Building Stadiums and Alliances: China’s Diplomatic Approach to Dominance
On May 14, 2007, Costa Rica voted at an international health conference against proposed Taiwanese membership in the World Health Organization. A couple of months later Costa Rica’s President, Oscar Arias, publicly announced his government’s decision to switch diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), after more than 60 years of friendly links with the government in Taipei.
Since then, Costa Rica & China have established a successful diplomatic relationship; evidenced by a series of mutual agreements. Notably, one of these accords was instrumental in strengthening their partnership and allowing for a shift in alliances — A new state-of-the-art stadium costing $105 million, a bill borne by the Chinese.
However, Sports aren’t just for China to score political points — it’s a tool all countries can use to build diplomatic relationships. And everyone’s winning! From Michael Jordan’s legendary slam dunk in the 1988 Olympics in Seoul and the superstar power of the NBA, to the reintegration of a new South Africa into international society through the Rugby World Cup in 1995; for ages, sport has been a ‘language’ of global diplomacy.
But China has really stepped up their game in recent years. With China’s rapid economic rise, the nation has entered the stadium diplomacy game with unprecedented force. In fact, China’s investment in foreign sports infrastructure has exploded in recent years, bringing it to the forefront of a new kind of soft power diplomacy.
While Western nations like the United States have long used sports to bolster their image abroad, China’s approach is both more aggressive and more complex. So how has this stadium diplomacy come to be, and what impact has it had on China’s diplomatic standing?
From Mao to Modern Times: A Brief History of China’s Stadium Diplomacy
When it comes to diplomacy, China has long leveraged sports to pursue diplomatic objectives. During the early 70s, China utilized table tennis tournaments as a means of diplomatic communication with the U.S, skipping the traditional approaches and starting what we now call “Ping-Pong Diplomacy”.
This strategy ultimately resulted in the Sino-U.S. reconciliation of 1972, culminating in Nixon’s historic visit to China. During the same period, China started applying another soft power innovative diplomatic approach for building relationships and improving international relations across the globe.
Basically, China gifts state-of-the-art stadiums to extend the privilege of modernization to the less-developing countries, except gifts always come with a catch in international relations. Think of it as buying a friendship with money! How thoughtful, right?
Decades after, the construction of the National Stadium, also known as the Bird’s Nest, for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, was a monumental achievement that put China on the world stage. The stadium was not only a symbol of China’s ability to host a world-class event, but it also showcased the country’s architectural and engineering capabilities, as Its iconic design and technological innovations have attracted tourists from all over the world.
This was an eye-opening endeavor for China, which has presented clear opportunities to showcase its economic and technological prowess on the global stage through innovation in architecture. Moreover, these stadiums, which are often the largest in their respective countries, are seen as a symbol of China’s generosity and commitment to development.
However, Not only has the scope of Chinese construction changed, Stadium Diplomacy also has become an enormous part of a worldwide economic and political plan. It became clear to Chinese leaders that Stadium Diplomacy can offer much more.
Realizing the potential that came along with its rising power and influence, China sought to exclude and isolate Taiwan from the diplomatic sphere. More significantly though, its growing industrial economy and population, meant it needed additional markets for exports and land to meet agricultural needs and, Above all, having access to all of the raw materials necessary for its factories, and Africa tick all the boxes!
Dominating Africa: Playing Fair or Playing Power?
The Sino-African encounter began, with Tanzania becoming an important partner for Mao’s China due to its politics of Afro-rural socialism and non-aligned movement. During this time, China initiated its stadium diplomacy program in Africa, and in 1971, built the national arena in Dar es Salaam. Somalia received a stadium in Mogadishu in 1978, and during the 1980s and early 1990s, China continued to gift stadiums to several African countries, including Benin, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Liberia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, and Rwanda.
Initially, these stadiums were small and offered basic facilities. But, as China’s construction industry grew, it was able to build larger and more architecturally significant stadiums and multi-sport complexes for the dictatorships of Moi in Nairobi and Mobutu in Kinshasa.
From Togo to the Central African Republic, the Chinese have been bestowing these grand structures as if they were candy. Over 40 new stadiums were donated in full. In fact, the gifts list has extended to the offices of Uganda’s and Mozambique’s presidents, Sierra Leone’s and Zimbabwe’s parliaments, Ghana’s national theatre and a new headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa.
Many other stadiums have been funded through package deals, with one of China’s state banks lending the money to the government. Without having to worry, if the country is a little cash-strapped, they can still repay their debts with minimal interest if none, or even just raw materials — the perfect solution if money’s tight.
Over the past two decades, Chinese-funded stadiums have been popping up around mostly every AFCON- Africa’s flagship football tournament. Six were built for Mali 2022, and four for each of the ones to follow, Ghana 2008, Angola 2010, Equatorial Guinea & Gabon 2012, Equatorial Guinea 2015, and Gabon 2017.
