China’s Economic Sanctions: A Tool of Foreign Policy
Coercion by Trade: Decoding China’s Informal Sanction Strategies
TL;DR:
Historical Context: China transitioned from being a recipient of sanctions during the Cold War to an active user of economic sanctions as its global influence grew. Its sanctions are often informal, leveraging regulatory barriers and consumer boycotts for plausible deniability.
Key Tactics: Informal Measures: Customs delays, regulatory crackdowns, and consumer boycotts. Targeted Industries: Focus on sectors like tourism, agriculture, cultural exports, and technology. Selective Enforcement: Calibrated use of UN sanctions to align with China’s interests, especially with allies like North Korea or Iran.
Case Studies: South Korea (THAAD Deployment, 2016): Consumer boycotts, cultural bans, and trade restrictions caused $7.5 billion in losses. Australia (COVID-19 Inquiry, 2020): Tariffs on wine, barley, and beef; prompted Australia to diversify trade partners. Norway (Liu Xiaobo Nobel Prize, 2010): Trade restrictions on salmon and frozen bilateral relations. Lithuania (Taiwan Office, 2021): Removed Lithuania from customs systems and pressured global supply chains.
Strategic Objectives: Protecting sovereignty and political stances (e.g., One China policy). Influencing international behavior without formal declarations. Balancing coercion with the need to maintain economic relationships.
Economic Impact: Significant short-term losses for targeted countries but often countered by diversification strategies.
Risks backfiring by pushing nations to reduce dependency on China.
Global Responses: WTO disputes, multilateral alliances (e.g., EU, Quad), and diversification of trade routes to counter China’s tactics. Calls for stronger frameworks to address coercive economic practices.
Implications for the Future: China may formalize its sanction strategies as it seeks greater global leadership. Economic coercion will likely remain a central tool in China's foreign policy, influencing global trade and diplomatic norms. Countries and regions are preparing to balance economic interdependence with resilience against coercion.
And now the deep dive….
Introduction
Economic sanctions have long been a tool in the arsenal of international diplomacy, used by nations to exert influence or penalize others for behaviors deemed contrary to their interests or international norms. These sanctions can range from trade embargoes to financial restrictions, aiming to change the policy or behavior of the targeted state. Historically, China has been both a recipient and a practitioner of economic sanctions. Post-World War II, China faced significant sanctions from Western countries, particularly during the Cold War era due to its communist regime and the Korean War involvement. However, China's approach to sanctions has evolved, especially as its economic power has grown, shifting from a primarily defensive posture to a more proactive use in foreign policy.
The strategic use of economic sanctions by China often reflects a nuanced understanding of its global economic leverage, which has been developed through years of observing and experiencing Western sanctions. Unlike the more explicit and legally framed sanctions of the West, China tends to employ what has been termed "informal sanctions." These are actions that are not officially declared as sanctions but are implemented through regulatory means, such as customs delays, market access restrictions, or sudden regulatory crackdowns. This approach allows China to exert pressure while maintaining plausible deniability, thus avoiding the diplomatic backlash that formal sanctions might provoke.
China's approach to economic sanctions also involves a significant focus on maintaining its image as a responsible global player. This is evident in its selective enforcement of United Nations sanctions, where it has occasionally shown reluctance or implemented sanctions with reservations, especially concerning allies like North Korea or Iran. By carefully calibrating its response to international expectations and its own strategic interests, China manages to uphold a facade of compliance while still pursuing its agenda. This strategy of selective engagement with international sanctions regimes helps China in managing its international relations without alienating key global partners.
The economic sanctions imposed by China against Canada in 2018, following the arrest of Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou, exemplify another facet of China's sanctions strategy - the use of economic leverage to influence legal proceedings in other countries. By significantly reducing imports of Canadian canola, pork, and other products, China attempted to pressure Canada amidst the ongoing extradition case. This case highlights how economic sanctions can be intertwined with legal and diplomatic disputes, showcasing China's willingness to use economic threats as part of broader international negotiations.
China's use of economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy is marked by its strategic, often subtle, and sometimes opaque methods which differ markedly from Western practices. These sanctions are not only about achieving immediate policy changes but also about signaling China's resolve and capacity to retaliate economically when its interests are threatened. The case studies from South Korea, Norway, Australia, and Canada demonstrate that while China's sanctions might not always be publicly acknowledged, their impact on international relations is palpable and calculated, reflecting China's growing confidence in using its economic clout on the world stage.
Understanding China's Economic Sanctions
In the realm of international relations, economic sanctions refer to deliberate actions taken by a country to restrict trade, investment, or financial transactions with another nation, often with the intent to influence political behavior or policy changes. In the context of China, these sanctions can take various forms, including explicit trade restrictions where tariffs are increased or quotas reduced on specific goods; investment blocks where China might limit or halt investments in a country or sector; or informal sanctions, which are less overt, involving regulatory adjustments or consumer boycotts without official declarations. These mechanisms are strategically chosen to exert pressure while maintaining some level of plausible deniability or flexibility in diplomatic relations.
