OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier

Portugal and China in International Relations:

Historical Legacies and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026

HEDGING UNDER PRESSURE: PORTUGAL’S FOREIGN POLICY AND THE U.S-

CHINA RIVALRY

JORGE TAVARES DA SILVA

jorge.tavares.silva@ubi.pt

He is an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the Faculty of Social Sciences and

Humanities, University of Beira Interior (UBI), and an Integrated Researcher at the Portuguese

Institute of International Relations (IPRI-NOVA), NOVA University of Lisbon. He is a founding

member of the Observatory of China (Portugal), a member of the Association of Chinese Political

Studies (ACPS), and serves on the Editorial Board of Tempo Exterior (Spain). His scholarly work

includes numerous articles and book chapters published in international outlets, with research

primarily centered on the political, economic, and social transformations of contemporary China.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2526-4745

TOMÉ RIBEIRO GOMES

tome.ribeiro.gomes@ubi.pt

He is an Invited Assistant Professor of International Relations at both the Faculty of Social

Sciences and Humanities, University of Beira Interior (UBI, Portugal), and the Institute of Political

Studies, Catholic University of Portugal (UCP). He earned his PhD in 2025 in History, Security

Studies, and Defence from the Centre for International Studies, ISCTE – University Institute of

Lisbon, and holds an MA in Governance, Leadership, and Democracy Studies from the Institute of

Political Studies, UCP. His research interests encompass strategy, geopolitics, and transatlantic

relations. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3787-8661

Abstract

This study aims to analyse Portugal's position within the Sino-American rivalry, charting its

evolution in the context of a ‘golden era’ of Chinese investment amid a financial crisis and a

perceived (partial) abandonment by the United States, Portugal’s traditional great-power ally.

For a small European state, a member of the European Union and NATO, the central challenge

lies in balancing long-standing transatlantic commitments with the economic opportunities

offered by China. The fracture between the Global South and the institutional commitments

to the EU and the U.S during the Trump era has necessitated subtle political manoeuvring.

We argue that Portugal’s behaviour towards China from the 2008 financial and economic crisis

to 2019 constitutes a case of ‘hedging’ and consider the question of whether this was the

result of a strategy or an ad hoc search for new foreign partnerships. We conclude that while

hedging occurred and that there is some indication of strategic thought from Lisbon

policymakers, in practice it was always cautious and the country continued to prioritise

alignment with the EU and the U.S.. Historical commitments, the liberal democratic legacy,

shared values, defence alliances, and the collective European project place Portugal generally

closer to this political framework, which tends to constrain its relations with Beijing, without

precluding occasional cooperation. However, we also find indications that Portugal’s hedging

has had a strategic dimension. This question warrants consideration because it is still ongoing:

Within the current international framework, does Portugal continue to pursue a hedging

strategy toward China, or has it embarked on a gradual and deliberate disengagement from

political relations with Beijing?

Keywords

hedging Strategy, Portugal, China, United States.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

Resumo

Este estudo analisa a posição de Portugal no contexto da rivalidade sino americana,

delineando a sua evolução durante a chamada “era dourada” do investimento chinês, ocorrida

em simultâneo com a crise financeira e com a perceção de um (parcial) afastamento por parte

dos Estados Unidos, o tradicional aliado de grande poder de Portugal. Para um pequeno Estado

europeu, membro da União Europeia e da NATO, o desafio central reside em equilibrar os

compromissos transatlânticos de longa data com as oportunidades económicas oferecidas pela

China. A fratura entre o “Sul Global” e os compromissos institucionais com a UE e com os EUA

durante a era Trump exigiu manobras políticas subtis. Argumentamos que o comportamento

de Portugal em relação à China, desde a crise financeira e económica de 2008 até 2019,

constitui um caso de hedging, e colocamos a questão de saber se tal resultou de uma

estratégia deliberada ou de uma procura ad hoc de novas parcerias externas. Concluímos que,

embora tenha ocorrido hedging e exista alguma indicação de pensamento estratégico por

parte dos decisores em Lisboa, na prática esse alinhamento foi sempre cauteloso, mantendo

o país a prioridade no alinhamento com a UE e com os EUA. Compromissos históricos, a

herança liberal democrática, valores partilhados, alianças de defesa e o projeto europeu

coletivo colocam Portugal, de forma geral, mais próximo desse enquadramento político, o que

tende a limitar a relação com Pequim, sem impedir, contudo, episódios pontuais de

cooperação. Todavia, identificam se também indícios de que o hedging português possui uma

dimensão estratégica. Esta questão permanece relevante porque o processo continua em

curso: no atual enquadramento internacional, Portugal continua a prosseguir uma estratégia

de hedging em relação à China ou iniciou uma desvinculação gradual e deliberada dos laços

políticos com Pequim?

Palavras-chave

Estratégia de hedging, Portugal, China, Estados Unidos.

How to cite this article

Silva, Jorge Tavares da & Gomes, Tomé Ribeiro (2026). Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign

Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. Thematic Dossier

- Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies and Contemporary Dynamics,

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2, February 2026, pp. 9-31. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0126.1

Article submitted on 31st October 2025 and accepted for publication on 8th January 2026.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

HEDGING UNDER PRESSURE: PORTUGAL’S FOREIGN POLICY AND

THE U.S-CHINA RIVALRY

JORGE TAVARES DA SILVA

TOMÉ RIBEIRO GOMES

Introduction

Portugal underwent one of the most significant tests of its post-1974 democratic

consolidation Between 2011 and 2015, a period marked by a severe economic decline,

social unrest, and political volatility. In 2011, the aftershocks of the 2008 global financial

crisis led to a bailout that forced the country to adopt unpopular austerity measures and

an array of politically unpalatable reforms under the close supervision of the European

Central Bank (ECB), European Commission (EC), and the International Monetary Fund

(IMF). While Europe was facing financial difficulties, the United States was shifting its

strategic priorities, posing a further challenge for Lisbon. The following year, Washington

announced a drawdown of American forces stationed in the Azores, at Lajes Air Base, the

cornerstone of the Luso-American relationship since the early Cold War. The much-

vaunted idea that Portuguese foreign policy was ‘Euroatlantic’ thus found itself under

question on both counts: the European dimension was strained by the conditions imposed

by European institutions, and the American by Washington’s unwillingness to rethink the

downsizing of Lajes or, failing that, to compensate Portugal with some other military

investment in the Azores. It seemed that Portugal had nowhere to turn.

That same year, 2012, Xi Jinping came to power as the Paramount Leader of the People’s

Republic of China (PRC). Xi quickly made his mark on the PRC’s foreign policy. The new

leader, wrapped in the political slogan of the “China Dream” and “national rejuvenation”

embarked on a wave of nationalist exaltation that promised to re-establish China to the

centre of global power. Shortly after becoming General Secretary of the Communist

Party of China, Xi embraced the inevitability of China’s path of progress: “The tide of the

world is surging forward. Those who submit to it will prosper and those who resist it will

perish” (Xi, 2013). A systemic rivalry between the U.S and China became a defining

feature of the international system. At first glance, no one would doubt that Portugal

would remain firmly by the side of the U.S. However, China’s global soft-power offensive

enticed many European states. For Portugal, the timing could hardly seem better, as the

PRC had the resources and the will to provide much needed investment to the Portuguese

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to the research,

authorship, or publication of this study.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

economy and even, perhaps, lend some prestige to Portuguese diplomacy. In 2018, Xi

Jinping visited Portugal to much fanfare and resulting in the signature of seventeen

agreements, among them a promise of partnership on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)

(Brito and Villalobos, 2018).

However, the ‘golden age’ in relations between Lisbon and Beijing appeared to lose its

shine after 2019. This deterioration in Portugal-China relations after Xi Jinping’s visit

seems to be a response to the first Trump administration’s (2017-2021) shift in U.S

strategy regarding China, which it identified clearly as a ‘systemic rival’. Indeed, the

intensification of Sino-American competition has become one of the central axes of

contemporary international politics, with direct repercussions for Europe and its member

states. Portugal now faces a situation in which it must delicately balance its commercial

engagements with PRC against its long-standing Atlantic ties. Understanding the position

Portugal finds itself in and its options going forward requires understanding the nature

of Portuguese behaviour towards China during that golden age.

While International Relations (IR) are often centred on the distribution of power among

major actors, they frequently overlook an analysis of smaller or less powerful states.

However, examining the positioning of small states – both in size and in power -- such

as Portugal, is of great importance if we hope to understand the dynamics of the

international system (Long, 2022), if for no other reason than that and even “Great

powers’ positions in the world are constituted in large measure by their relationships with

small states...” (Long, 2022, p. 170). Specifically, the ways in which small states behave

will lend or withhold dominant powers the legitimacy, or authority, to act as rule-makers

in the international arena (Lake, 2009, pp. 7-11). Small states may adopt different

strategies in their asymmetric relations with great powers: balancing, bandwagoning,

and hedging. In the first case, small states pursue alliances with other actors to preserve

their autonomy and security without compromising independence. In the second, the

state seeks a close external alliance, accepting the influence and leadership of a dominant

power and subordinating itself to its strategic orientations.

