China’s International Adoption Ban and Its Effect on Cultural Diplomacy

Apr 14, 2025

Free Artistic portrait showing a woman's reflection distorted through a glass water container over a floral background. Stock Photo

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) finally showed its true colors after the party banned international adoptions on September 3, 2024. This move comes at a time when the CCP is evidencing its Communist ambitions while tensions between major powers intensify. Since this abrupt ban, there has been a renewed focus on soft power strategies in foreign policy, particularly between China and the United States (U.S.). Beijing continues to undermine its relations which do not submit to or affirm its configuration of the global world. With this adoption ban, Beijing seems to be closing itself off even more as it continues to steal intellectual property,^[1] infiltrate American universities,^[2] and undermine Western intelligence capabilities. These efforts are achieved through the purchasing of U.S. property, censoring Chinese academics, “watching over” Chinese students, and pushing to beat the U.S. in integrating powerful AI capabilities for intelligence purposes.

While China’s policies toward its own newborns have been schizophrenic since the CCP assumed control, Xi’s recent attempt to return to in-state adoptions will have perhaps the most adverse effects on Chinese children – because they now cannot leave, and cultural diplomacy with the West grows to be disingenuous. Beijing’s actions increase national security concerns with Washington as the relationship reaches levels that some^[3] say are back to the Cold War days, and cultural diplomacy is nowhere to be found in either nation’s diplomatic toolbox.

Literature informs one that the meaning of cultural diplomacy has not changed drastically and has stayed reliable. Former chairman of the Political Science Department from Johns Hopkins University, Milton Cummings Jr., states that cultural diplomacy^[4] is the “exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations, and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding” (Snow, 2020).^[5] Frank Ninkovich of St. Johns University tells of cultural diplomacy as “promoting an understanding of American culture abroad.”^[6] Dr. John Lenczowski, Founder, Chancellor, and President Emeritus of The Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., addresses the role and real-life impact that cultural diplomacy has on international relations in his book^[7] Full Spectrum Diplomacy and Grand Strategy:Reforming the Structure and Culture of U.S. Foreign Policy (2011). This tool of statecraft (cultural diplomacy) has typically been kept away in nations’ toolboxes, where its absence has been a disservice to nations. According to Dr. Lenczowski, if utilized regularly and with prudence, cultural diplomacy is “arguably the most visible, potentially influential, and therefore significant aspect of public diplomacy” (2011, p. 19). This statecraft also “may involve efforts to counter hostile foreign cultural diplomacy in the United States” (Dr. Lenczowski, 2011, p. 20). The Founder of the Institute tells that cultural diplomacy is “designed not only for mutual understanding but for these other purposes as well, is meant to enhance national security as well as protect and advance other vital national interests” (2011, p. 20). This statecraft tool can help build and maintain bridges, rather than damage and inflict harmful realities on nations.

The CCP’s decision jeopardizes Beijing-Washington national security interests as it diminishes opportunities to pursue effective cultural diplomacy. One way that both can protect national security interests and positively nourish their partnership is strategically implementing policies that allow cultural diplomacy to flourish openly. Beijing and Washington should place a high priority on cultural diplomacy through international adoption, where national pride and cultural awareness are appreciated and respected.

Leader Xi Masking China: A More Brazen Way

The CCP’s Ministry of Civil Affairs^[8] (MCA) vocalized that the primary reason for this ban was to be more “in line” with international adoption policies. The state’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) shares that intercountry adoptions will only be permitted between blood relatives^[9] and stepparents of children within China, signaling a push for a unification and maintenance of the Chinese face. Despite this vocalization of following foreign adoption trends, CCP’s ban does not fully reflect other nations’ reasonings for adoption bans or suspensions.

Russia banned international adoptions in 2013 after a newly adopted child died from heatstroke after being left in his adoptive parent’s car for over eight hours on a hot day in Virginia. While the ban was seen in response to the child’s death, some say that the State Duma bill^[10] was directed to former President Barack Obama’s ban on Russian officials who were thought to be involved in human rights violations, known as the Magnitsky Act.^[11] Denmark has restricted international adoptions to protect its reputation from adoption agency malpractice and potential trafficking.^[12] Norway has tightened^[13] its international adoption process to investigate past cases for agency malpractice and potential falsified birth certificates. Kazakhstan primarily suspended intercountry adoptions in the past. Astana’s reasonings are the Hague Convention, and adoptive parents not completing Post-Adoption Reports (PARs) with transparency.^[14] Since 2020, Astana has permitted adoptions on a case-by-case basis, where one adoption agency primarily functions.^[15] Beijing’s ban demonstrates little resemblance to other countries’ reasonings.

Before this foreign policy decision by the CCP, the U.S. was China’s largest recipient of adopted Chinese children, with more than 82, 600 children adopted by American families.^[16] Contributors for The Hill, Chelsea and Michael Sobolik warn that “the Chinese Communist Party is unmoved by the need of children to be united with their families and is willing to use them as pawns in a broader geopolitical game.”^[17] Leader Xi’s policy only reinforces CCP’s already prevalent watchful eye, as now the ban enables Xi to strengthen his hold on the future of Chinese children and their interactions with those outside China. While Beijing insists that this ban encourages Chinese citizens to adopt domestically, as well as increase population growth, they cannot afford any loss of future workforce or loyalty, leading to the closing doors for anyone on the outside. Beijing confidently claims that there are some arguments to support this adoption move, but past policies indicate otherwise, and China’s story is not the entire story. Though CCP’s welfare for children can be suggested to be intended for meaningful outcomes, its track record^[18] for taking care of its own people is littered with victims.

