China's Two-Track Foreign Policy: From Ambiguous to Clear-Cut Positions
This analysis examines the current ambiguities, priorities and approaches of Chinese foreign policy from a practitioner’s perspective, taking into account experiences of Beijing-based diplomats (interviews conducted in 2011 and 2012), in addition to recent Chinese foreign policy positions and official communications.
It leads to the following conclusions:
- The Chinese position on many foreign policy issues (climate change, nuclear proliferation, etc.) is hard to identify, even by practitioners in regular contact with Chinese diplomacy.
- If ambiguity remains, it is not only because of strategic opacity; on a majority of issues, China has not clearly decided on a position.
- Depending on the issue at stake, China adopts different foreign policy approaches. Two main approaches can be identified: when “core interests” are involved, China has a clear position and may adopt a more proactive foreign policy if needed. For other interests, the Chinese position is often undecided, and remains flexible depending on situational changes. In these cases, China adopts a passive foreign policy approach.
- Rhythm and relationship to time also differs according to this divide: China’s diplomacy tends to be much more anticipative and its decision-making process faster and more streamlined when dealing with “core interests” than with other interests.
- Lately, China’s definition of “core interests” is enlarging (inclusion of South China sea, of economic interests in general terms, etc.). This certainly reflects a reorientation of China’s foreign policy, but not a turning point.
- China’s foreign policy is likely to remain based on these two different approaches in the short and medium run, for several reasons: it is in China’s interest; domestic and international pressures for a more proactive strategy are limited; current foreign policy institutional mechanisms as well as the absence of clear-cut ideological foundations prevent the emergence of a more consistent strategy and; above all, the central government’s top priority remains domestic stability.
Available in:
Regions and themes
ISBN / ISSN
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
China's Two-Track Foreign Policy: From Ambiguous to Clear-Cut Positions
Alice EKMAN
Ancienne Responsable des activités Chine, Centre Asie
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
France’s View: From Diplomacy to Public-Private Action
France has emerged as the EU’s IMEC forerunner, combining port infrastructure, diplomatic alliances and public-private cooperation. With Marseille Fos at its core, the country brings a strategic hub for logistics, energy and digital connectivity to the corridor.
Trump II, the Crisis of the Rules-Based Order and Europe’s Indo-Pacific Strategy
This article examines the implications of Trump II for Europe’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific. The piece contends that Trump II is accelerating the erosion of the rules-based order and undermining the relevance of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) concept, while forcing Europe to refocus on its own continental security amid US retrenchment. Paradoxically, these very constraints create conditions for a more autonomous, pragmatic, and explicitly interest-driven European engagement in the Indo-Pacific, rather than outright withdrawal.
China and Trade in Critical Raw Materials (CRMs)
Critical raw materials (CRMs) have become central features of a new dynamic in global power politics, with China now wielding considerable leverage. Amid rising regional and global uncertainty, resource security is back in the spotlight as a key determinant of sovereignty and national security for Europe, its allies and its partners. The very survival of key, even vital industries, from automotive to aerospace to health to energy to defense, is at stake.
Japan’s Energy Policy after Hormuz. Security, Competitiveness, and Decarbonization
The 2026 Hormuz crisis has strengthened rather than weakened the rationale for Japan’s decarbonization strategy, contrary to what might have been expected. Rather than energy policy supplanting climate policy, the two should actually be viewed as inseparable.