Lesson No. 1: Kindness towards allies is beneficial

It was a demanding assignment.

Ambassador Nicholas Burns is returning to his teaching role at Harvard Kennedy School this week after having been appointed in 2021 as the U.S. envoy to China. While U.S.-China ties have always been intricate, Burns’ time in Beijing unfolded during an exceptionally challenging period.

Both nations were contending with the pandemic, and while the U.S. economy gradually bounced back, China’s struggled due to its Zero COVID approach. The Biden administration enacted new, stricter sanctions against China over human rights infringements and restricted exports of essential technology like semiconductors.

In this revised dialogue, Burns, the Roy and Barbara Goodman Family Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Relations, shared insights with the Gazette about his tenure and what provides the U.S. a strategic edge over China.

---

During your stint as U.S. ambassador, the relationship between China and the U.S. was especially tense. What motivated you to leave Harvard for such a challenging role?

I had dedicated 27 years to the career Foreign Service before joining Harvard for 13 years. Public service has always been the core mission of my career, and I valued and enjoyed it immensely.

When President Biden reached out to me shortly after the 2020 election to invite me into this role, how could I decline? Firstly, I have a deep conviction in public service. Secondly, the U.S.-China relationship stands out as one of the most significant, if not the most critical, relationship we maintain, and it is fraught with complications, challenges, and disputes.

I considered it a rare chance to re-enter the governmental sphere, to return to what Teddy Roosevelt referred to as “the arena of public service.” I had been encouraging all my students for years to engage in that sphere, and I felt that if I was called upon, I had to accept. I’m thankful for the opportunity. It turned out to be, in many aspects, the hardest position I’ve ever held, yet also one of the most fulfilling.

What made it fulfilling?

The significance of this relationship is immense for both nations. China stands as our principal global competitor. It is the second-largest economy, the second-most formidable military power next to us, and our strongest rival worldwide. Much depends on how we navigate this relationship over the coming decades.

Beyond military, technological, and trade rivalries, we are faced with clashing ideologies regarding human liberty, democracy, human rights, and the capacity of individuals to voice their opinions. The absence of freedoms in China, coupled with an increasingly oppressive and fearful climate, rendered the agenda between our nations profoundly challenging and contentious.

How difficult was it to convey U.S. policies and values to the Chinese populace? Are they cognizant of their limited freedoms compared to others globally?

They are acutely aware that access to unrestricted information is limited unless they utilize a virtual private network (VPN), which most Chinese citizens do not possess.

They are navigating a phase in Chinese history where a well-educated populace lacks a complete understanding of its own past, and they remain unaware of dissenting perspectives that could challenge and critique the practices of the Chinese Communist Party. This presents a significant obstacle for a government like ours that strives to manage a difficult and competitive relationship with the Chinese authorities while also building relationships with 1.4 billion citizens.

Consequently, we invested considerable time in attempting to connect with the Chinese populace. The Chinese regime allocates substantial resources to its extensive propaganda network to distort our historical narrative, to misinterpret the messages conveyed by our president or secretary of state, or to misrepresent my statements and actions, while we encountered considerable censorship on Chinese social media platforms. Our mission was to disseminate free, fair, and factual information to the Chinese public, while the communist officials endeavored to prevent it.

I had the opportunity to visit numerous universities and engage with various professors and students. After a brief interaction, many were candid. Not everyone aligned with our viewpoints. At times, during those discussions with students or faculty, I was met with significant critique, but I considered that valid. Coming from a university background here at Harvard, I’m accustomed to a classroom environment. Encouraging students to articulate their views is essential, and I firmly believe that students in China should have the same opportunity to express themselves, and often they were thankful for the chance to converse with an American, expressing admiration for aspects of our culture. At times, they were quite critical. However, simply having the dialogue was, in my opinion, a step forward in fostering connection.

What aspect of the job was the most rewarding or the most challenging?

The toughest challenge was negotiating with the Chinese authorities over issues where we held entirely opposing views, sometimes due to differing interpretations of the facts or entirely distinct sets of data. This made negotiations particularly arduous.

We invited speakers, American artists, musicians, and athletes to China in an effort to showcase this facet of American culture to the Chinese populace.

In 2024, my final complete year there, I witnessed Chinese authorities interfere with our public diplomacy, people-to-people initiatives on 98 different occasions. They even cut the power to a venue where an American musical act was slated to perform. They actively discouraged Chinese students from attending seminars or writers’ workshops.

This set of challenges—disagreement on factual accuracy, vastly different interpretations of events, and deliberate actions by the Chinese government to hinder normal international exchanges—constituted the most frustrating part of the role.

