>each center, when it was at its peak, was a place where foreign merchants felt safe and comfortable.
And talking about foreign merchants feeling safe and comfortable, did you ever ask how the American Indians felt as the US become an economic empire, or how comfortable it was for non-europeans to do business in the European colonies? Yes, London allowed a few traders from it's colonies but they worked damn hard to make sure the colonies didn't industrialize. India in particular become deindustrialized under British rule - all of India's cotton mills were packed up and send to Manchester, and the production of cloth forbidden. Even relatively small things like the production of salt in India was forbidden so British salt could be exported to India.
The majority of foreign merchants weren't even allowed to participate in British markets and were violently suppressed if they tried to. This world you speak of - where economies grew because they set up such nice and comfortable places to do business in - never existed.
You say China isn't open to business - why then is the entire Fortune 500 doing business in China and increasingly shifting more and more of their manufacturing there? There is cost, but there is also the fact that besides cost, as Steve Jobs told Obama, the expertise, supply chains and capability is shifting to China.
If you read any recent works on China, like the recent one on China by Dambiso Moyo - she makes the point that China is better at doing business with developing countries than America. http://www.dambisamoyo.com/
>Do foreign merchants feel they can make deals as equals with the native Chinese merchants?
This is exactly the point she addresses, and most African and many developing Asian countries are increasingly favoring dealing with Chinese. The Chinese pay more for resources, build useful infrastructure, and provide much needed goods at affordable prices - all things which are increasingly making it an essential part of the economic center in much of the world.