Tracing China's diplomatic transition to wolf warrior diplomacy and its implications

Over the past decade, China has shifted from a traditionally peaceful, low-profile diplomatic posture—often associated with Deng Xiaoping’s “hide your strength, bide your time”—toward a more assertive and confrontational “wolf warrior” style. This change, named after the Chinese action film series Wolf Warrior, has provoked debate among scholars and policymakers about its motivations and effects on China’s image and soft power. The study emphasizes the importance of understanding this evolution as China’s global role expands amid strategic competition with the United States and growing influence in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe. The paper’s purpose is to analyze the evolution and implications of wolf warrior diplomacy during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period that placed China under intense international scrutiny. It contrasts earlier themes of peaceful development and non-interference with the new approach marked by aggressive rhetoric and public confrontations. Using qualitative case studies of three prominent incidents—the Zhao Lijian–U.S. State Department Twitter spat, China–Australia tensions, and the China–Sweden confrontation—the study examines patterns, tendencies, and motivations, linking the shift to dynamics described by Power Transition Theory. The research frames the diplomatic transition as a strategic adaptation to internal pressures (rising nationalism) and external conditions (perceived hostility), with broader aims to reshape aspects of the international order.

Power Transition Theory (Organski, 1958) posits that systemic instability arises as a rising power approaches or challenges a dominant power. The paper situates China within this framework: as China’s economic, military, and technological capabilities have grown, its ambitions and confidence have increased, and dissatisfaction with elements of the U.S.-led order has sharpened. The assertive behaviors of “wolf warrior” diplomats—challenging narratives, rebuffing criticism, and forcefully asserting China’s perspective—are interpreted as expressions of a rising power contesting the status quo. Historically, PRC diplomacy evolved from Cold War non-alignment and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence to Deng Xiaoping’s low-profile strategy focused on domestic development. The “peaceful rise” era (1990s–2000s) emphasized non-interference, mutual respect/benefit, and peaceful development, enabling WTO accession (2001), a “good-neighbor policy” in Asia (e.g., China–ASEAN FTA, SCO), and active multilateralism (UN, G20, Six-Party Talks). Scholars note this era’s pragmatic and sometimes assertive undercurrents despite its cooperative rhetoric. The literature also highlights factors behind the post-2012 turn: leadership change under Xi Jinping with initiatives like BRI and AIIB; rising nationalism fueled by rapid development, historical grievances, and the “China Dream”; and a perception of a hostile external environment, including strategic competition with the U.S., maritime disputes (South/East China Seas), criticism over human rights, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and COVID-19. These strands collectively support interpreting the diplomatic shift as consistent with power transition dynamics, where a rising state seeks greater voice and revisions to selected international norms and practices.

The study employs a qualitative case study approach to probe the motivations, dimensions, and implications of China’s diplomatic transition. It draws on primary and secondary sources, including official statements, social media posts (notably Twitter), state media content, and media analyses, to identify patterns and interpret diplomatic signaling and rhetoric. Three COVID-19–era cases were selected as concrete manifestations of wolf warrior diplomacy: (1) the Twitter confrontation between Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian and the U.S. State Department; (2) China’s dispute with Australia following Canberra’s call for an independent inquiry into COVID-19 origins, including subsequent Chinese trade measures; and (3) China’s confrontation with Sweden involving Ambassador Gui Congyou’s aggressive public rhetoric. The analysis is interpretive and comparative across cases, aiming to connect observed behaviors to theoretical constructs (Power Transition Theory) and to broader shifts in diplomatic rhetoric, territorial/military behavior, and economic statecraft.