Hedging is more common in uncertain or volatile geopolitical contexts, where the balance

of power remains fluid. In this third scenario, the state opts for an intermediate solution,

avoiding the extremes of balancing and bandwagoning. Relations are maintained flexibly

with multiple actors, and partnerships are diversified. The intelligent management of

strategic options may enable a small state to navigate, rather than merely endure, the

rivalries among great powers. It need not necessarily act as a pawn, but rather as a pivot

in the strategic games of larger powers, capable of choosing among various strategies,

including alignment with a third power, the maintenance of neutrality, or hedging to

ensure its survival as an independent unit while pursuing mutual gains (Efremova, 2019).

The central question of this paper is thus to analyse Portugal’s positioning within the

framework of tensions between China and the U.S.. Given the current competitive

international landscape, has Portugal been following a hedging approach toward the PRC,

or has it engaged in a gradual and intentional political decoupling from Beijing? To tackle

this question, we call upon diplomatic and economic data points such as instances of

defence cooperation, state visits, foreign investment, statements from policymakers, and

strategic documents. These are presented as part of an interpretative narrative of the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

relationship of Portugal with the U.S. since the end of the Cold War, Portugal within the

EU since 2008, and Portugal with China since 2012.

The paper proceeds as follows: first, we define hedging behaviour and identify some of

its main characteristics; second, we provide a cursory history of Luso-American relations

since the end of the Cold War until the Euro area crisis, namely the period during which

Portugal was under bailout conditions (2011-2014); third, we turn to the Portugal-China

relationship between the crisis and COVID-19; finally, we consider the position of

Portugal vis-à-vis the U.S.-China rivalry and whether its behaviour can be classified as

hedging.

The Politics of Ambiguity: Hedging in an Era of Great Power Rivalry

As Max Weber noted, power consists in the “probability that one’s own will can be

imposed… even against any resistance” (Weber in Han, 2017, p. 18). Yet power does not

necessarily require an act of command, and the acceptance – or refusal –of obedience is

itself an act of freedom. In other words, a small actor may possess both the interest and

the willingness to be commanded (Han, 2017). The less powerful may be constrained by

their structural conditions, but they often still have a choice. Tom Long (2017) identifies

three main sources of small-state influence in world politics: (1) particular-intrinsic,

which results from the small state’s own geography, economy, military might, and other

assets, (2) derivative, which stems from its relationship with a great power, and (3)

collective, which is harnessed when small states band together to achieve greater

influence.

IR theory has concerned itself mainly with the second type, derivative power.

Traditionally, it found that small states can shape their alliance behaviour towards great

powers in two main ways. These two different kinds of alignment behaviour that states

adopt when faced with shifts in the balance of power: Balancing and bandwagoning.

States can either side with the stronger power or coalition (bandwagoning) or with the

rising, but as yet weaker, power (balancing). While the choice is often dictated by the

desire to avoid or counter a threat, even unthreatened states can balance or bandwagon

as they seek new opportunities in the international realm (Schweller, 1997). This model

of alignment behaviour seemed well suited to the Cold War system, when the central

strategic question for small and medium powers was often seen as a choice of whether

to align with either the U.S. or the Soviet Union (Ciorciari & Haacke, 2019, p. 367).

However, these two types of alignment have proved less useful to explain the post-Cold

War world. Consequently, in the 1990s and especially the early 2000s IR scholars

developed the concept of hedging to define a new and increasingly common type of

behaviour (Kuik, 2016, pp. 500-501). As Asian states adapted to the rising power of the

PRC, many noted how they opted to ‘hedge their bets’ by engaging with China in various

policy areas while attempting to keep their relationship with the U.S. intact (Chung,

2004; Goh, 2005; Medeiros, 2005). By the mid-2010s, it could be argued that hedging

was “the central tendency in Asian international relations” (Jackson, 2014, p. 331).

Rather than a straightforward choice between bandwagoning with the U.S. and its allies

against a rising China versus joining China to balance against American predominance,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

many small and medium powers adopted a more complex alignment strategy, especially

in Southeast Asia (Chung, 2004; Goh, 2005; Kuik, 2008; 2016; 2021; 2024; Lim &

Cooper, 2015; Murphy, 2017; Ciorciari, 2019; Liao & Dang, 2020). As American

retrenchment became more evident and PRC’s economic influence extended farther

afield, the dynamics of hedging were also identified in the Middle East (Salman, Pieper &

Geeraerts, 2015; Telci & Rakipoğlu, 2021; Bakir & Al-Shamari, 2025). More recently,

some authors have posited the existence of hedging behaviour in Europe (Wivel, 2008;

Song, 2022; Zaborowski, 2024; Tunsjø, 2025).

Some of the themes common to these studies are a shifting balance of power,

multipolarity, the increasing uncertainty in strategic affairs, and the fear of abandonment

by the traditional great-power ally, the U.S.. They also share the assumption that states

behave as rational actors. Nevertheless, there is considerable theoretical plurality in the

IR literature about hedging. The wider debate around ‘alignment strategies’ is important

for neo-realists in the mould of Waltz (1979), for whom the distribution of military power

in the international system is the main factor influencing state behaviour. However, the

alignment lens is not exclusive to the structural variant of realism. Balancing,

bandwagoning, and hedging are also useful categories for scholars employing a

relational, rather than structural, view of power relations; one in which states are seen

as engaging with each other across multiple networks, not all of them related to military

capability (Hafner-Burton, Kahler & Montgomery, 2009).

This multi-dimensional perspective offers the possibility that states may align with a

stronger power on security issues but diversify away from it on other topics, such as

economic and cultural ones (Jackson, 2014; Kuik, 2016). The usefulness of considering

non-security issues is reinforced by the fact that, as mentioned above, states align with

others in pursuit of goods other than security. Just as balancing and bandwagoning

behaviours can occur even when there is no immediate or foreseeable threat to a state

(Schweller, 1997), so too can states hedge to pursue opportunities to increase their

power and pursue non-security goods (Wivel 2018). Indeed, hedging may be less

common on security-related issues, since that could lead to the incumbent great power

pressuring the hedging state to declare its allegiance and abstain from dealing with a

rising great power.

Such an outcome would defeat the purpose of hedging, which is essentially about

avoiding a stark choice. The verb ‘to hedge’ has its origins in the idea of building a fence,

or a palisadeto shield oneself from possible losses or risk (Online Etymology Dictionary,

2025). It is most commonly used to name a financial strategy in which “one makes an

investment to offset a potential loss in a companion investment” (Morewedge, Tang &

Larrick, 2016, p. 983). The idea is to diversify an investment portfolio in such a way as

to protect “an individual’s finances from being exposed to a risky situation that may lead

to loss of value”, since “the losses will be mitigated by gains in another investment” (CFI,

2025). Kuik (2008; 2016) notes that in international relations, hedging involves not only

the ‘risk-contingency’ aspect familiar from financial strategy, but also a ‘returns-

maximising’ dimension. The crucial point of hedging is that states try to do both at the

same time (Kuik, 2016, p. 505).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

In line with this view, we define hedging as a type of behaviour in which a small or

medium power diversifies its diplomatic relationships by deepening political, economic,

or security ties with a great power other than that with which it is already aligned, while

attempting to preserve that traditional great-power relationship. Hedging need not be a

well thought out strategy, but even when it is, there will still be a desire to avoid

opposition from the traditional ally. This both explains why states rarely declare they are

hedging (Kuik, 2021, pp. 301-302), and distinguishes it from other alignment behaviours

(balancing or bandwagoning), allowing the state to obtain something from a third power

that it would be unlikely to get from its traditional ally without having to make a

dangerous all-in bet on the future distribution of power. In this way, hedging allows a

state to deal with systemic uncertainty. There are thus at least three interesting questions

when considering a possible case of hedging: First, is a given state exhibiting hedging

behaviour? Second, if so, is there strategic intent behind the hedging behaviour, and if

so, what is that intent; i.e., what is the strategic effect desired? Third, what is driving

the hedging behaviour?

First, assessing whether a behaviour constitutes hedging is a demanding analytical

exercise. Since states rarely if ever admit to hedging, scholars will have trouble finding

confirmatory evidence in the form of strategic documents, speeches, or interviews by

policymakers. This is why we prefer to look at hedging as a behaviour rather than a

strategy, which would presuppose a conscious plan, rather than being the result of ad

hoc actions. For example, a European state may seek Chinese investment simply because

it needs that investment for domestic political reasons, without anticipating that the U.S.

might perceive those deepening economic ties as a problematic action. Such a

misunderstanding is more likely to happen when governments function without

bureaucratic structures that effectively give strategic direction to their actions, allowing,

for example, the Minister for Economic Affairs to act autonomously without due

consideration to the foreign-policy issues that lie outside its are the remit. In such cases,

hedging behaviour results not from a ‘grand-strategic’ decision, but from disparate

sectoral policies.