The legal framework in China that supports the implementation of economic sanctions is multifaceted. The "Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law," passed in 2021, provides a legal basis for China to counteract sanctions imposed by foreign entities against Chinese interests. This law allows China to take countermeasures against individuals or entities it deems to be acting against its sovereignty or interests. Additionally, the "Unreliable Entity List" managed by the Ministry of Commerce, empowers China to sanction foreign companies seen as endangering its national security or development interests. However, the implementation can be complicated by the need to navigate both domestic legal constraints and international trade laws, particularly those governed by the World Trade Organization (WTO), where China is a member.
Philosophically, China's approach to economic sanctions often reflects a tension between its commitment to international law and norms versus its strategic interests. China has traditionally criticized Western sanctions, particularly those by the United States, as unilateral and often lacking multilateral support or legal grounding under international law. Yet, in practice, China has increasingly adopted similar tools when it perceives its core interests, like territorial integrity or political influence, are at stake. This dual stance illustrates China's complex relationship with global legal frameworks, where it leverages these structures when beneficial but challenges them when they constrain its actions.
Strategically, China's use of economic sanctions is deeply intertwined with the concept of economic interdependence. On one hand, China benefits immensely from global trade, being the world's largest exporter and a key player in supply chains. On the other hand, this economic leverage is a double-edged sword; while it allows China to impose sanctions with significant impact, it also means that drastic actions could backfire by harming its own economy. Therefore, China often opts for measured responses, using sanctions more as signals or warnings rather than as all-out economic warfare, aiming to coerce without completely destabilizing mutual economic benefits.
The balance between economic interdependence and political coercion is evident in how China applies sanctions. For instance, China's actions against South Korea following the deployment of the THAAD missile defense system in 2016 were not officially acknowledged as sanctions but manifested through reduced tourism, cultural exchanges, and import restrictions. This approach allowed China to apply pressure while still maintaining economic links, showcasing a nuanced strategy of using economic tools for political ends without severing economic ties permanently.
China's selective enforcement of sanctions, particularly in alignment or opposition to UN sanctions, further illustrates its strategic calculus. When it comes to UN Security Council sanctions, China has at times shown reluctance or implemented them with caveats, especially concerning allies like North Korea or Iran. This selective participation helps China maintain its image as a responsible global actor while subtly pursuing its geopolitical objectives, often under the guise of national security or economic stability.
The use of informal sanctions also reflects China's understanding of the global economic landscape, where formal actions could lead to counter-sanctions or international condemnation. By employing tactics like prolonged customs inspections, regulatory changes, or influencing consumer behavior, China can exert influence with less risk of overt diplomatic conflict. This method has been particularly evident in disputes with countries like Australia or Canada, where economic repercussions were felt without the formal declaration of sanctions.
Understanding China's economic sanctions requires recognizing the blend of legal, philosophical, and strategic elements. China's approach is tailored to its unique position in global trade, where economic power is used both defensively and offensively, all while navigating the complex web of international laws and norms. This nuanced strategy not only affects bilateral relations but also shapes the broader discourse on how economic power can be wielded in international diplomacy.
Case Studies of China's Economic Sanctions
China and Australia (2020)
In 2020, the relationship between China and Australia took a significant turn when Australia publicly supported an international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 virus, which had first emerged in Wuhan, China. This move was perceived by Beijing as an affront to its sovereignty and an act of political provocation. In response, China began to implement what were essentially economic sanctions, although they were not officially labeled as such. These actions were initiated in the form of unofficial trade barriers, which included a sudden increase in quarantine times for Australian products, stringent customs inspections, and the imposition of hefty tariffs on specific Australian goods.
The sanctions primarily targeted key Australian exports like barley, wine, and beef. For instance, China imposed an 80% tariff on Australian barley, citing anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures. Similarly, a range of tariffs was applied to Australian wine, with some rates reaching punitive levels, effectively blocking these products from the Chinese market. Beef faced indirect sanctions through the suspension of exports from certain Australian abattoirs on the grounds of biosecurity concerns, although these were widely interpreted as retaliatory measures.
These sanctions had immediate and tangible economic repercussions for Australia. The wine industry, which had seen China as its primary export market, suffered significantly, with export values dropping dramatically. The barley sector also faced challenges, though the impacts were somewhat mitigated by finding alternative markets like Saudi Arabia and Mexico. However, the economic cost was still substantial, with estimates suggesting losses in the billions of Australian dollars. The beef sector was similarly affected, with a notable decline in exports to China, leading to a surplus that depressed local prices and forced producers to look for new markets.
In response to these sanctions, Australia sought to diversify its export destinations. This strategy included strengthening trade relationships with other Asian countries, the United States, and Europe. The Australian government also took the issue to the World Trade Organization (WTO), filing complaints against China for what it considered to be breaches of international trade rules. This move towards diversification not only helped in offsetting some of the losses but also reduced Australia's economic dependency on China, thereby enhancing its strategic position in international trade negotiations.