• The transition spans three core dimensions: (1) Diplomatic rhetoric and communication—Chinese diplomats increasingly deploy combative, nationalist language, engage in tit-for-tat exchanges, and leverage social media (notably Twitter) to amplify messages, challenge Western narratives, and appeal to domestic audiences; (2) Territorial disputes and military assertiveness—China has escalated pursuit of maritime and land claims (South China Sea militarization, 2013 East China Sea ADIZ including the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, increased patrols and encounters with Japan/U.S., and the 2020 Galwan Valley clash with India); (3) Economic statecraft and coercion—China has used trade restrictions, investment curbs, and tourism flows to exert pressure (e.g., tariffs and import curbs on Australia’s barley, wine, and beef after the COVID-19 inquiry call; reduced investments and suspended talks with Norway after the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize; curbs on group tours to South Korea following THAAD deployment). - Case study insights: Zhao Lijian’s March 12, 2020 tweets floated a U.S.-origin conspiracy for COVID-19, prompted a U.S. State Department summons for China’s ambassador, and showcased social media’s centrality to diplomatic contestation and narrative battles. China–Australia tensions illustrated the tight coupling of rhetoric with economic coercion. The China–Sweden episode (Ambassador Gui Congyou) demonstrated confrontational tactics against European states and the friction with European norms on press freedom. - “Mask diplomacy” combined material aid (PPE exports, medical teams) with assertive messaging to present China as a responsible leader, but drew mixed reactions, with some praising assistance and others criticizing quality concerns and political motives. - Global perceptions have trended negative: unfavorable views of China reached 80% in South Korea after 2017 amid economic retaliation over THAAD; Japan’s unfavorable views peaked at 93% in 2013 amid East China Sea tensions; Australia’s skepticism rose notably from 2017 over influence concerns. - Overall, findings indicate China’s growing confidence and willingness to challenge prevailing norms, consistent with Power Transition Theory’s expectation that rising powers seek to revise aspects of the international order. However, the approach has generated pushback, strained bilateral ties, and potential soft-power costs.

The findings address the research question by showing that China’s move from low-profile diplomacy to wolf warrior tactics reflects rising-power dynamics under Power Transition Theory, reinforced by leadership consolidation, heightened nationalism, and perceived external threats. The three case studies during COVID-19 demonstrate how assertive rhetoric, social media engagement, and economic leverage coalesce into a broader strategy that challenges traditional diplomatic norms. The implications are significant: - For great-power relations, the approach deepens U.S.–China mistrust and hardens policy stances, potentially narrowing scope for cooperation. - In Europe, confrontations with individual states risk pushing the EU toward a more unified, wary, or adversarial posture on China and reevaluations of trade and investment ties. - In Asia, military assertiveness and economic coercion complicate regional stability, encourage diversification away from Chinese dependence, and accelerate alignment patterns (e.g., India’s ties with the Quad). - For global governance, contentious rhetoric and coercive economic tools can undermine transparency, accountability, and multilateral cooperation, particularly during crises like pandemics. While the approach may resonate domestically and project strength consistent with national rejuvenation narratives, it risks reputational damage, economic decoupling pressures, diplomatic isolation, and reduced flexibility in dispute management.

The paper traces China’s diplomatic evolution from a peaceful, low-profile stance to wolf warrior diplomacy and identifies key drivers: leadership change under Xi Jinping, intensifying nationalism, perceptions of external hostility, and increased willingness to deploy economic coercion. Through three COVID-19–era case studies (Zhao Lijian vs the U.S. State Department; China vs Australia; China vs Sweden), it shows the shift’s multiple dimensions—assertive rhetoric, challenges to established norms, and the use of economic leverage. The consequences include strained bilateral relations, heightened skepticism about China’s intentions, pressures on press freedom and media independence, and broader concerns over transparency, accountability, and multilateralism. These dynamics are reshaping other states’ strategies toward China and complicating China’s soft-power goals. As China continues asserting its role, the trajectory of wolf warrior diplomacy will have far-reaching effects on international politics, regional stability, and global governance. A nuanced understanding of these developments is essential for policymakers, scholars, and diplomats seeking effective engagement strategies in an evolving, multipolar order.