When there is a strategic design, hedging may be intended to keep open the possibility

of switching allegiance if the balance of power ever shifts decisively. We could call this

an “insurance” strategy (Kuik, 2016; 2021), designed to kick in only after the traditional

great-power ally falters (Ciorciari & Haacke, 2019, p. 368). Alternatively, hedging may

be thought of a means of signalling dissatisfaction to the traditional great power ally (Lim

& Cooper, 2015, pp. 697-698). Using the network lens mentioned above, state A would

be leveraging its ties with state B in order to show state C that has more value than C

presently accords it. It is also conceivable that decision-makers think of hedging in both

ways: simultaneously as an insurance policy against the risk of ‘abandonment’ (Snyder,

1984) by a great power, and as a way of signalling their value as an ally and therefore

reduce the likelihood of being abandoned.

Regardless of the strategic intent behind hedging behaviour, the relationship between

small /medium powers and great powers remains central to the concept, which leads us

to the question of the systemic drivers of hedging. It is especially when a revisionist great

power is making its impact felt on the international system that states of more limited

means are incentivised to engage in hedging (Murphy, 2017). Thus, Kuik (2021) regards

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

the behaviour of great powers as the origin of hedging, as “it is the uncertainties

stemming from their actions that push the weak to hedge” (Kuik, 2021, p. 300).

However, great-power behaviour may also push in the opposite direction: Today, the

room for manoeuvre that allows states to pursue a hedging strategy appears to be

shrinking, as many small and medium states face greater pressure from great powers to

declare their alignments and stick to them (Korolev, 2017).

Indeed, the general absence of hedging during the Cold War can be ascribed to the

‘tightness’ of the distribution of power in the bipolar world (Wagner, 1993). The unipolar

order of the post-Cold War world may have created incentives for hedging, as the lack of

great-power rivals to the U.S. made the hegemon less anxious to control the relationships

of weaker states, resulting in a ‘loose’ distribution of power. Today, an increasing

multipolarity can be thought of as expanding the menu for states looking to diversify

their relationships; alternatively, however, the same dynamics can make the U.S. more

intent on preventing its traditional allies from allowing rivals, particularly China, to gain

influence in their economies or infrastructure networks.

Even if the international system is slipping from unipolarity to multipolarity, that need

not equate to a ‘looser’ distribution of power. As power becomes more evenly distributed,

the former hegemon faces incentives to pressure weaker states to align more closely

with it, not just in security-related matters, but also in other areas of policy in which its

rivals may begin to chip away at its influence. Hence the current trend of “geoeconomics”,

a post-Cold War concept created to account for the use of economic tools in the service

of strategic objectives (Luttwak, 1990; Blackwill & Harris, 2016). The U.S.-China rivalry

has been increasingly seen as a geoeconomic struggle playing out in the domains of

foreign investment (Beeson, 2018), infrastructural control (Munn, 2020), and

technological innovation and diffusion (Zhang, 2024).

On the receiving end of these great-power outreaches are the small and medium states

who accept investment in their economies, let third parties build or own critical

infrastructure in their territories, and participate in the development and diffusion of

leading-sector technologies. Again, these decisions are not necessarily made on the basis

of a grand-strategic vision of how the state should position itself in the international

system. Domestic drivers can be just as important; after all, as Kuik (2021) puts it,

“Creating jobs, delivering economic growth, ensuring stability, managing internal

conflicts, and/or winning elections are (…) vital pathways to preserving the ruling elites’

legitimacy and enhancing their authority” (p. 310). Ceteris paribus, these domestic goals

become more difficult to achieve under certain systemic conditions, namely when the

international system is characterised by a high degree of uncertainty, which amplifies the

risks that states must reckon with when devising policy.

Luso-American relations from the end of the Cold War to the financial

crisis

Derivative power (Long, 2017) – originating from a small state’s relationship with a great

power – has been essential for Portugal’s survival over nine centuries. The country’s

limited means and exposure to Atlantic politics via a long coastline and two oceanic

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

archipelagos has historically made it particularly keen to adapt to the policy of whichever

great power dominates Atlantic sea lanes, often perceiving that alliance as a

counterweight to excessive dependence on continental powers, especially Spain

(Teixeira, 2010). For a long time, that meant siding with Great Britain, with whom

Portugal could draw on an alliance said to date back to the 14th century. After World War

II, the focus shifted to the U.S., and the careful management of the Luso-American

relationship became a central concern of policymakers in Lisbon. During the Cold War

they were generally successful in that task: It is perhaps impossible to explain how

Portugal managed to hold on to vast colonial possessions in Africa until 1975 without

accounting for the political, financial, and at times military support extended by the U.S.,

mainly in return for access to Lajes Air Base, in Terceira Island (Gomes, 2025).

The end of the Cold War and the beginning of America’s unipolar moment (Krauthammer,

1990/1991) in 1989-1991 brought widespread uncertainty about the role that the U.S.

would play in the world. Portuguese decision-makers had reason to worry, as Lajes Base,

in the Azores, had been instrumental to American force projection and maritime

surveillance for decades (Mendes, 2018). In return for basing access, Portugal received

American economic and military assistance in non-trivial amounts (Cooley & Spruyt,

2009). Lajes was seen as the “cornerstone” of Luso-American bilateral ties (Lima, 2016,

p. 85), which were believed by many in Lisbon to amount to a “special relationship”

(Vasconcelos, 1990, p. 51). As Robinson (2016) put it, “Any potential removal of Lajes

from this relationship” would be “an existential crisis for Portugal’s role in NATO” (p.

137), a key pillar of its foreign policy.

As the Cold War ended and Soviet submarines disappeared from North Atlantic waters,

the Azores immediately lost much of its relevance to American and NATO maritime

surveillance (Cooley & Spruyt, 2009, p. 133). If a hegemonic U.S. could also dispense

with Lajes as an enabler of force projection, then there would be little to differentiate

Portugal from other European allies and – particularly worrying for Lisbon – from Spain,

its larger neighbour which was now also in the EU and NATO and hosted U.S. forces at

important military bases (Gillespie & Youngs, 2000). The situation was similar in many

ways to the danger of irrelevance that threatened Portugal in 1907, after Great Britain

and Spain signed the Pact of Cartagena (Teixeira, 2017, pp. 441-442, 469).

This time, however, decisionmakers in Lisbon had more options. In a unipolar world,

hedging was not a real possibility, since there were no great powers other than the U.S.

with which Lisbon could engage. But deepening European integration meant that the

European Union (EU), as it became in 1993, could perhaps provide Portugal with security,

prosperity, and diplomatic agency. Two main schools of thought came to dominate

foreign-policy debates in Lisbon: Atlanticists and Europeanists (Teixeira, 2017, p. 570).

Others saw the Lusophone world as a third strategic vector: By acting as a bridge

between these three regions, they believed, Portugal could not only maintain these three

strategic orientations simultaneously but even increase its profile in all three (Robinson,

2016, pp. 144-145). Regional crises often motivated American military intervention,

offering Lisbon opportunities to assert its status as a trusted ally by extending diplomatic

and, via Lajes Base, logistical support. Such was the case of the 1990-1991 Gulf War,

during which Lajes provided a platform for American tankers (Cruz, 2019, p. 217) and

cargo aircraft (Matthews & Holt, 1992, pp. 125-126).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

At the same time, the ‘Europeanisation’ of Portugal continued apace. Since joining the

European Economic Community in 1982, integration had gradually pulled the focus of

Portuguese foreign policy to the Old Continent, creating the potential for friction between

Lisbon and Washington whenever there were serious transatlantic disagreements.

Besides being a member of the EU, Portugal also supported initiatives to deepen

integration, including in the realms of security and defence through frameworks such as

the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Western European Union (WEU)

(Vasconcelos, 1990, 53; Teixeira, 2017, pp. 570-71) and later the Common Security and

Defence Policy (CSDP) However, Portugal resisted “supranationalisin” its security and

defence policy, insisting on an intergovernmental approach to these matters within the

EU and continuing to bet on NATO’s as the main framework for defence issues (Robinson,

2016, p. 143).

The financial quid pro quo model of American basing access to the Azores, which in the

1980s had delivered some $40 million yearly to Portugal (Cooley & Spruyt, 2009, p. 133),

was finally abandoned in 1995. The U.S. Congress was keen to phase out its ‘rent-for-

access’ deals as it thought these allowed countries such as Greece, Turkey, and Portugal,

to squeeze American coffers by periodically threatening with the expulsion of U.S. forces

(Clarke & O’Connor, 1993, p. 441). A new framework, the Defence and Cooperation

Agreement, was signed by the U.S. and Portugal in 1995. It completely replaced financial

compensations with a process of regular consultations through meetings of a Permanent

Bilateral Commission, in which representatives from the U.S., Portugal, and the

autonomous government of the Azores would seek ways to deepen cooperation in the

realms of the military, defence industry, commerce, and scientific research (Diário da

República, 1995, arts. III, VI, VII).

