You also can be a part of it!
For twelve years, Brazil and China’s relationship remained a “comprehensive strategic partnership.” That changed in November when they upgraded ties to the lofty sounding “community with a shared future for a more just world and a more sustainable planet.” But what does this moniker mean and how should countries in Latin America navigate China’s diplomatic lexicon?
China avoids traditional alliances, opting instead for “partnership diplomacy” – a deliberately flexible system that maximizes its diplomatic and economic maneuverability while avoiding binding commitments.
Beijing uses at least 42 unique combinations of adjectives for different partnerships, allowing for a great deal of flexibility. Nevertheless, there is a loose hierarchy at work, and partnerships generally progress from “cooperative,” through to “strategic,” and “comprehensive strategic” partnerships.
Beijing’s partnership diplomacy began gathering speed in the 1990s, with Brazil being the first country to establish a “strategic partnership” with China.
Among CELAC’s 33 members, seven recognize Taiwan and lack diplomatic ties with China, while another 11 have relations but no formal partnership. The remaining 15 hold varying levels of partnerships, reflecting both economic ties and political alignment with Beijing.
Many of these “no partnership” countries are quite small – Barbados and Bermuda – while other larger countries – Honduras and the Dominican Republic – broke ties with Taiwan more recently and may still be working on improving relations with beijing. Curiously, Cuba, does not have an official strategic partnership with China, despite their long standing political and ideological alignment. One possible explanation for this anomaly might be hesitance on the Chinese side due to geopolitical considerations around sensitive U.S.-Cuba relations.
15 of the 33 countries in CELAC have some form of “partnership” level with Beijing. While partnership levels have never been clearly delineated in official publications, certain adjectives carry consistent meaning. The most important adjectives are “strategic,” “comprehensive,” and “all-weather.”
“Strategic” implies long-term, close cooperation on issues of global importance, while “comprehensive” partnerships encompass all dimensions of cooperation. Generally, but not always, partnerships begin as “strategic” and then become “comprehensive strategic.”
Only one country in CELAC – Venezuela in 2023 – has reached the level of “all-weather” partnership – a designation reserved for a small group of close Chinese partners such as Pakistan, Belarus, and Ethiopia.
Trinidad and Tobago has a “comprehensive” but not a strategic partnership, established in 2013.
Costa Rica established a “strategic partnership” with China in 2015; Bolivia in 2018; Jamaica and Suriname in 2019; Nicaragua in 2023; and Colombia also in 2023 under the pro-China administration of President Gustavo Petro.
Mexico, a significant partner of China’s in CELAC, elevated its partnership with China to “Comprehensive Strategic” level in 2013; Peru in 2013; Argentina in 2014; Chile in 2016; Ecuador in 2016; and Uruguay most recently in 2023.
As is evident from this timeline, elevation along China’s diplomatic hierarchy is partly a recognition of importance – more economically relevant countries usually achieving a higher level earlier – and partly a reward for China-friendly behavior.
Brazil elevated ties with China to the “Comprehensive Strategic” level at the same time as Chile, in 2012. The recent “elevation” to a “community with a shared future” is something of an oddity. Usually countries sign up to a “community with a shared future” while maintaining or elevating a separate partnership level.
In recent years, China has added the term “new era” to its lexicon of partnership diplomacy. Concurrently, it has begun establishing bilateral agreements on building a “community with a shared future.”
Both expressions have become mainstays in Xi Jinping’s discourse. The term “new era,” which was incorporated into the CCP constitution in 2017, reflects an evaluation that the global balance of power is shifting in favor of the PRC. Similarly, “community with a shared future” – previously rendered in English as “community of common destiny” – evokes a utopian vision of harmony and interconnection led by the PRC, a so-called “global village” where “all human beings are one big family.”
Currently, only Brazil and Cuba have signed a bilateral agreement related to China’s “community of shared future” vision, while no country in CELAC has endorsed the “new era” concept – a term used with just nine countries globally: Belarus, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Russia, the Solomon Islands, South Africa, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
Geopolitical sensitivities may explain Brazil’s unusual position. Notably, during Xi Jinping’s visit, Brazil refrained from joining China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a decision it has been postponing for some time. The unexpected "elevation" of Brazil’s relationship with China may have been a way for Beijing to save face after what was otherwise an uneventful visit, despite the warm rhetoric.
The likely calculus was that openly joining the BRI – or signing onto China’s more explicitly anti-U.S. designations, such as the “all-weather” or “new era” partnerships – would have been poorly received in Washington. Instead, Brazil opted for a symbolic gesture that carried less strategic weight. Other countries, including Thailand and Malaysia, have similarly endorsed the “community of shared future” concept, which is seen as a lower-risk concession.
The key takeaway for Latin American governments is that, while much of the Chinese Communist Party’s rhetoric appears vague or benign, these designations are deeply meaningful to Beijing. Often, China offers these labels to create goodwill, but they hold far more significance for Beijing than for the recipient country.
Latin American governments should treat China’s symbolic designations as strategic assets – granting them only when they yield tangible benefits. Since Beijing values these gestures more than its partners should, they are powerful bargaining chips.