The diplomatic fallout from these economic sanctions was significant. Relations between China and Australia deteriorated to one of the lowest points in recent history. Diplomatic dialogues were curtailed, with China suspending the China-Australia Strategic Economic Dialogue, an important platform for bilateral discussions. This tension was further exacerbated by mutual accusations of interference and espionage, leading to a broader chill in bilateral relations.
Over time, there have been signs of partial normalization. By 2023, some of the formal sanctions were lifted or reduced, particularly on barley and wine, following dialogues and mutual agreements. This easing was partly due to the changing political landscape in Australia with a new government that sought a more conciliatory approach towards China. However, the scars of the economic sanctions have left a lasting impact on how Australia views its economic and security policies, with a stronger emphasis now on strategic economic diversification and resilience against coercive economic measures.
Despite this partial recovery, the broader diplomatic relationship remains cautious and complex. The episode with Australia has served as a case study for other nations on how China might leverage its economic power to achieve political objectives. It has also highlighted the vulnerabilities of countries heavily reliant on one trading partner, prompting a reevaluation of economic strategies in the Asia-Pacific region.
South Korea (2016-2017)
In 2016, the decision by South Korea to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, in collaboration with the United States, was intended as a countermeasure to North Korea's growing missile capabilities. However, this move was met with strong opposition from China, which viewed THAAD not just as a defensive system against North Korea but also as a potential threat to its own strategic interests due to the system's radar capabilities. This led to a significant diplomatic and economic fallout between South Korea and China.
China responded with economic sanctions that, while not officially declared, were unmistakable in their impact. The measures primarily targeted South Korean businesses, especially those in the entertainment sector and tourism. The Lotte Group, which had provided the land for the THAAD installation, faced particularly harsh repercussions. Its stores in China were subjected to rigorous inspections, leading to the closure of many branches on safety grounds. Additionally, China imposed restrictions on cultural exchanges, effectively banning or limiting the popularity of South Korean pop culture like K-pop and K-dramas, which had enjoyed significant followings in China.
The entertainment industry in South Korea was hit hard by these sanctions. Major K-pop artists found themselves unable to perform in China, and South Korean television shows were removed from streaming platforms. The tourism sector also suffered, with China halting group tours to South Korea, which previously made up a significant portion of the country's tourism revenue. This sudden drop in Chinese tourists led to economic losses across various sectors in South Korea, from hotels to duty-free shops, which relied heavily on Chinese visitors.
The economic impact was broader than just the entertainment and tourism sectors. South Korean businesses in China, including retail, cosmetics, and automotive industries, faced a decline in sales due to both consumer boycotts and increased regulatory scrutiny. Hyundai Motor Company, for instance, saw its sales in China plummet by significant percentages, reflecting the broader economic pressure exerted by China's actions.
The economic damage was estimated to be in the billions, with some analyses suggesting that South Korea lost around $7.5 billion due to these sanctions. This economic strain was felt not only by corporations but also trickled down to affect small businesses and local economies dependent on the Chinese market. This situation underscored the vulnerability of South Korea to economic coercion from China, its largest trading partner.
The political landscape in South Korea shifted with the election of President Moon Jae-in in May 2017, who pursued a policy of rapprochement with China. His administration adopted the "three noes" policy - no additional THAAD deployments, no South Korean participation in a U.S.-led regional missile defense system, and no trilateral military alliance with the U.S. and Japan. This conciliatory stance led to a gradual softening of the economic sanctions. By late 2017, there were signs of improvement with the resumption of some cultural exchanges and the lifting of certain tourism restrictions.
The outcome of this episode was multifaceted. While it highlighted China's use of economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy, it also demonstrated the limits of such coercion. South Korea managed to weather the storm by seeking new markets and diversifying its economic dependencies, although at a cost. The episode also served as a lesson for South Korea on the risks of being overly reliant on one trading partner, pushing for a more balanced approach in its international economic relations.
The THAAD-related economic sanctions from China on South Korea were a clear demonstration of how economic interdependence can be leveraged for geopolitical ends. The subsequent moderation of these sanctions with a change in South Korean leadership underscored the dynamic nature of international relations where economic and political strategies are closely interlinked.
Lithuania (2021)
In November 2021, Lithuania made a bold diplomatic move by allowing Taiwan to open a representative office in its capital, Vilnius, under the name "Taiwanese Representative Office," rather than the more diplomatically ambiguous "Taipei." This was significant because it was the first time in Europe a Taiwanese office had been named so explicitly, directly challenging China's One China policy, which claims Taiwan as part of its territory. This decision infuriated Beijing, setting the stage for an economic confrontation.