Henceforth, Portuguese decision-makers had to be particularly attentive to American

handling on regional conflagrations, but by the end of the 1990s they appear to have

made a series of mistakes. They seemed to undervalue the lessons from NATO’s first out-

of-area operation, the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993,

and misread later American interventions, first in the Middle East in 1998 and again in

the Balkans in 1999, as confirmation of the usefulness of Lajes Base, when in fact they

could be seen as showing the exact opposite (Monjardino, 2001). In hindsight, the belief

in the usefulness of Lajes and the strength of the supposed ‘special relationship’ with the

U.S. may be interpreted as a manifestation of the Portuguese policy elite’s fear of

‘abandonment’ (Snyder, 1984) by its great-power ally. By refusing to face facts and

retaining a belief in the ability of its diplomats to persuade American decisionmakers,

Portugal worked itself into a vulnerable position.

Given all of this, it is not surprising that Portugal should be emphatic in its support after

the U.S. suffered the traumatic attacks of 11 September 2001. In the ensuing invasion

of Afghanistan, Portugal not only allowed Lajes Base to be used by the U.S. Air Force for

transport and tanker operations but also contributed to the war effort with military

equipment and civilian personnel, and special ops units (Tirpak, 2003, p. 27; Lima,

2013a, pp. 67-68). The 2003 invasion of Iraq proved a more contentious issue in

transatlantic relations and within Portuguese society and political elite, but Portugal still

adopted a proactive stance in support of U.S. plans to topple Saddam Hussein without a

UN mandate. In March 2003, Portuguese Prime Minister José Manuel Durão Barroso

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

managed to position the country as a relevant ally by hosting a summit in Lajes Base

that brought together the heads of government of the U.S. and its leading backers in

Western Europe: the UK, Spain, and Portugal (Guardian, 2003). Portugal did not send

troops to Iraq, but members of its military police (GNR) helped to train the new Iraqi

police force.

The assessment of Portugal’s role would prove contentious given the unpopularity of the

Iraq War (Lança, 2017). However, its support of the U.S. may have averted the risk of

Spain staking out a position as the preferred Iberian ally of the U.S., a scenario akin to

that of the 1907 Pact of Cartagena (see above) and one which Portuguese diplomacy had

always feared (Sá, 2016, p. 561). The rift caused by the Iraq War and the global war on

terror continued to cause irritation between the U.S. and its European allies until the

2008 election of Barack Obama to the White House helped to generate goodwill towards

the U.S. in Europe. The incoming president’s promise of a more multilateral approach to

foreign policy came as a relief to European capitals, and his approval ratings remained

high in the Old Continent for years to come, even if U.S.-European divergence continued

on many crucial issues (Nielsen, 2013).

The high hopes for transatlantic relations during Obama’s tenure were somewhat dented

by his administration’s announcement of the ‘pivot to Asia’ – the idea that the rise of

China and other Asian economies meant that the U.S. would from then on transfer its

foreign-policy energies from the Atlantic to the Pacific (Clinton, 2011). In January 2012,

the ‘Asian pivot’ was translated into defence policy in the Defence Strategic Guidance,

which stated the aim of “reducing defence spending by about $487 billion over 10 years”,

with the savings to be achieved partly through “a shift in geographical priorities toward

the Asia and the Pacific region (...) while retaining emphasis on the Middle East” (Dale

and Towell, 2013, pp. 1-2).

Despite that and other signals that the ‘Asian pivot’ was not a theoretical exercise, but

rather an actual strategic shift, Portuguese decision-makers still showed themselves

shocked and surprised by the American decision in November 2012 to downsize the U.S.

forces based at Lajes (JN, 2012a). With an expected reduction of military personnel from

around 760 to just 169 by 2014 (GEE, 2016, p. 17), the downsizing was perceived as

shaking the very foundations of the Luso-American relationship. The fear of

‘abandonment’ had finally come to pass in a concrete, unignorable manner. Lisbon’s

diplomatic strategy was to attempt to revert the decision or at least obtain from the U.S.

the installation of some alternative military infrastructure on the island. It achieved

neither, managing only to delay the drawdown by a year (Gomes, 2025, pp. 311-313).

It finally went ahead in 2015, to the general alarm of Portuguese and Azorean authorities

over the impact on the economy of Terceira Island, where U.S. forces at Lajes Base

employed more than 700 locals and generated significant economy activity (GEE, 2016,

p. 36).

The blow to Luso-American relations and to Portugal’s prestige could not have come at a

worse moment, as the country had been embroiled in a financial and economic crisis for

some years. The crisis had first broken out among U.S. financial institutions in 2007 and

had gone global by the following year. In the Euro area it took the form of a sovereign

debt crisis lasting from 2009 to as late as 2018 (in Greece). In Portugal, the worst of the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

crisis was felt between 2011 and 2014, when the country implemented austerity

measures, government budget cuts, and public sector reforms to meet the conditions for

a €78 billion bailout. The painful fiscal adjustment programme, enforced partly by

European institutions, was deeply resented by the majority of the Portuguese public

(Moury and Freire, 2013).

With other European partners also beset by financial and economic difficulties – especially

Spain, Portugal’s main trade partner (INE, 2014) – it is natural that Lisbon should turn

to the U.S. for economic opportunities. By 2013, Portugal had a €1156 million trade

surplus with the U.S. (Leão and Nogueira, 2014, p. 5) and most of its exporting sectors

were well placed to benefit from increased access to the U.S. market if the proposed

U.S.-European trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

(TTIP), went ahead (Leão and Nogueira, 2014). Since trade negotiations are long and

complex processes, those benefits might not come in time to help Portugal out of its

crisis, but in any case, the TTIP foundered when Donald Trump became president in 2017

and quickly initiated a trade dispute with the EU (Bilal and Imran, 2019, pp. 3-4, 16-17).

With no help coming from either Europe or the U.S., Portugal decided to look farther

away for investment and economic growth.

China and Portugal after the 2008 Economic Crisis

The 2008 global financial crisis placed Portugal in a state of economic fragility that

persisted in the following years. It was marked by high indebtedness, prolonged

recession, and growing dependence on external assistance. As the EU proved unable to

find effective solutions to the financial predicament – particularly in the peripheral regions

of Southern Europe – countries such as China emerged as alternative sources for

economic revitalization. Since the mid-1990s, the EU had been setting the rules for the

West’s relationship with China, in an example of the ‘Europeanization’ of Member States’

foreign policies (Michalski, 2013). After Tiananmen, these were the years of “constructive

engagement”, a concept used by the European Commission in 1995 (Möller, 2002).

Bilateral relations followed this pattern, with ties dominated by the economic agenda

rather than political issues.

In this, Brussels revealed structural weaknesses. In its relationship with China, the EU’s

position was dominated by the major European powers, particularly Germany. Germany

assumed the role of the “engine of Europe,” driving massive exports of machinery and

automobiles to China while purchasing cheap oil from Russia. Berlin became the indirect

decision-making centre of the European economy, leaving Portugal and other Southern

European countries in a vulnerable position, with diminished competitiveness (Münchau,

2024). Later, in the context of the sovereign debt crisis, Europe became a preferred

destination for Chinese investment in the West, with Portugal standing out as a major

recipient of capital inflows (Le Corre & Sepulchre, 2016).

The “wave of Chinese investment” across Europe gained momentum and reached

Portugal mainly through the acquisition of equity in state-owned or private companies,

primarily in the banking, insurance, and energy sectors (Ferreira-Pereira and Duarte

2021). Between 2011 and 2014, quantitative data indicate that Portugal ranked among

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

the top five European countries in terms of Chinese investment relative to the size of the

economy (Araújo, 2024). Despite some analysts’ surprise, Portugal also signed a

strategic partnership with China, with its ties to the wider Lusophone world –

encompassing over 220 million Portuguese speakers – regarded as geopolitically

significant for Beijing (Le Corre, 2018).

Diplomatic ties between Portugal and China had always operated within a framework of

good relations and this was strengthened by the successful transfer of Macau’s

administration to China in 1999. High-level meetings continued, even though economic

exchanges between the two sides remained relatively modest, in contrast with other

European countries such as Germany. The investment bubble changed these

circumstances. In 2011, it was announced that China Three Gorges (CTG) had acquired

a 21.35% stake in Energias de Portugal (EDP) for around €2.7 billion; the following year,

State Grid (SG), part of the same group, purchased a 25% stake in Redes Energéticas

Nacionais (REN) for approximately €387 million (EDP, 2011; Campos and Vicente, 2016).

