Forskningsprosjekt
Chinese Anger Diplomacy (ANGER)
Events
A variety of governments and non-state actors have in recent years drawn the ire of Chinese officials and state-owned media for, inter alia, “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people” or being “gum stuck to China´s shoe.” Recent offenders include Denmark (for a newspaper cartoon), Australia (for suggesting an inquiry into the origins of Covid-19), and the National Basketball Association (for a pro-Hong Kong tweet).
Such criticism is distinct from normal diplomatic exchanges, as it is formulated in an emotionally charged register and presented publicly. While all states at times may display emotions, anger diplomacy in response to perceived offenses is arguably a more central part of Chinese foreign policy than it is for other great powers such as the US, Russia, or the EU.
With China’s emergence as a global power, there is a concern that such criticism will pressure liberal-democratic states to adjust their behaviour. But is such “anger diplomacy” effective? Does it result in changed behaviour from those targeted by Chinese authorities? Is anger diplomacy deployed more frequently towards certain liberal-democratic states than others?
ANGER will explain when and how such diplomacy may boost or undercut China's international influence. Drawing on the literature of emotions in international relations, and in cooperation with partners at Colombia University, King's College, NIAS, and University of Edinburgh, the project will systematically map episodes of Chinese anger, and conduct comparative analysis of the effects of Chinese anger diplomacy directed against state and non-state actors.
ANGER aims to i) systematically describe China’s use of emotionally charged criticism ii) explain the variation in response to such criticism in liberal-democratic states; and iii) assess how such anger diplomacy may boost or undercut China’s influence. By assessing how state-society relations may explain variation in responses and effects of such diplomacy, ANGER seeks to identify causal mechanisms at work. The project will further contribute to broader debates about hegemony, power-political competition, and the rise of China.
See below for the project's related publications, articles and podcasts at NUPI.
Other articles and op-eds:
Dukalskis, A. & Cooley, A. A. (21.11.2025). Autoritære regimer former nå verdenspolitikken – i et system skapt av Vesten. Aftenposten.
Kauschanski, A. (14.07.2025). "Dann würde die liberale Ordnung schlicht zerbrechen". Die Zeit. (German interview with Alexander Dukalskis and Alexander Cooley)
Other podcasts:
Wu, Lunting. (28.01.2026). "When Countries Ghost Each Other". U.S.-China Nexus Podcast.
Cooley, A. A. & Dukalskis, A. (03.12.2025). "Dictating the Agenda". New Books in World Affairs Podcast.
Project Manager
Participants
External
Alexander Cooley, Colombia University
Astrid Nordin, King's College
Andreas Bøje Forsby, DIIS
Oliver Turner, University of Edinburgh
Articles
Understanding Xi Jinping’s China
Over a year into Xi Jinping’s historic third five-year term as President, China continues to make headlines worldwide. Many of these headlines now...
title.podkast
Understanding Xi Jinping’s China
Over a year into Xi Jinping’s historic third five-year term as President, China continues to make headlines worldwide. Many of these headlines now...
New publications
“Ambassador, you’re really spoiling us!” Diplomatic gifts and profligate autocrats
Qatar’s “unconditional” gift of a $400 million Boeing 747-8 to Donald Trump serves as a reminder that states have long used diplomatic gifts to impress others, forge bonds, and secure favorable treatment. However, in an age where citizens and media outlets routinely scrutinize public spending, there is good reason to think that not all governments are able to justify lavishing large sums on such interactions. In this paper, we test the claim that autocracies are less constrained in their diplomatic gift giving due to an absence of domestic accountability mechanisms. To evidence this, the authors draw on a dataset of diplomatic gifts presented to U.S. presidents from 2001 to 2018. The results show that autocratic regimes systematically spend more on diplomatic gifts than do democracies. Supplementary analyses suggest that this is, in part, due to new media in democracies being able to criticize profligate diplomatic practices. Interviews with Norwegian diplomats corroborate the importance of domestic media scrutiny in shaping diplomatic gift giving. The article contributes to scholarship that probes the relationship between regime type and public spending, by showing its relevance to diplomatic interactions.