China's response was swift and severe, though not formally declared as sanctions. Instead, it employed what has been described as "informal" or "covert" sanctions. Initially, China removed Lithuania from its customs system, effectively halting all Lithuanian exports to China. This action was particularly impactful for Lithuanian businesses since China, despite not being a major direct export market for Lithuania, was crucial in global supply chains where Lithuanian goods were components.
The sanctions extended beyond direct trade with Lithuania; they included secondary sanctions, targeting firms that used Lithuanian components or had any business dealings with Lithuania. Multinational companies were warned by Chinese authorities that continuing to source from Lithuania could lead to exclusion from the Chinese market. This was a novel approach, aiming to isolate Lithuania economically within the broader European context by leveraging supply chain dependencies.
The impact on Lithuania's economy was notable. Sectors like laser manufacturing, which had significant exports to China, were hit hard. The broader effect was a chilling prospect for Lithuanian firms, as it not only curtailed direct exports but also threatened the country's integration into European and global supply chains. This economic pressure was intended to coerce Lithuania into reversing its diplomatic stance on Taiwan.
The EU, viewing this as an attack not just on Lithuania but on the integrity of the single market and its member states' sovereignty, responded with both diplomatic and legal actions. The European Union initiated a dispute at the World Trade Organization (WTO) against China over the discriminatory trade practices, asserting that such measures contravened WTO rules. Additionally, the EU began developing an Anti-Coercion Instrument to protect its members from future economic coercion by third countries.
This situation prompted a broader discussion within the EU about collective defense against economic coercion. The Lithuanian case became a rallying point for reinforcing EU cohesion and resilience. The bloc's response included not only legal challenges but also support measures for Lithuanian businesses, aiming to mitigate the economic fallout and demonstrate a united front against such coercive tactics.
Over time, the economic isolation of Lithuania saw some alleviation. By late 2023, there were signs of normalization, with reports indicating that some of the economic pressures had been lifted following diplomatic engagements and Lithuania's efforts to diversify its trade routes and partners. However, the episode underscored the vulnerability of small countries to economic sanctions by major powers and the importance of international alliances like the EU in countering such pressures.
The Lithuanian case of 2021 serves as a stark example of how economic sanctions can be wielded in modern geopolitics, not just to punish but to send a message to other nations about the potential repercussions of defying China's political sensitivities. It also highlighted the strategic use of international bodies like the WTO and the significance of regional alliances in navigating and mitigating the impacts of such sanctions.
Norway (2010)
In 2010, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made a decision that would significantly impact Norway's relationship with China when it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a prominent Chinese dissident known for his advocacy for human rights and political reform, including his role in drafting Charter 08, which called for democratic reform in China. Liu was imprisoned at the time of the award, having been sentenced for "inciting subversion of state power," and the award was seen by China as an act of interference in its internal affairs.
China's reaction was immediate and multifaceted. It suspended high-level bilateral meetings and effectively froze political and economic relations with Norway. One of the most tangible actions was the suspension of negotiations for a bilateral free trade agreement, which had been in discussion for some time. This move was a clear signal of China's displeasure with Norway's perceived support for dissent against its regime.
Further, China implemented what could be described as informal trade restrictions, particularly targeting Norwegian seafood, especially salmon, which was a major export to China. Although these restrictions weren't officially declared as sanctions, the effects were unmistakable with significant delays at customs, increased regulatory scrutiny, and a noticeable drop in Norwegian exports to China. These actions had a profound economic impact on Norwegian businesses that had come to rely on the Chinese market.
The strain on Norway-China relations extended beyond just trade. Cultural and scientific exchanges were curtailed, and there were reports of Norwegian officials being denied or delayed visas to China. The diplomatic fallout was such that it left Norway in a difficult position, balancing its commitment to free speech and human rights with its economic interests.
For several years, relations remained frosty, with Norway attempting to navigate this delicate situation. The Norwegian government, while reiterating that the Nobel Committee was independent from government control, sought to mend ties through diplomatic channels. This period was marked by Norway's cautious approach, trying not to further provoke China while also upholding its values.
Normalization of relations began to materialize in December 2016, six years after the Nobel controversy. The turning point came with Norway issuing a joint statement with China that recognized the Chinese government's concerns about the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo. Although this statement did not include an apology, it was seen as a concession by Norway to move forward. China, in response, agreed to resume trade negotiations and lift the informal sanctions, particularly on salmon imports.
This normalization process highlighted the complexities of international diplomacy where economic considerations often intersect with human rights and political ideologies. Norway managed to re-enter the Chinese market, with salmon exports eventually returning to pre-sanction levels, demonstrating the resilience of economic ties despite political disputes.
The case of Norway's experience with China over the Liu Xiaobo Nobel Peace Prize award is a vivid illustration of how economic sanctions and political actions can intertwine, affecting international relations for years. It also underscores the difficult choices countries face when their values come into conflict with their economic interests, and how, with time and diplomacy, even deeply strained relations can be normalized through mutual concessions and understanding.