The investment from CTG, a Chinese state-owned energy company established in 1993

during the construction of the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River, marked the

beginning of Portugal’s ‘golden era’ of Chinese investment (Silva, 2020).

Xi Jinping’s visit to Portugal on 4–5 December 2018 served to consolidate bilateral

cooperation. Portugal and China signed 17 bilateral agreements, with a focus on business

and financial cooperation, at the Palace of Queluz. The Prime Minister, António Costa,

sought to attract Chinese investments for partnerships with Portuguese companies,

particularly in the industrial sector, rather than for asset acquisitions. Portugal was also

indebted to China for its support of António Guterres’ candidacy for UN Secretary-General

in 2016. The Portuguese Prime Minister considered this support “decisive,” personally

expressing gratitude to the Chinese head of state during his official visit: “I take this

opportunity to thank the People’s Republic of China for its clear and firm support for

António Guterres’ candidacy for the position of Secretary-General of the United Nations”

(Portuguese Government, 2016).

The 2018 visit also resulted in a memorandum of understanding on the BRI, particularly

the “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” component, in which Portugal showed interest in

participating. In the business sector, agreements were signed between Banco Comercial

Português (BCP) and UnionPay. Another agreement signed was between Huawei and the

Altice Portugal, the largest telecommunications provider in the country, for the roll out

of 5G cellular networks. Huawei, founded in the late 1980s by Ren Zhengfei, a former

officer of the People’s Liberation Army, had become one of the world’s most influential

technology companies. Competing with major global players such as Cisco and Ericsson,

Huwaei’s ascent has significantly intensified competition in the sector (Li, 2017). In

higher education, plans were made to open a new Confucius Institute at the University

of Porto and to establish a Chinese Studies Centre at the University of Coimbra. In late

April 2019, President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa reciprocated Xi’s visit with a two-day trip

to Macau, where he met the Chief Executive, Chui Sai On. His visit also included

participation in the second Belt and Road Forum, a clear signal of Portugal’s engagement

in the Chinese mega-project (Silva, 2020).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

Another area of mutual interest was the Atlantic, where Portugal’s main source of

geopolitical leverage lies. The ‘Portuguese sea’ holds enormous potential – energetic,

commercial, logistical, financial, and, above all, political (Lima, 2016). Naturally, Portugal

sought to attract investment into its maritime-port sector. For this purpose, the Minister

for the Sea, Ana Paula Vitorino, undertook a trip to China in June 2018. In May the

following year, Minister Vitorino accompanied a delegation that included the Minister of

Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China, Lu Hao, to the Port of Sines. This

visit, which took place within the framework of the Oceans Meeting 2019, aimed to

showcase the operations and potential of this port infrastructure, the new investment

opportunities at the port of Sines, and the potential role of Portugal and Sines in the BRI

(Silva, 2020). Promoting the port of Sines to Chinese investors, the minister emphasized

that “[it is] impossible for China to reach Europe without passing through the

westernmost country of Europe,” highlighting the need to extend the Maritime Silk Road

to this final piece of the puzzle (Silva and Pereira, 2020). The aim was to enhance the

future second container terminal, named Vasco da Gama, at the deep-water port of

Sines, as well as to expand the existing Terminal XXI – developments that would allow

the Portuguese port to accommodate even larger container ships. Portugal’s strategy was

to establish Sines as a leading port at the strategic crossroads between the Mediterranean

Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.

Chinese interest in the Azores was also evident, though not openly acknowledged due to

China’s competitive stance with the U.S. (Rodrigues and Silva, 2020). Since 2012, there

were clear signs – although cloaked in traditional Chinese diplomatic symbolism – that

indicated China’s interest in the Azores, even if political actors cautiously denied this.

That year, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao made a five-hour stop in Terceira Island, where

Lajes Base is located. The discussions paved the way for the potential creation of a

Portuguese-Chinese research center focused on marine sciences, involving the University

of the Azores. In 2014, Xi Jinping also stopped in Terceira, where he met the President

of the Regional Government of the Azores (Lusa, 2014). In 2016, Premier Li Keqiang

made a two-day visit, which reportedly led to “worries” among Washington policymakers

(Ames, 2016).

In 2017, a delegation from the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology and the

Chinese Academy of Sciences visited the Azores to assess the islands’ potential for the

development of joint projects (Macao Forum, 2017). Among the scientific, business, and

political sectors, a dynamic network of contacts and interactions emerged, although the

results fell short of expectations initially raised. Specifically, the International Atlantic

Research Center (AIR Centre) was established, involving the regional government, the

University of the Azores, and the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). The AIR

Centre brought together several international partners from the Atlantic basin, but left

out China, which did not invest in the project (Silva, 2020).

The post-financial crisis period of deepening bilateral ties between China and Portugal

had its high-water mark in 2019. Regarding the state of bilateral relations in that year,

Ambassador José Augusto Duarte stated:

In a single word: Excellent. To elaborate, despite Portugal and China having

a long-standing relationship of dialogue and mutual understanding, initiated

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

in 1513 and without a single military conflict, it has been in the past 40 years

that contacts between the two countries have intensified substantially, with

all Presidents of both countries exchanging bilateral visits since 1980, the

successful negotiations for the return of Macau, and more recently, the

growth of economic relations—both in trade and investment (Duarte, 2019).

However, 2020 would bring new challenges for Europe-China relations due to a global

pandemic that disrupted the flow of globalization. COVID-19 not only interrupted routine

foreign-policy initiatives, but also introduced contentious issues in interstate relations,

including vaccine development and provision, disparate travel restrictions and lockdown

policies, and even giving rise to a ‘blame game’ over the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus

(Cabestan, 2022; Loh and Loke, 2024). Nevertheless, trade with China still provided

Portugal with an expanding outlet for exports in 2021 (p. 88).

Dancing with the Powers: Lisbon between Brussels, Washington, and

Beijing since 2019

If we take Portuguese foreign policy to be predominantly “Euroatlantic” since 1976, when

it became a liberal democracy, then there could not but be a sense of existential crisis in

2012-2015. This period saw the coincidence of America’s Asian pivot – made very real

for Portugal with the downsizing of the forces at Lajes Field – and the rigorous treatment

at the hands of European institutions during the Eurozone crisis. The acronym TINA –

standing for “There is no alternative” was used for austerity policies in several EU

countries, Portugal included, but it seemed to also apply to foreign policy. But perhaps

there was an alternative, and investment and prestige could be found elsewhere. Given

that, as we have seen, the alternative came in the shape of China, a rival great power to

the U.S., making Portugal’s receptiveness to Chinese advances a case of hedging.

Thus, it was within the constraints of a small state whose traditional diplomatic

alignments are faltering that Portugal sought to diversify its diplomatic economic

partnerships, albeit without any desire to burn bridges with its Euro-Atlantic partners. As

a member state of the EU and a founding member of NATO, Portugal has tended to align

closely with the U.S. in strategic, political, and military terms, but both in 2012-2015 and

in the post-pandemic period this alignment has recently proven contextual and moderate.

Uncertain that it could continue to draw on a supposed ‘special relationship’ with the U.S.

as a source of derivative power, Portugal has increasingly valued European “strategic

autonomy”, an idea also supported by Chinese diplomacy. But European policy towards

China has also shifted following COVID-19 pandemic, increasingly framing China as a

systemic rival, a perspective in many ways justified by China’s global ambitions and by

Trump’s own ‘America First’ agenda, which ushered in frequent great-power clashes.

In this context, China – its role in the international system and its relations with different

states – quickly became the focus of public debate, while at the same time its image in

many parts of the world began to deteriorate (Pew Research Center, 2020). This

increasingly negative perception of China resulting from the COVID-19 ‘blame game’ was

also evident in the Portuguese case, though not to the same extent as in U.S.. This may

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

have influenced the Portuguese government to adopt a more cautious approach in its

relations with China (Fernandes et al., 2022). Even before the pandemic, the EU had

been on the same path as a response to the pressure from the Trump administration.

The European Commission’s EU-China Strategic Outlook stated clearly that:

China is, simultaneously, in different policy areas, a partner for cooperation

with whom the EU has aligned objectives, a negotiation partner with whom

the EU needs to find a balance of interests, an economic competitor in the

pursuit of technological leadership, and a systemic rival in promoting

alternative governance models (European Commission, 2020).

In practice, however, Portugal and other states did not adhere completely to the EU’s

new line on China. The rift started to become noticeable in the Euro area crisis. As shown

by Raimundo, Stavridis and Tsardinidis (2021), the perception of a harsh treatment at

the hands of European institutions led to a relative ‘de-Europeanization’ of Portuguese

foreign policy. The authors demonstrate this precisely through Portugal’s approach to

China, which started to diverge from the EU mainstream by deepening ties with China,

albeit not as overtly as Greece and always attempting to separate political and economic

issues (p. 444).

