The three-year war ended with the Treaty of Nanking, which gave Britain control of Hong Kong and opened several new trade ports in China. British merchants were allowed to come to China and trade freely with no restrictions.

That was just the beginning. By the 1850s, the United States, Russia and France signed treaties with China with the same terms, allowing foreigners to sell goods with low tariffs and giving them privileged status in mainland China. Rather than show respect for the superiority of Chinese culture, China was forced to adhere to the traditions of Western diplomacy. The influx of foreign culture reoriented China’s economy, eventually leading to the dynasty’s downfall in 1912.

Some historians, such as William C. Kirby, a professor of Chinese studies at Harvard Business School, argue that the unequal treaties did have benefits for China such as modernizing its institutions and its education system. However, that does not always mean that trade pacts are mutually beneficial.

“One should always be cautious that what is good for you, you imagine is good for the other party automatically,” Mr. Kirby said. “It might be, it might not be.”

Trump administration officials have tried to make the case that the changes it wants China to make will benefit everyone.

“The kinds of things that we’re asking for are not anti-Chinese at all,” Mr. Lighthizer told NPR this week. “In fact, the reformers would say it’s pro-Chinese. It will help their economy, not hurt their economy.”

Despite suggesting that their interests are aligned, it has been difficult for the United States to push China to make changes without coming across as bullying or insensitive. After talks stalled in February, Larry Kudlow, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council, said that Mr. Lighthizer read the “riot act” to Liu He, China’s vice premier and the country’s top trade negotiator.