Analysis of China's Sanctions Strategy
The effectiveness of China's sanctions strategy can be evaluated by examining both immediate and long-term impacts. In the short term, China has often managed to compel countries to alter their behavior or at least to engage in more favorable diplomatic dialogue. For instance, the informal sanctions against South Korea over the THAAD deployment led to South Korea adopting a more conciliatory approach towards China. However, the long-term success of these sanctions is less clear, as they might push countries towards diversification of economic partnerships, reducing China's leverage over time. The success rate of achieving immediate policy changes appears higher than securing long-lasting concessions, highlighting a strategic focus on immediate compliance rather than sustainable change.
Comparing China's sanction strategies with those of the U.S. or the EU reveals significant differences in methodology and intent. While U.S. and EU sanctions are often legally binding, publicly announced, and aimed at both state and non-state actors with a focus on human rights or nuclear proliferation, China's approach tends to be more informal, using economic leverage without formal declarations. This allows China to exert pressure while maintaining diplomatic relations, unlike the more confrontational Western approach which might involve secondary sanctions or broad economic isolation. The U.S. and EU sanctions are often part of a broader international coalition, whereas China's actions are more unilateral, focusing on bilateral relations.
Economically, China's sanctions can significantly impact both the target country and itself. For the target, there is an immediate economic hit, particularly if China is a major market for their exports. However, the long-term effect on China can be detrimental as well, especially if the target country or businesses find alternative markets or suppliers, thereby reducing China's economic influence. The case of Australia, where sanctions led to a diversification of export markets, illustrates this potential backfire. Politically, sanctions serve as a tool for signaling displeasure or asserting control, often aimed at deterring actions perceived as against China's interests, like recognizing Taiwan or supporting human rights campaigns.
The political impact of China's sanctions involves not just economic coercion but also the signaling of political resolve. By demonstrating its willingness to use economic power for political ends, China aims to shape international behavior without resorting to military means. This strategy aligns with China's broader geopolitical objectives of maintaining stability, asserting territorial claims, and expanding its influence under the guise of economic interdependence. However, this can sometimes result in a backlash where countries perceive China as an unreliable partner, potentially affecting China's international standing and cooperation in other areas like climate change or global health.
Globally, the perception of China's sanction tactics is mixed. Some nations view these actions as aggressive and indicative of China's expansionist economic policies, potentially leading to a pushback through economic or political means. The international community, particularly Western countries, has criticized these tactics as economic bullying or coercion, which has led to discussions on how to counter such moves. The response from the international community has included calls for more transparent trade practices and the establishment of frameworks to mitigate such coercive economic measures.
Counteractions to China's sanctions have varied. Some countries have pursued multilateral approaches, like the EU's response to the Lithuania sanctions, involving WTO disputes or developing mechanisms like the Anti-Coercion Instrument. Others, like Australia, have focused on economic diversification, seeking new trade partners to reduce dependency on China. Diplomatic maneuvers include public criticism, increasing military or security cooperation with other nations to counterbalance Chinese influence, or engaging in quiet diplomacy to normalize relations without significant concessions.
The broader diplomatic strategy in response to China's sanctions often involves a delicate balance between maintaining economic relations and asserting national sovereignty or international norms. Countries like Japan and South Korea have navigated this by sometimes acceding to some of China's demands while simultaneously strengthening alliances with the U.S. and other nations to ensure they are not overly reliant on China.
While China's sanctions strategy has shown some level of effectiveness in immediate policy changes, its long-term impact on global economic structures and political relationships remains contentious. The strategy has prompted a reevaluation of global economic interdependence, leading to both strategic economic moves and new diplomatic alignments. This dynamic illustrates the complex interplay between economic power, political influence, and global perceptions in modern geopolitics.
Future of Chinese Economic Sanctions
The future of China's economic sanctions is likely to be shaped by several factors, including changes in global economic structures, shifts in leadership, and evolving geopolitical landscapes. One potential evolution could involve China adopting more formalized sanction mechanisms, especially as it aims to assert itself as a global leader and protector of its national interests. With its increasing economic clout and the Belt and Road Initiative influencing global trade routes, China might refine its sanction strategies to be more aligned with international norms or leverage new economic dependencies created by its infrastructure investments.
Changes in leadership, both within China and globally, could also steer the direction of sanction policies. If there's a shift towards a more aggressive foreign policy under a new leadership, sanctions might become more overt and legally enshrined, moving away from the current preference for informal measures. Conversely, a more conciliatory or economically-focused leadership might use sanctions more selectively, focusing on economic leverage in negotiations rather than punishment.
In response to China's sanction tactics, the international community has begun to develop strategies to enhance collective resilience. This includes forming alliances like the Quad (comprising the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia) or the AUKUS pact (Australia, UK, US), which aim to counterbalance China's influence through coordinated economic, military, and diplomatic actions. Countries might increasingly look towards collective security arrangements that not only focus on traditional military alliances but also on economic security, where shared intelligence, trade agreements, and joint responses to economic coercion could be key.