Indeed, Portugal’s hedging behaviour was carefully limited, as it continues to prioritize

its relations with liberal democracies that have pluralistic political systems, hold free

elections, and uphold the rule of law. It does not make its privileged presence in Macau

over the centuries a differentiating factor, instead following the same diplomatic line as

the EU. It remains committed to defending the liberal international order and the

institutions that support it, and does not support revoking the current international order,

promoting illiberal values, or advocating for global “dedollarization”. Despite this,

Portugal maintains important economic relations with China, even though China has a

one-party authoritarian regime, with strong police control and very limited individual

freedoms. Beijing has reintroduced the ‘strongman’ leadership model in the figure of Xi

Jinping, to the detriment of political institutionalization (Tsang, 2024). Lisbon has stepped

back from its initial cooperative stance, now expressing some reservations. One example

is Lisbon's more cautious position regarding certain technologies, such as 5G.

European institutions adopted a cautious approach to China, balancing engagement with

security and emphasizing coordinated transatlantic strategies. Technological competition

became one of the main focal points, as the U.S. and China compete over next-generation

wireless networks and the development of leading-edge Artificial Intelligence. China has

invested heavily to achieve strategic leadership and develop a self-sufficient domestic

tech industry, while collaborating with foreign partners for expertise and market access.

These technologies raise concerns about data security, espionage, and manipulation,

especially since Chinese private companies are legally aligned with state interests,

including intelligence and military objectives, at a time when societies seek to limit digital

disinformation.

In Portugal as in many other European countries, Huawei became the focus of the tussle

between the U.S. and China over communications infrastructure (Tang, 2022). Portugal’s

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

leading telecoms operator signed a memorandum of understanding for the development

of 5G networks in the country (Huawei, 2018). In a visit to Portugal in December 2019,

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned the country against the “security risk” of

allowing Chinese Huawei into its telecommunications system, to which Chinese diplomacy

responded by accusing the U.S. of “Cold War mentality” (DN, 2019). The U.S. stepped

up the pressure over the following year, with several U.S. officials, including the

Ambassador, prodding Portugal to reject Huawei involvement in any part of its

communications network (Lusa and Público, 2020). Eventually, Lisbon bucked to

American pressure and aligned with European policy on the issue through a 2023

deliberation of the High Council for Cyberspace Security

declaring 5G technology to be

a “high risk” matter from which countries not belonging to the EU, NATO, or the OECD

should be excluded as partners (PCM, 2023).

Thus, Portuguese hedging was curbed as the government clearly began to shift its

previous relationship with China, aligning more closely with the Euro-Atlantic axis.

Reports began to be published, and information disseminated about the dangers of

Chinese technology, fuelling public concern. The 2018 Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI,

2019) ranked Portugal 42nd globally and 25th in Europe, a relatively modest position. By

comparison, Spain ranks 7th globally and 5th in Europe; the U.S. is 2nd worldwide,

following the United Kingdom, while China ranks 25th globally. The 2020 Annual Internal

Security Report (RASI), submitted to the Portuguese Parliament in March 2021,

mentioned an increase in state-sponsored cyber-espionage originating from China and

Russia (Portuguese Government, 2020).

Conclusion

Framed by the chronology of Portugal’s relationship with the U.S. and of Portugal’s

difficult relationship with the EU during the Euro area crisis, the ‘intensification’ of

Portuguese-Chinese dialogue certainly appears to be prompted by the simultaneous

failure of the two pillars of Portugal’s Euroatlanticist foreign policy; in other words, a case

of hedging. Thus, Portugal’s position in the contemporary world is divided between its

long-standing diplomatic commitments and the new opportunities for cooperation with

rising powers. In a context marked by competition between China and the U.S., smaller

and less powerful actors such as Portugal are compelled to carefully manage their

external relationships. The country’s alignment with the liberal democratic sphere, and

particularly with Washington, forms the foundation of its foreign relations. Due to the

physical, political, and cultural distance – despite centuries of interaction – Portugal’s

relationship with Beijing is less evident and close. It does not appear that it has ever

been China’s intention to converge with Western political values and models, and for that

reason, the relationship will always remain of secondary importance.

The Euro area crisis, which coincided with a difficult period in Luso-American relations,

created the conditions for the country to pursue a somewhat different path. Its closer

relationship with China, however, was one of occasional and transactional opportunities

rather than a structural partnership. The two nations belong to distinct political spheres

Conselho Superior de Segurança do Ciberespaço.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

that are now on a collision course, even though Lisbon’s openness to the Global South

remains intact. This outcome appears to support the idea that hedging is becoming more

difficult to carry out in a world where great-power conflict is more intense. Portugal did

not abandon any of its traditional relationships, and the dominant narrative about its

foreign policy remained that of ‘Euro-Atlanticism’. However, Portugal also welcomed

China’s soft-power advances, receiving investment in areas critical to national security,

such as the electric grid, potentially sowing the seeds of future vulnerability to pressure

from the rising systemic rival of the U.S.. From these circumstances, it appears that the

main driver of that hedging behaviour was the economic and financial crisis. If that were

all – if Portugal was only seeking resources for domestic reasons – the idea that Portugal

was not strategic about its hedging would be strengthened.

However, it should not be forgotten that in 2012-2015 the U.S. had downsized their

military presence in the Azores and showed little openness to the attempts of Portuguese

diplomacy to find alternatives to it. If the feeling of being (at least partly) abandoned by

its traditional great-power ally influenced in Portugal’s decisions regarding the deepening

of ties of China, then an external driver is added to the more obvious domestic

motivation. One indication of this is the way in which the outreach to China was used by

policymakers to improve their negotiating position vis-à-vis the U.S. over the Lajes Base

issue. After the announcement of the American drawdown, national newspaper Público

retroactively interpreted Wen Jiabao’s visit a few months earlier as a useful

demonstration of Chinese interest in using the base themselves (Lourenço, 2012). After

diplomatic efforts failed and the downsizing went ahead in 2015, the President of the

Azorean Regional Government, Vasco Cordeiro, gave an interview to national broadcaster

RTP where he was asked whether if the country might “think about delivering Lajes to

China as a way to put pressure on the Americans”. He rejected any military use by

Chinese forces but pointedly did not do so for civilian uses (RTP, 2015), suggesting that

China had indeed become a trump card in negotiations with the U.S..

In this account, hedging appears as a conscious, and therefore strategic, choice. Whether

that strategy was one of ‘signalling’ to the U.S. that Portugal had value as an ally, or one

of seeking an ‘insurance policy’ against complete abandonment for the U.S. – or indeed

both – is a question worthy of future scholarly attention. Answering it matters not only

for the burgeoning academic literature on hedging and its use by European small states,

but also because, after COVID-19 and now faced with a more unilateral U.S. foreign

policy, Portugal may be tempted to resume its hedging behaviour towards China. If Prime

Minister’s Luís Montenegro’s trip to China in September 2025 is any indication, this

question will continue to demand an answer in the coming years.

References

Ames, P. (2016). China’s Atlantic stopover worries Washington. Politico, September, 29.

https://www.politico.eu/article/chinas-atlantic-stopover-terceira-worries-washington-li-

keqiang-united-states/

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

Araújo, C. L. da F. (2024). Exploring Chinese Investments in Europe: Scope and

Governance Dynamics. Asian Perspective, 48(1), 71-93.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/apr.2024.a919882

Arena, M. do C. P. (2022). Portugal’s challenging relationship with China under tense

US/EU-China relations. The International Spectator, 57(4), 68-85.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2022.2064059

Bakir, A. & Al-Shamari, N. (2025). The art of hedging: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE

manoeuvres amid US–China great power competition. Third World Quarterly, 46(7), 773-

764. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2025.2509574

Beeson, M. (2018). Geoeconomics with Chinese characteristics: the BRI and China’s

evolving grand strategy. Economic and Political Studies, 6(3), 240-256.

https://doi.org/10.1080/20954816.2018.1498988

Bilal, A. S. & Imran, N. (2019). Emerging Contours of Transatlantic Relationship under

Trump Administration. Policy Perspectives, 16(1), 3-21.

https://doi.org/10.13169/polipers.16.1.0003

Blackwill, R. D. & Harris, J. F. (2016). War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft.

Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Brito, A. & Villalobos, L. (2018). Os 17 acordos assinados na visita de Xi Jinping a

Portugal. Público, December 5.

https://www.publico.pt/2018/12/05/economia/noticia/17-acordos-assinados-vista-xi-

jinping-portugal-1853673

Cabestan, J.-P. (2022). The COVID-19 Health Crisis and Its Impact on China’s

International Relations. Journal of Risk and Financial Management¸ 15(3), 123.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15030123

Campos, A. & Vicente, I. (2016). Negócios da China. Alfragide: Oficina do Livro.