It’s not coincidental that China is the top oil market for both Ghana and Angola, and Beijing being a destination for 15% of Gabon’s exports of oil and manganese. Furthermore, the Chinese-Equatorial Guinea trade focused mainly on oil, making China its largest trading partner.
China has managed to make a mark in the African sports landscape with its focus on meeting the infrastructure needs. It has been able to fulfill the most pressing requirement of football- modern stadiums- with great success.
This has not only shown the country as a global player with the resources and expertise to build world-class facilities, but it also served to promote China’s image as a global leader in innovation and its unique culture and values to the world. All of these efforts work together to bolster China’s soft power influence on the global stage.
The High Costs of Stadium Diplomacy
Stadium diplomacy, while successful in many ways. One of the main criticisms is the high cost of building these stadiums, which is seen as unsustainable in the long run. In addition, some stadiums have been built in remote areas where there is little demand for sports, leading to questions about their actual utility.
The Chinese construction firms are renowned for their expedited timetables; however, this level of speed and magnitude of investment sometimes come with a price too.
If you look at Costa Rica’s and Malawi’s national stadiums, it’s like they were twins — totally identical! It almost seems like the national uniqueness of each has been left out. Both of these were built by a Chinese construction group — that specializes in diamond mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe.
Another construction company was responsible for building two identical football stadiums in Zambia and Gabon — the Levy Mwanawasa Stadium and Stade de l’Amitié. Guess that’s what you call ‘building on friendship!’
One final major criticism leveled at China’s stadium diplomacy is that it is seen by some as a form of neo-colonialism. Some critics argue that the emphasis on promoting Chinese culture and values abroad is similar to the way European colonial powers used their own culture and language to exert control over their colonies.
These ne-colonialism accusations include accusations of exploitation and unfair competition, use of Chinese labor solely, and other concerns about transparency and accountability in the bidding and construction processes, with some alleging that contracts are awarded to Chinese firms without proper oversight or due diligence.
One example of these practices can be seen in the construction of the National Stadium of Costa Rica. The Chinese workers involved in the project worked inhumane hours, despite Costa Rica’s strict labor laws. One worker even died as a result of a construction accident. In addition, most of the materials used in the project were shipped from China, providing little stimulation to the Costa Rican economy.
While supporters of China’s stadium diplomacy argue that it is simply a way to promote goodwill and international cooperation, these concerns have led some to question whether the true motivation behind China’s soft power initiatives is more about power and control than genuine friendship and partnership.
The Tempting Allure of Chinese Infrastructure Investments
Many countries have been enticed by China’s stadium diplomacy because of the potential benefits that come with having such facilities. By constructing these state-of-the-art facilities, China is not only improving the host country’s infrastructure but also giving them the chance to showcase their modernity and influence on the global stage.
Hosting major sporting events like the Africa Cup of Nations is not only a matter of prestige but also offers economic benefits such as tourism and increased revenue for local businesses. Moreover, hosting such tournaments offers a platform for cultural exchange and people-to-people diplomacy, which allows nations to deepen their relationships and build goodwill with other countries
However, looking deeper into the more hidden reasons why countries all around the world are enthralled by China’s stadium diplomacy, we realize that through this approach China does not pay substantially more attention to domestic politics of the recipient nations compared to Western donors.
The Chinese approach comes with a ‘no-strings-attached’ policy on domestic politics, human rights, or international law, which is attractive to many countries. Unlike other major global political players, China doesn’t interfere in the internal affairs of those nations and doesn’t impose any conditions on its diplomatic gifts.
This eventually offers a quick and easy solution to the less-developed countries' infrastructure needs without any political or diplomatic baggage. As Sierra Leone’s ambassador to Beijing tartly put it. “If a G8 country had wanted to rebuild our stadium, we’d still be holding meetings.”
Looking ahead, What’s Next?
As part of its global image strategy, China has harnessed its economic and political dominance to build and renovate stadiums in Asia, Africa, South America, and beyond. These efforts have undoubtedly helped to improve China’s image in developing countries with many seeing China as a reliable partner in their development efforts.
Stadium diplomacy has shown us that even when it comes to politics and diplomacy, creativity and innovation are also key. The use of sports, and football in particular, has proven to be an effective way to forge strong political and economic bonds between nations. As more and more countries continue to recognize the value of sports as a form of public diplomacy, we can expect to see even more exciting and impactful initiatives in the future. Who knows, maybe one day we’ll see a diplomatic summit held entirely on the pitch! One thing is for sure, stadium diplomacy has shown us that the world of politics and diplomacy is not just about suits and ties, but about connecting with people on a personal level that resonates with their passions — that is key.
Of course, some may argue that China’s motivations are purely self-serving and that it’s just a way to increase its global influence. And hey, there’s some truth to that. But at the end of the day, isn’t that what all countries are trying to do in some way or another? In fact, other countries should already start to take notes, because sometimes it’s not about what you say, it’s about what you build.