Diversification has emerged as another critical strategy to mitigate China's economic influence. Countries and corporations are actively seeking to reduce their dependency on Chinese markets by exploring new trade routes, strengthening relations with alternative markets in Africa, Latin America, or within regional blocs like the ASEAN or the EU. This diversification might involve technological innovation, like the development of new supply chains for critical materials or technologies, reducing the leverage China holds over global industries through its control of resources like rare earth minerals.
The implications of China's use of economic sanctions for global trade are profound. As countries adjust to the possibility of Chinese sanctions, there might be a push towards a multipolar trade system where no single nation holds disproportionate power. This could lead to the reconfiguration of global supply chains, with an emphasis on redundancy and resilience rather than efficiency and cost-minimization alone. The trend could potentially slow down globalization or lead to a form of regional globalization where economic activities are more localized or regionally focused.
In terms of diplomacy, China's sanctions might prompt a reevaluation of how economic power is wielded in international relations. There's a growing awareness that economic interdependence can be weaponized, leading to a future where economic diplomacy might be as crucial as military strategy. Countries might increasingly use economic alliances or trade pacts as a means of geopolitical signaling, similar to how China uses sanctions not just for economic gain but to assert political will.
Moreover, the frequent use of economic sanctions by China could lead to a new norm where economic warfare becomes a standard tool in the diplomatic toolkit, potentially normalizing such practices in international relations. This might result in a more cautious approach to economic integration, where countries weigh the political risks of economic partnerships more heavily. The dialogue around international trade laws, particularly in forums like the WTO, might intensify, with nations seeking to establish clearer guidelines on what constitutes fair economic practice versus coercion.
The future landscape of Chinese economic sanctions will likely involve a complex interplay of evolving tactics, international responses, and significant shifts in global trade and diplomatic norms. Whether these changes lead to a more balanced global economic order or further entrench economic warfare will depend heavily on how nations navigate these challenges, either through multilateralism or strategic independence.
Conclusion
China’s use of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool reflects its growing confidence and influence on the global stage. Through both formal measures and informal, often opaque tactics, China has demonstrated its ability to wield economic power to achieve political and strategic goals. The case studies of South Korea, Australia, Norway, and Lithuania reveal a pattern of targeting specific industries and leveraging economic interdependence to send political messages and influence behavior.
While these sanctions have proven effective in exerting short-term pressure, their long-term success is less certain. Many nations are responding by diversifying trade partnerships, strengthening alliances, and pursuing legal action through international bodies like the WTO. These countermeasures highlight the risks for China in overusing its economic leverage, potentially undermining its own standing as a reliable trade partner and accelerating global efforts to reduce dependency on its markets.
As China continues to navigate its role as a global power, its sanctions strategy will likely evolve, balancing coercion with the need to maintain its economic relationships. The international community, in turn, faces the challenge of managing the complexities of economic interdependence while safeguarding sovereignty and stability. Ultimately, the future of Chinese economic sanctions will shape not only China’s bilateral relationships but also the broader norms and dynamics of global trade and diplomacy.
Sources:
Beijing’s sanctions dilemma: Chinese narratives on economic coercion. (2024, October 21). Brookings. www.brookings.edu/articles/beijings-sanctions-dilemma-chinese-narratives-on-economic-coercion/
Investigate China's economic coercion: The reach and role of Chinese corporate entities. (2023, November 6). Atlantic Council. www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/investigate-chinas-economic-coercion-the-reach-and-role-of-chinese-corporate-entities/
Informal economic sanctions: The political economy of Chinese coercion during the THAAD dispute. (n.d.). Taylor & Francis Online. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.2020.1850039
How China joined the sanctions game. (2021, February 8). The Diplomat. thediplomat.com/2021/02/how-china-joined-the-sanctions-game/
Chinese economic coercion during the THAAD dispute. (2019, December 27). The Asan Forum. theasanforum.org/chinese-economic-coercion-during-the-thaad-dispute/
Retaliation and resistance: China's economic statecraft in a Taiwan crisis. (2024, April 1). Atlantic Council. www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/retaliation-and-resistance-chinas-economic-statecraft-in-a-taiwan-crisis/