Dictating the Agenda: The Authoritarian Resurgence in World Politics
This book examines how authoritarian states have repurposed tools, norms, and actors previously used to promote Western-backed liberalism, now turning them against liberal ideas. After the Cold War, democratization appeared to signal the decline of authoritarianism, but recent developments show a significant shift. The authors introduce the concept of “authoritarian snapback,” in which non-democratic states curb the spread of liberal ideas domestically while promoting anti-liberal norms globally. Drawing on case studies, purpose-built databases, and interviews, the book demonstrates how authoritarian states challenge liberal influence through media agreements, consumer boycotts, sports investments, university programs, and restrictions on foreign journalists, among other methods. It offers a fresh perspective on the shifting global political landscape and the limits of liberal influence.
Emotional assertiveness: China's coercive diplomacy against non-state actors
While the economic, political and military instruments of China's coercive diplomacy have been intensely studied in recent years, its emotional dimension has largely been overlooked. This article investigates China's ‘emotional assertiveness’ as a distinct discursive practice of coercion in which state representatives publicly express moral indignation and urge offenders to apologize for violating China's red lines. It examines several western non-state actors targeted by China in this way, as these unexplored cases provide a unique perspective on the role played by emotions in state coercive diplomacy. Specifically, they demonstrate how identity-related emotionalized concerns, rather than instrumental and strategic considerations, may sometimes constitute the underlying motivational driver of China's assertiveness. Apart from carving out new space for a non-rationalist approach to coercive diplomacy within the International Relations discipline, the article develops the key components of China's emotional assertiveness, arguing that it is fuelled by moral indignation, rather than anger; is triggered by a perceived wrong; is nurtured by identity-related concerns; and is manifested in repeated demands for repentance. To illustrate China's practice of emotional assertiveness, the article analyses two specific cases: Intel's instruction in 2021 to its suppliers to avoid products from Xinjiang and an opinion piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal in early 2020, titled ‘China is the real sick man of Asia’.
Ghosting diplomacy: China's silent treatment amid great power competition
If diplomacy is about communication, how does ghosting communicate? China has increasingly used ghosting or silent treatment when practising diplomacy. It has purposefully cut off high-level communication channels with its ‘significant others’ in recent years. When and why does China ghost other states, including its most important partners? How does strategic ghosting fit with the more combative turn in China's ‘wolf warrior diplomacy’ under Xi Jinping? Current scholarship on emotional diplomacy largely focuses on the display of emotions but rarely deals with diplomacy in which the expressions of emotions are covert. This article argues that ghosting diplomacy usually follows a perceived severe violation of core interests; rather than directly displaying emotions like anger, silent treatment is a covert aggression that is punitive by nature. Building on works of emotional diplomacy, security studies and social psychology, this article contributes to the conceptualization and theorization of interstate silent treatment in International Relations and unravels the motives of states to resort to this strategy. Through discourse analysis in a single case-study on China's silent treatment of the United States in the aftermath of former House speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan in 2022 and the 2023 incident involving suspected surveillance balloons, the research provides a thick description and explanation of how China's ghosting diplomacy unfolded amid heightened geopolitical tensions between the two great powers. As such, it is relevant for both scholars and policy-makers working in foreign policy, in that it sheds light on this covert aggressive form of diplomacy, and on how states can best respond to it.
Towards a Postliberal Global Order? The Crises of the Liberal West
This article is in Norwegian. The article discusses the weakened position of the liberal West in global governance, and the significance of Trump’s USA in this landscape. The first part of the article outlines three central ideological and geopolitical developments related to global order that run counter to the dominant dichotomies between the West and the non-West, democracies and autocracies. Although the world is changing, and the post-1989 form of liberal hegemony is in significant reverse, global politics will not become post-liberal any time soon. The second part discusses how the Western self-image as a unified liberal «us» has unraveled throughout the 2000s. First, Western states have systematically undermined some of the values and institutions they have claimed to represent. The gap between self-image and reality, in parallel with extensive outward moralization, has created a significant legitimacy crisis for the West. Second, the far right has become a central part of the Western political landscape. The new transatlantic community of values under Trump is not liberal, but radical right-wing. The tensions within the community of shared values will be there regardless of who’s in power in the USA. The conclusion is that it is no longer possible to talk about a unified Western liberal «us». Continuing to insist on it will only further strengthen the West’s internal and external tensions.
Project Manager
Events
Participants
External
Alexander Cooley, Colombia University
Astrid Nordin, King's College
Andreas Bøje Forsby, DIIS
Oliver Turner, University of Edinburgh