The most gratifying aspect was once again standing by the flag, returning to government service, and representing the United States as ambassador in this remarkably

significant nation to us and to collaborate with the individuals of Mission China. That was the most rewarding aspect of the position, being part of that group, leading that group, collaborating with them, and being proud of what they symbolize for our nation.

Is diplomacy any different now from when you first entered the State Department in 1980?

There’s a facet of diplomacy that remains constant. Particularly in a challenging relationship like that between the U.S. and China, it is vital to ensure that each capital possesses a thoroughly sophisticated and intricate comprehension of the other’s stance on various matters and their underlying motivations, whether positive or negative. That aspect remains unchanged.

What has evolved is communication technology, with the news cycle now operating 24 hours a day. Information streams from countless sources. There’s significantly more transparency. There exists a heightened responsibility, especially in the United States and other democratic nations, to be candid with their citizens and to articulate precisely what actions are being taken, rather than concealing as many issues as were previously hidden. This is an area where we should excel.

This is why I believe it has been a profound error to attempt to dismantle the federal workforce in recent months, to eliminate USAID, a remarkable organization that performs crucial and vital work for the American populace globally, and to eliminate Radio Free Europe/Liberty Radio, Radio Free Asia. Millions of individuals in authoritarian regimes tune into those channels. They provide truthful information about our society and regarding global events. I am genuinely concerned that we are granting China a significant propaganda advantage by creating a vacuum.

“NATO ranks as one of the most crucial institutions in American history. The ability to lead it enabled us to maintain peace throughout the Cold War for five and a half decades.”

You previously held the position of U.S. ambassador to NATO. At HKS, you served as the faculty chair of the Project on the Transatlantic Relationship. What is the current status of that relationship?

One crucial lesson I acquired during my extensive diplomatic career is: Treat your allies well and remain loyal to them, as they amplify American power and influence globally. I certainly witnessed that at NATO on September 11, 2001, when I was a relatively new ambassador.

The Canadian ambassador, David Wright, approached me mere hours after the attack, suggesting, “We should invoke Article Five of the NATO Treaty.” Within 24 hours, Europeans and Canadians rallied to our defense.

They are the best allies one could wish for. They uphold our shared values and interests. My responsibilities in China were facilitated by the NATO countries collaborating with us to restrain and limit what the Chinese could accomplish in their aggressive expansion of power.

NATO stands as one of the most significant institutions in American history. Our ability to lead it has allowed us to sustain peace throughout the Cold War for five and a half decades. Putin is attempting to create divisions within Europe. There is no denying that if Russia is permitted to evade consequences for its actions in Ukraine, and if a lenient peace agreement favors Russian interests, it will only embolden Putin to act aggressively against Ukraine again, Moldova, and the Baltic nations (now NATO members): Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.

Thus, there are immense stakes for the United States in adopting a tough stance with Russia. Everyone desires the war to conclude, and I concur that it should. While we should strive to end the conflict, we must negotiate in a manner that significantly increases the chances of constraining and limiting Putin in the future rather than emboldening him.

How does our relationship with European and East Asian allies influence U.S.-China relations?

China lacks genuine allies across the globe. We boast over 30 treaty allies in Europe and five treaty allies in the Indo-Pacific region. This provides the United States a strategic edge over China that will become evident over the next 10 to 20 to 30 years. It will prove to be one of the most significant narratives in American history if we manage to sustain our strength and safeguard our democracy while protecting democracy worldwide, as we deter Chinese aggression.

To forsake our Indo-Pacific allies and NATO and relinquish the leadership role we have held would be a blunder of historic proportions. I believe the American populace will oppose such actions, and surely, I don’t think a majority of our elected officials in Congress would support it either.

“Our objective, particularly at the Kennedy School, is to inspire talented young women and men to pursue public service. That objective holds greater significance now given the current events unfolding in Washington.”

What is it like to return to Harvard?

I am immensely thankful to return to Harvard. I thoroughly enjoyed teaching at the Kennedy School. We have an exceptional faculty and outstanding students from over 90 countries worldwide. I gained a wealth of knowledge from them during my time as a professor here, and I am thrilled to make my return.

I intend to revive the Future of Diplomacy Project to ensure that we incorporate diplomacy into our studies of global affairs. Next year, I will be co-teaching a course with Professor Jim Sebenius from Harvard Business School on negotiations and diplomacy.

It remains one of the finest institutions I have been associated with, and it is doing remarkable good globally. Our purpose, especially at the Kennedy School, is to motivate bright young women and men to engage in public service. This purpose is more crucial than ever, given the circumstances unfolding in Washington.

It is entirely understandable if students here and elsewhere feel that a career in public service is no longer attainable for them. Our role is to motivate students, helping them recognize that at the local, state, national, and global levels, we require capable individuals to enter public service. This reality will not change. At some point, the pendulum in the United States will swing back to revere public service as we have always done throughout our history.