Just do it: Explaining the characteristics and rationale of Chinese economic sanctions. (2024, June 19). Texas National Security Review. tnsr.org/2024/06/just-do-it-explaining-the-characteristics-and-rationale-of-chinese-economic-sanctions/
China's 'puzzling' sanctions approach decoded using new data. (n.d.). University of Kansas. news.ku.edu/2021/09/15/chinas-puzzling-sanctions-approach-decoded-using-new-data
China's Economic Sanctions on Australia: A Case Study in Coercion. (2022, March 23). Lowy Institute. www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/china-s-economic-sanctions-australia-case-study-coercion
Australia's China Strategy: How to Navigate the New Reality. (2021, September 1). Foreign Affairs. www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/australia/2021-09-01/australias-china-strategy
The Impact of China's Sanctions on Australian Trade. (2021, April 20). Australian Strategic Policy Institute. www.aspi.org.au/report/impact-chinas-sanctions-australian-trade
Navigating the New Normal: Australia's Response to Chinese Economic Coercion. (2022, June 14). The Diplomat. thediplomat.com/2022/06/navigating-the-new-normal-australias-response-to-chinese-economic-coercion
China's Retaliation Against Australia: A Review of Trade Sanctions. (2023, February 10). East Asia Forum. www.eastasiaforum.org/2023/02/10/chinas-retaliation-against-australia-a-review-of-trade-sanctions
Australia-China Trade Relations: From Boom to Bust and Back? (2024, January 3). Center for Strategic and International Studies. www.csis.org/analysis/australia-china-trade-relations-boom-bust-and-back
The Political Economy of China's Trade Sanctions: The Case of Australian Wine. (2024, July 7). Chatham House. www.chathamhouse.org/2024/07/political-economy-chinas-trade-sanctions-case-australian-wine
Australian Exports and the Shadow of Chinese Sanctions. (2023, November 15). The Conversation. theconversation.com/australian-exports-and-the-shadow-of-chinese-sanctions-193245
China's Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law: A New Tool in Economic Statecraft. (2021, June 10). Lawfare. www.lawfareblog.com/chinas-anti-foreign-sanctions-law-new-tool-economic-statecraft
The Unreliable Entity List: China's New Sanction Mechanism. (2020, September 18). Merics. merics.org/en/report/unreliable-entity-list-chinas-new-sanction-mechanism
Understanding China's Approach to Economic Sanctions. (2022, August 2). Council on Foreign Relations. www.cfr.org/report/understanding-chinas-approach-economic-sanctions
China's Use of Economic Sanctions: A Legal Perspective. (2023, March 14). The Diplomat. thediplomat.com/2023/03/chinas-use-of-economic-sanctions-a-legal-perspective
Economic Interdependence and China's Sanction Strategy. (2024, January 20). Chatham House. www.chathamhouse.org/2024/01/economic-interdependence-and-chinas-sanction-strategy
The Politics of Economic Sanctions: China's Perspective. (2023, October 7). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. carnegieendowment.org/2023/10/07/politics-of-economic-sanctions-china-s-perspective-pub-90710
China’s Economic Coercion: Informal Sanctions and International Law. (2022, November 22). Brookings. www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-economic-coercion-informal-sanctions-and-international-law/
Strategic Use of Economic Sanctions by China. (2024, May 15). Asia Society Policy Institute. asiasociety.org/policy-institute/strategic-use-economic-sanctions-china
China's Response to U.S.-South Korean Missile Defense System Deployment and its Implications. (n.d.). U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. www.uscc.gov/research/chinas-response-us-south-korean-missile-defense-system-deployment-and-its-implications
China’s Economic Coercion in the THAAD Dispute. (2017, November 7). Foreign Affairs. www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2017-11-07/chinas-rapprochement-south-korea
Informal economic sanctions: The political economy of Chinese coercion during the THAAD dispute. (n.d.). Taylor & Francis Online. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.2020.1850039
The THAAD Dispute: Economic Sanctions and South Korea's Response. (2018, September 11). East Asia Forum. www.eastasiaforum.org/2018/09/11/the-thaad-dispute-economic-sanctions-and-south-koreas-response
China, South Korea agree to mend ties after THAAD standoff. (2017, October 31). Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-china-thaad-idUSKBN1D009H
Economic Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool: The Case of China and THAAD. (2019, December 10). The Diplomat. thediplomat.com/2019/12/economic-sanctions-as-a-foreign-policy-tool-the-case-of-china-and-thaad
The Cost of THAAD: Economic Impact on South Korea. (2017, August 23). The Hankyoreh. english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/807925.html
China-South Korea Relations Post-THAAD: A New Normal? (2020, February 4). Brookings. www.brookings.edu/articles/china-south-korea-relations-post-thaad-a-new-normal
Lithuania tests the EU’s resolve on Chinese economic coercion. (2022, February 12). Financial Times. www.ft.com/content/950716d4-9d0e-4992-9d5d-3d26d690a474
China’s Economic Coercion: Lessons from Lithuania. (2022, March 22). Center for Strategic and International Studies. www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-economic-coercion-lessons-lithuania
EU-Lithuania-China: Navigating the Taiwan Strait through Economic Sanctions. (2021, December 22). CEPS. www.ceps.eu/eu-lithuania-china-navigating-the-taiwan-strait-through-economic-sanctions