CFI (2025). Hedging. Corporate Finance Institute.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/derivatives/hedging/

Chung, C. P. (2004). Southeast Asia-China relations: dialectics of “hedging” and

“counter-hedging”. In D. Singh & K. W. Chin (Eds.). Southeast Asian Affairs 2004.

Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 35-55.

Ciorciari, J. D. (2019). The variable effectiveness of hedging strategies. International

Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 19(3), 523-555. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz007

Ciorciari, J. D. & Haacke, J. (2019). Hedging in international relations: an introduction.

International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 19, 367-374.

https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz017

Clarke, D. L. & O’Connor, D. (1993). U.S. base-rights payments after the cold war. Orbis,

37(3), 441-457.

Clinton, H. (2011). America’s Pacific Century. Foreign Policy, 11 October.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

Cooley, A. & Spruyt, H. (2009). Contracting States: Sovereign Transfers in International

Relations. Princeton, NJ and Woodstock: Princeton University Press.

Cruz, A. dos S. P. da (2019). 100 Anos do Poder Aéreo: A História da Aviação Militar.

Lisbon: Instituto Universitário Militar.

Dale, C. and Towell, P. (2013). Assessing the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance

(DSG). CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service.

Diário da República (1995). Acordo de Cooperação e Defesa entre a República Portuguesa

e os Estados Unidos da América, o Acordo Técnico e o Acordo Laboral.

https://gddc.ministeriopublico.pt/sites/default/files/documentos/instrumentos/rar38-

1995.pdf

DN (2019). Pompeo alerta Portugal contra Huawei. "Mentalidade da Guerra Fria", diz

embaixada da China. Diário de Notícias, 6 December. https://www.dn.pt/arquivo/diario-

de-noticias/pompeo-alerta-portugal-contra-huawei-mentalidade-da-guerra-fria-diz-

embaixada-da-china-11586440.html

Duarte, J. A. (2019). Ambassador of Portugal to the People’s Republic of China, Beijing

(Interview by email), 23 September.

EDP (2011). EDP and China Three Gorges establish strategic partnership. Energias de

Portugal (EDP). Retrieved from https://www.edp.com/en/investors/investor-

information/market-notifications/edp-and-china-three-gorges-establish-strategic-

partnership

Efremova, K. (2019). Small States in Great Power Politics. Understanding the “Buffer

Effect”. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 13(1), 100-121.

https://doi.org/10.51870/CEJISS.A130102

European Commission (2019). EU-China – A strategic Outlook. European Commission

and HR/VP contribution to the European Council.

https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2019-03/communication-eu-china-a-

strategic-outlook.pdf

Fernandes, J. P. T. , et al. (2022). Portugal–China Geoeconomic Partnership: A Shot in

the Dark? European Review of Business Economics, 2(1), 47-70,

https://doi.org/10.26619/ERBE-2022.2.1.3

GEE (2016). Desafios e oportunidades para a Ilha Terceira: Estudo sobre o impacto da

redução de efetivos na Base das Lajes. Temas Económicos, 37. Gabinete de Estratégia e

Estudos (GEE), Ministério das Finanças.

https://www.gee.gov.pt/pt/documentos/estudos-e-seminarios/temas-

economicos/2116-te-37-base-das-lajes-final-versb/file

GCI (2019). Global Cybersecurity Index 2018. International Telecommunication Union.

Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/str/D-STR-GCI.01-2018-PDF-

E.pdf

Gillespie, R. & Youngs, R. (2000). Spain's International Challenges at the Turn of the

Century. Mediterranean Politics, 5(2), 1-13.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

Gomes, T. R. (2024). ‘A infraestrutura da globalização no regresso da desordem mundial’,

Relações Internacionais, 84, 87-106.

Gomes, T. R. (2025). Small Islands in Grand Strategy: The strategic geography of the

Azores (1430-2022). PhD thesis. Iscte – University Institute of Lisbon.

Goh, E. (2005). Meeting the China Challenge: The U.S. in Southeast Asian Regional

Security Strategies. Policy Studies, 16. Washington, DC: East-West Center.

Guardian (2003). Full text: Azores press conference. The Guardian, 17 March.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/17/iraq.politics2

Hafner-Burton, E. M., Kahler, M. & Montgomery, A. H. (2009). Network Analysis for

International Relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559-592.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818309090195

Han, B.-C. (2019). Sobre o Poder. Lisbon: Relógio D´Água.

Huawei (2018). Altice Portugal and Huawei sign 5G partnership. Huawei, December 5.

https://www.huawei.com/en/news/2018/12/altice-portugal-huawei-5g-partnership

INE (2015). Estatísticas do Comércio Internacional – 2014. Instituto Nacional de

Estatística: Destaque: Informação à comunicação social. Retrieved from

https://www.ine.pt/ngt_server/attachfileu.jsp?look_parentBoui=231800698&att_displa

y=n&att_download=y

Jackson, V. (2014). Power, trust, and network complexity: three logics of hedging in

Asian security. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 14, 331-356.

https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcu005

Krauthammer, C. (1990/1991). America and the World 1990/91. Foreign Affairs, 70(1),

23-33.

Kuik, C.-C. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a

rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(2), 159-185.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/256501

Kuik, C.-C. (2016). How do weaker states hedge? Unpacking ASEAN states’ alignment

behavior towards China. Journal of Contemporary China, 25(100), 500-514.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2015.1132714

Kuik, C.-C. (2021). Getting hedging right: a small-state perspective. China International

Strategy Review, 3, 300-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42533-021-00089-5

Kuik, C.-C. (2024). Explaining Hedging: The Case of Malaysian Equidistance.

Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 46(1),

43-76. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/925575

Lake, D. A. (2009) Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

Lança, F. (2017). 2003: Das Lajes saiu o rastilho de uma guerra que nunca terminou.

Jornal de Negócios, 30 May.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

https://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/economia/mundo/detalhe/2003-das-lages-saiu-o-

rastilho-de-uma-guerra-que-nunca-terminou

Le Corre, P. (2018). Chinese Investments in European Countries: Experiences and

Lessons for the 'Belt and Road' Initiative’. In M. Mayer (ed.), Rethinking the Silk Road,

Singapore: Springer, 161–175.

Le Corre, P. & Sepulchre, A. (2016). China’s Offensive in Europe. Washington, D.C.:

Brookings Institution Press.

Leão, J. & Nogueira, G. (2014). O Acordo de Parceria Transatlântica entre a UE e os EUA

Constitui Uma Ameaça ou uma Oportunidade para a Economia Portuguesa? GEE Papers¸

53. Gabinete de Estratégia e Estudos (GEE), Ministério da Economia.

https://www.gee.gov.pt/RePEc/WorkingPapers/GEE_PAPERS_53.pdf

Liao, J. C. and Dang, N.-T. (2020). The nexus of security and economic hedging:

Vietnam’s strategic response to Japan-China infrastructure financing competition. The

Pacific Review, 33(3-4), 669-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2019.1599997

Lim, D. J. & Mukherjee, R. (2019). Hedging in South Asia: balancing economic and

security interests amid Sino-Indian competition. International Relations of the Asia-

Pacific, 19(3), 493-522. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz006

Lim, D. J. & Cooper, Z. (2015). Reassessing hedging: The logic of alignment in East Asia.

Security Studies, 24(4), 696-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1103130

Lima, B. P. de (2013a). A Cimeira das Lajes. Lisbon: Tinta-da-China.

Lima, B. P. de (2013b). Portugal e a Guerra do Iraque. Relações Internacionais, 37, 43-

61.

Lima, B. P. de (2016). Portugal e o Atlântico. Lisbon: Fundação Francisco Manuel dos

Santos.

Loh, D. M. H. & Loke, B. (2024). COVID-19 and the International Politics of Blame

Assessing China's Crisis (Mis)Management Practices. The China Quarterly, 257, 169-185.

https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0305741023000796

Long, T. (2017). Small States, Great Power? Gaining Influence through Intrinsic,

Derivative, and Collective Power. International Studies Review, 19(2), 185-205.

https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viw040

Long, T. (2022). A Small State’s Guide to Influence in World Politics. Oxford and New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lourenço, N. S. (2012). Visita de Wen Jiabao aos Açores em Junho levantou suspeitas

sobre interesse chinês na Base das Lajes. Público, November 26.

https://www.publico.pt/2012/11/26/jornal/visita-de-wen-jiabao-aos-acores-em-junho-

levantou-suspeitas-sobre-interesse-chines-na-base-das-lajes-25651950

Lusa (2014). Presidente chinês na Terceira para visita de 8 horas. Diário de Notícias,

July, 24. https://www.dn.pt/politica/presidente-chines-na-terceira-para-visita-de-8-

horas-4044408.html

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

Lusa and Público (2020). Embaixador dos EUA avisa: Portugal tem de escolher entre EUA

e China. Público, September 26.

https://www.publico.pt/2020/09/26/politica/noticia/embaixador-eua-avisa-portugal-

escolher-eua-china-1932955

Luttwak, E. N. (1990). From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics: Logic of Conflict, Grammar

of Commerce. The National Interest, 20, 17-23.

