This Economist article discusses diplomacy and getting along with neighbouring countries. Tribes have long defined themselves as “not the other”, as too many Canadians do, yet still our relationship with our American neighbours is mostly positive. China has fourteen neighbours. No doubt you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but not everyone wants to catch flies and it seems kind of overrated.
Excerpt (from a very long article)
No country has more neighbours than China, with 14 land borders. And its neighbourhood is not just crowded, but also tumultuous. There is a rogue state, North Korea; war-torn ones, such as Myanmar; ones with which it has festering territorial disputes, such as India; others with which it has overlapping maritime claims, such as Japan; and one—Taiwan—which it is constantly threatening to invade. It is a difficult group to get along with under any circumstances, but China’s flawed diplomacy is making the task even harder.
For centuries Chinese leaders thought of the world as a series of concentric circles emanating from the Dragon Throne. The inner ones formed territory under the emperor’s direct rule. Then came neighbouring kingdoms such as Japan, Korea and Vietnam, which acknowledged the emperor’s ultimate authority by paying tribute. Outermost were foreigners whose trade with China was often seen as tribute, too.
Xi Jinping, China’s present-day potentate, puts a 21st-century spin on this worldview. At home he has made himself the “core” of the Communist Party and crushed dissent, especially in border areas. Globally, he has made China a more assertive power. But his efforts to bind China’s neighbours more closely to it—“to warm people’s hearts and enhance our affinity, charisma and influence”, as he ordered officials in 2013—have not gone to plan…
…China’s neighbours fall into three broad camps (see map): fragile or failing states (Afghanistan, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, North Korea and Pakistan), frenemies that have close ties but fear Chinese domination (Mongolia, Russia and Central Asian states), and places with either defence treaties with America or military ties to it (India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam).
Chinese officials deny seeking regional hegemony. In their telling, China wants only to reclaim its rightful borders, not to expand them or dominate neighbours. They blame America for frustrating Chinese ambitions…[article goes on to discuss economic dependence, American efforts, limiting rare earth exports and other issues].
It’s certainly cheaper to have nearby neighbors who aren’t expansionist jerks. Or who aren’t chaotic exporters of refugee flows, contraband goods, etc. So you’d rather your neighbors be nice unassuming middle class folks who mind their own business.
And if they are that, how nice do you have to be in return? Only as nice as you have power to shove down their throat. The more power you have to shove, the less nice you have to be.
How nice should you be?
Well, well, that’s where the phrase “enlightened self interest” comes in. Which although unstated, usually really means “enlightened long-term self interest”. A problem with politicians in general, but especially dictatorial ones, is they really struggle with impulse control and the idea of long-term anything.
Chinese bullying in the South China Sea with their ridiculous “Nine-Dashed Line” is an example of somebody pursuing a short-term unenlightened idea of their own self-interest. And thereby triggering the enmity, alliance-forming, and arming of everyone else in the neighborhood against themselves.
As @LSLGuy mentioned, having an unfriendly country next to you will cost money. Stronger military, more police and so on. Much better if those funds can be used elsewhere.