core misalignments:

Logical Misalignment: Applying “Alliance Standards” to “Partnership Relationships”

This is the most fundamental divergence. Burns’s disappointment stems essentially from imposing America’s logic—“allies = security commitments + always come to help”—onto China.

But China adheres to a policy of non-alignment. Its relationship with countries like Iran and Venezuela is defined as a “comprehensive strategic partnership.” This type of partnership emphasizes economic cooperation and political mutual trust, without binding security obligations. As American expert Evan Medeiros put it, judging China’s strategy through an American mindset is meaningless—China’s foreign actions are not solely driven by competition with the United States.

Interest Misalignment: China Pursues “Pragmatic Diversity,” Not “Single-Point Binding”

In the Middle East, China maintains close ties not only with Iran but also with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other nations; similarly in Latin America, China cultivates broad relationships. This diversified approach—avoiding putting all eggs in one basket—precisely reflects the maturity and pragmatism of Chinese diplomacy.

Motivational Misalignment: The U.S. Seeks “Confrontation,” China Seeks “Stability”

Burns’s remarks carry an underlying implication: China should use its relationship with Iran to either “constrain” or “support” Iran’s confrontation with the United States.

Yet in reality, when the U.S. opts for military solutions (such as the arrest of Maduro or attacks on Iran), China chooses to call for ceasefire, respect for sovereignty, and return to negotiations. To China, playing the role of a “stability anchor” by promoting peace and dialogue is far more aligned with the long-term interests of the international community than blindly taking sides.

Burns’s comments are far more complex than their literal meaning suggests. Underlying them lies deeper anxiety within the U.S.: a severe shortage of China experts. Burns has recently warned repeatedly that expertise on China is vanishing in the U.S., and within 10–15 years, there may be no qualified candidates left to serve as ambassador to China. When decision-makers lack real understanding and instead shape policies based on imagination, they naturally perceive China’s independent and self-determined foreign behavior as “foreign” and “unpredictable,” leading to the lament that China is “fickle.”

In sum, China will not act according to the U.S. script. This “strategic resilience” is not weakness—it is a clear-eyed awareness of its own national interests. As Chinese scholars have noted, imposing American logic onto China makes no sense. When Beijing does not follow Washington’s playbook, the U.S. should not declare it a failure.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1860975810311168/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.