Macao Forum (2017). Chinese visitors to the Azores discuss co-operation in science.

Forum for Economic and Trade Co-operation between China and Portuguese-speaking

Countries. https://www.forumchinaplp.org.mo/en/economic_trade/view/5724

Matthews, J. K. & Holt, C. J. (1992). So Many, So Much, So Far, So Fast: United States

Transportation Command and Strategic Deployment for Operation Desert Shield/Desert

Storm. Washington, DC: Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the United

States Transportation Command.

Medeiros, E. S. (2005). Strategic hedging and the future of Asia-Pacific stability. The

Washington Quarterly, 29(1), 145-167. https://doi.org/10.1162/016366005774859724

Mendes, A. (2018). Entre o carro de bois e o avião: Uma pequena comunidade no centro

de uma rivalidade global. Angra do Heroísmo: Instituto Histórico da Ilha Terceira.

Michalski, A. (2013). Europeanization of National Foreign Policy: The Case of Denmark’s

and Sweden’s Relations with China. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(5), 884-900.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12034

Møller, K. (2002). Diplomatic Relations and Mutual Strategic Interests: China’s Policy

towards the European Union. In R. L. Edmonds (Ed.), China and Europe since 1978: A

European Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11-32.

Monjardino, M. (2001). A Base Indispensável?: As Lajes e a Pax Americana. Boletim do

Instituto Histórico da Ilha Terceira, 59, 25-65.

Morewedge, C. K., Tang, S. & Larrick, R. P. (2016). Betting Your Favorite to Win: Costly

Reluctance to Hedge Desired Outcomes. Management Science, 64(3), 983-1476.

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2656

Moury, C. & Freire, A. (2013). Austerity policies and politics: The case of Portugal. Pôle

Sud, 39(2), 35-56.

Münchau, W. (2024). Kaput: The End of the German Miracle. London: Swift PressMunn,

L. (2020). Red territory: forging infrastructural power. Territory, Politics, Governance,

11(1), 80-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2020.1805353

Murphy, A. M. (2017). Great power rivalries, domestic politics and Southeast Asian

foreign policy: Exploring the linkages. Asian Security, 13(3), 165-182.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2017.1354566

Nielsen, K. L. (2013) Continued drift, but without the acrimony: US-European relations

under Barack Obama. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 11(1), 83-108.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14794012.2012.754202

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

Online Etymology Dictionary (2025). hedge (v.). Online Etymology Dictionary.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/hedge

Pew Research Center (2020). Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many

Countries - Majorities say China has handled COVID-19 outbreak poorly. Pew Research.

Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-

china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/

PCM (2023). Deliberação n.º 1/2023. Presidência do Conselho de Ministros: Conselho

Superior de Segurança do Ciberespaço, Comissão de Avaliação e Segurança, May 25.

Retrieved from https://www.gns.gov.pt/docs/cas-deliberacao-1-2023.pdf

Portuguese Government (2021). Relatório Anual de Segurança Interna 2020. República

Portuguesa. https://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/gc22/comunicacao/documento?i=relatorio-

anual-de-seguranca-interna-2021.

Portuguese Government (2016). Primeiro-Ministro aponta indústria e portos como novas

áreas de parceria com a China. República Portuguesa.

https://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/gc21/comunicacao/noticia?i=20161008-pm-china

Raimundo, A., Stavridis, S. & Tsardinidis, C. (2021). The Eurozone crisis’ impact: a de-

Europeanization of Greek and Portuguese foreign policies?. Journal of European

Integration, 43(5), 535-550. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.1927014

Rodrigues, C. & Silva, J. T. da (2020). Portugal, China and the US: A ‘Universalistic

‘Stance to Get Along with Both Powers. In M. Esteban et al. (Eds.). Europe in the Face of

US-China Rivalry, A Report by the European Think-tank on China (ETNC), 131-135.

Robinson, S. (2016). Still focused on the Atlantic: accounting for the limited

Europeanization of Portuguese security policy. European Security, 25(1), 134-158.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2015.1090430

RTP (2015). Corte nas Lajes: entrevista de Vasco Cordeiro na íntegra. RTP Notícias,

January 19. https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/pais/corte-nas-lajes-entrevista-de-vasco-

cordeiro-na-integra_v797986

Sá, T. M. de (2016). História das Relações Portugal-EUA. Lisbon: Dom Quixote.

Salman, M., Pieper, M. & Geeraerts, G. (2015). Hedging in the Middle East and China-

U.S. Competition. Asian Politics & Policy, 7(4), 575–596.

https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12225

Schweller, R. (1997). New realist research on alliances: refining, not refuting, Waltz’s

balancing proposition. American Political Science Review, 9(4), 927-930.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2952176

Siddiqui, R. (2025). Portugal PM Urges China’s Xi to Mediate Ukraine War, Deepen Trade

Ties. Modern Diplomacy, 9 September.

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/09/09/portugal-pm-urges-chinas-xi-to-mediate-

ukraine-war-deepen-trade-ties/

Silva, J. T. da (2020). Portugal e a China – As Relações Luso-Chinesas, do Mundo

Quinhentista ao Contexto Contemporâneo. Macau: Instituto Internacional de Macau.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

Silva, J. T. da & Pereira, R. (2020). China and the Portuguese Atlantic: The BRI’s Last

Puzzle Piece. In F. J. B. S. Leandro & P. A. B. Duarte (Eds.). The Belt and Road Initiative:

An Old Archetype of a New Development Model. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 389-

409.

Silva, J. T. da & Pereira, R. (2020). China and the Portuguese Atlantic: The BRI´s Last

Puzzle Piece. In F. J. Leandro & P. Duarte, (Eds.), The Belt and Road Initiative – An Old

Orchetype of a New Development Model. Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan, 389-409.

Snyder, G. H. (1984). The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics. World Politics, 36(4),

461-495. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010183

Song, W. (2022). Between Europe and Asia: Narrow spaces for strategic hedging in new

Europe. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 25(1), 22-39.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2022.2129324

Tang, M. (2022). Huawei Versus the United States? The Geopolitics of Exterritorial

Internet Infrastructure. International Journal of Communication, 14, 4556–4577.

Teixeira, N. S. (2010). Breve ensaio sobre a política externa portuguesa. Relações

Internacionais, 28, 51-60.

Teixeira, N. S. (2017). Parte III (1820-2010)’. In N. S. Teixeira (Ed.) História Militar de

Portugal. Lisbon: Esfera dos Livros, 389-598.

Telci, İ. N. & Rakipoğlu, M. (2021). Hedging as a survival strategy for small states: The

case of Kuwait. All Azimuth, 10(2), 213-229.

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.960945

Tirpak, J. A. (2003). The Squeeze on Air Mobility. Air & Space Forces Magazine, 1 July.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0703mobility/

Tunsjø, Ø. (2025). The EU’s China Strategies: A Hedging Framework for Analysis. Journal

of Common Market Studies. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13749

Tsang, S. (2024). The Political Thought of Xi Jinping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vasconcelos, Á. de (1990). Portuguese/US Relations in the Field of Security. In Á. de

Vascon-celos, J. C. de Magalhães & J. R. Silva (Eds.). Portugal: An Atlantic Paradox,

Portuguese/US Relations After the EC Enlargement. Lisbon: Instituto de Estudos

Estratégicos e Internacionais.

Wagner, R. H. (1993). What was bipolarity?. International Organization, 47(1), 77-106.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300004719

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley

Publishing Company.

Wang, T. Y. & Tan, A. C. (2021). Balancing, bandwagoning or hedging: Taiwan’s strategic

choices in the era of a rising China. Political Science, 73(1), 66-84.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2021.1967765

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies

and Contemporary Dynamics

February 2026, pp. 9-31

Hedging under Pressure: Portugal’s Foreign Policy and the U.S-China Rivalry

Jorge Tavares da Silva, Tomé Ribeiro Gomes

Wivel, A. (2018). Balancing against threats or bandwagoning with power? Europe and

the transatlantic relationship after the Cold War. Cambridge Review of International

Politics, 21(3), 289-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570802253419.

Xi, J. (2013). Follow the Trend of the Times and Promote Peace and Development in the

World. Speech at Moscow State Institute of International Relations, March,

https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyjh/202405/t20240530_11340559.html

Zaborowski, M. (2024). Central European strategies in the new Cold War: between

balancing and bandwagoning. Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations, 4(8).

https://doi.org/10.12688/stomiedintrelat.17836.1

Zhang, K. H. (2024). Geoeconomics of US-China tech rivalry and industrial policy. Asia

and the Global Economy, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aglobe.2024.100098