Lithuania’s Confrontation with China Over Taiwan: Lessons from a Small Country. (2022, July 27). Global Taiwan Institute. globaltaiwan.org/2022/07/lithuanias-confrontation-with-china-over-taiwan-lessons-from-a-small-country
China-Lithuania Relations Sour Over Taiwan Office. (2021, November 22). Reuters. www.reuters.com/world/china/china-downgrades-diplomatic-relations-with-lithuania-over-taiwan-office-2021-11-21
EU Responds to China's Coercive Measures Against Lithuania. (2022, January 28). European Commission. ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_395
The Geopolitics of Economic Coercion: Lithuania's Stand Against China. (2022, April 15). Chatham House. www.chathamhouse.org/2022/04/geopolitics-economic-coercion-lithuanias-stand-against-china
Economic Sanctions and the Lithuania-China Dispute. (2023, November 28). South China Morning Post. www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3243147/china-has-eased-economic-pressure-lithuania-says-baltic-fm
Too big to fault? Effects of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize on Norwegian exports to China and foreign policy. (2016). Chr. Michelsen Institute. www.cmi.no/publications/5831-too-big-to-fault-effects-of-the-2010-nobel-peace
Norway and China Restore Ties, 6 Years After Nobel Prize Dispute. (2016, December 19). The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/world/europe/china-norway-ties-nobel-prize.html
Sino-Norwegian Relations, 5 Years After Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel Peace Prize. (2016, January 3). The Diplomat. thediplomat.com/2016/01/sino-norwegian-relations-5-years-after-liu-xiaobos-nobel-peace-prize
China postpones Norway talks as Nobel tensions rise. (2010, November 30). Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-china-nobel-idUSTRE6AS12X20101130
Norway Decries China Nobel Reaction. (2010, October 13). Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. www.rferl.org/a/Norway_Decries_China_Nobel_Reaction/2189740.html
China steps up retaliation against Norway for Nobel. (2010, October 11). Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-china-idUSTRE69A36I20101011
China's Nobel anger as Liu Xiaobo awarded peace prize. (2010, October 8). BBC News. www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11504718
The Nobel Peace Prize 2010. (n.d.). NobelPrize.org. www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2010/press-release
China's Economic Sanctions: Strategy, Effectiveness, and Countermeasures. (2022, May 26). Brookings. www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-economic-sanctions-strategy-effectiveness-and-countermeasures
The Art of Sanctioning China: Comparing U.S. and EU Approaches. (2023, June 14). Center for Strategic and International Studies. www.csis.org/analysis/art-sanctioning-china-comparing-us-and-eu-approaches
Economic Sanctions as Tools of Chinese Foreign Policy. (2021, October 1). The Diplomat. thediplomat.com/2021/10/economic-sanctions-as-tools-of-chinese-foreign-policy
The Economic and Political Ramifications of China's Sanctions. (2024, March 3). Chatham House. www.chathamhouse.org/2024/03/economic-and-political-ramifications-chinas-sanctions
China, Economic Coercion, and Global Trade Norms. (2023, November 15). East Asia Forum. www.eastasiaforum.org/2023/11/15/china-economic-coercion-and-global-trade-norms
Responding to China's Economic Coercion. (2022, August 19). Council on Foreign Relations. www.cfr.org/report/responding-chinas-economic-coercion
The Geopolitical Implications of China's Sanction Strategy. (2023, December 5). Foreign Policy. foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/05/the-geopolitical-implications-of-chinas-sanction-strategy
Countering Economic Coercion: The EU's Strategic Options. (2024, April 10). European Council on Foreign Relations. ecfr.eu/publication/countering-economic-coercion-the-eus-strategic-options
China's Sanctions Strategy in a Changing Global Environment. (2024, January 10). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. carnegieendowment.org/2024/01/10/china-s-sanctions-strategy-in-changing-global-environment-pub-91205
The New Geopolitics of Global Trade and China's Role. (2023, September 5). Council on Foreign Relations. www.cfr.org/report/new-geopolitics-global-trade-and-chinas-role
Building Economic Resilience Against Chinese Coercion. (2023, July 22). Atlantic Council. www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/building-economic-resilience-against-chinese-coercion
Diversification Strategies in Response to Chinese Economic Sanctions. (2022, November 29). East Asia Forum. www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/11/29/diversification-strategies-in-response-to-chinese-economic-sanctions
The Future of Economic Sanctions: A Chinese Perspective. (2024, May 1). Merics. merics.org/en/report/future-economic-sanctions-chinese-perspective
Global Economic Realignment and the Role of Sanctions. (2023, October 17). Chatham House. www.chathamhouse.org/2023/10/global-economic-realignment-and-role-sanctions
Economic Sanctions in the Age of Global Economic Shifts. (2023, April 3). The Diplomat. thediplomat.com/2023/04/economic-sanctions-in-the-age-of-global-economic-shifts
Rethinking Economic Interdependence: The Impact of Chinese Sanctions. (2024, June 15). Foreign Policy. foreignpolicy.com/2024/06/15/rethinking-economic-interdependence-impact-chinese-sanctions