According to The Atlantic, the CCP’s Communist policies hinder the state’s ability to engage freely with the broader world, leading to no one’s benefit in securing a more stable and genuine competitive global environment now or in the long-term. Michael Schuman shares that “Xi’s policies are cutting off his country from the world,” where they could play an important part in the security landscape.^[19] While Xi may view his in-state policies as meaningful, in his own misconstrued worldview, the policies have slowly estranged China from the rest of the world.

Rana Mitter reiterates CCP’s close-minded behavior with other global actors in today’s geopolitical climate. Mitter regards the CCP as a “Sinosphere” in which the state remains harder for outsiders to access, hiding itself while “watching” its people through cyber technology advancements^[20] like The Great Firewall, Skynet, and Sharp Eyes. Also, Beijing’s push for Panda Diplomacy has gained attention in a way that should be concerning. Panda diplomacy has brought playful humor to the international community, but demonstrates stark revelations about the CCP’s priorities and misconceptions of natural rights and the world order.

Unmoving Policies from Beijing

Beijing’s adoption ban undermines cultural diplomacy opportunities with the West, where risks to national security concerns escalate and misunderstandings deepen. The start of Beijing’s international adoptions was a response to the failure of China’s one-child policy, where the doors for adoption opened in 1992.^[21] A policy that resulted in unintended consequences, where families felt the repercussions was Beijing’s one-child policy. While the initial hope of the one-child policy was to increase the Chinese population and positively impact the economy, the results did not bear fruit.

Peterson (2023) notes that one of the main takeaways from the child policies are that such limitations on personal choices regarding family arrangements not only violate people’s rights to make decisions about their own personal affairs pertaining to starting a family, but may also have unanticipated negative effects like the unequal male-female ratios that exist in China.^[22] Families who violated Xi’s policy faced fines, employment loss, and women would sometimes be forced to terminate their pregnancy (abortion).^[23] Nurturing and raising a family should be left to the parents. In most cases, parents want the obligation and duty to serve in the parental role for their children while children expect parents to raise them and act as parents.

Beijing’s family policies of one-child policy to two, and later three-child policy seemed to be intended for positiveoutcomes within the society, but resulted in gender imbalance, disregard of personal family decision making, and resentment toward Xi’s economic and political realities. It seems that the CCP favors one kind of Chinese face and pushes away influences undermining this character, as it would compete with its realities. The American spirit would upend CCP’s envisionment of the Chinese person.

A Leader’s Lens Matters in Foreign Policy

Two competing views about the world and personhood impact on how foreign policy is created and implemented. America’s founding, highly influenced by a Western moral political thought^[24] believe many ideas, but one being the idea that the soul is a separate entity from the government and every person demonstrates inherent human dignity. Washington strives to create and implement foreign policy that attracts productive and fruitful cultural diplomacy efforts. Washington policies tend to be rooted in individualism and human dignity recognition.

Xi views the soul as a shared collective entity, where there are different bodies, but one group soul. His worldview is rooted in pre-modern China, where Mao’s China is at the center of Xi’s world. Mao’s dream for China means that Xi must make sure that Mao’s aspirations never escape the Great Wall of China, and permeate among the Chinese population. A strong push for soul unification^[25] is key for the CCP. Leader Xi’s philosophical narrative of “one soul one root,” and its foreign policy decisions tend to reflect elements of China’s cultural revolution (1966-1976),^[26] and Maoism, where everyone must fall in line with the CCP’s cultural and political realities.

A leader’s perception of a person and world order shapes how foreign policy is created, and which relations are prioritized and thus maintained. The cultural and ideological differences between the China and the West significantly impact how both conduct foreign policy. Cultural strategic diplomacy is often neglected in foreign policy initiatives by Washington while Beijing exploits it. Washington’s failure to prioritize cultural diplomacy as a key national strategy shows current American-Chinese relations. Cultural strategic diplomacy efforts should positively plant seeds between nations, protect national interests, and work with a common message.

Making Cultural Diplomacy Worth It

Bolstering cultural diplomacy is a must. The CCP wants to hide from the wider world, and Washington politics sometimes sinks into wishful thinking. Brian Wong shares, “As things stand, cultural exchange between America and China is facing some rather treacherous and pronounced headwinds – solving the following is vital as a prerequisite to restoring some semblance of normalcy to bilateral cultural ties.”^[27] America has always been open and willing to engage in relationships, but will not reduce its global posture, especially in today’s turbulent global environment. The CCP should not expect America to take a liking to any of CCP’s power politics, but seriously take America’s hand in the call to more strategic cultural diplomacy.

Dr. Lenczowski’s book Full Spectrum Diplomacy and Grand Strategy: Reforming the Structure and Culture of U.S. Foreign Policy (2011) provides a blueprint for how Washington can do better in its messaging of worldly issues and America’s own principles, primarily through the prioritization of cultural diplomacy. His book delves into the complexities of diplomacy from Washington’s failures and successes. Dr. Lenczowski informs the public that cultural diplomacy aims to influence foreigners in a number of ways, including fostering a favorable opinion of the U.S., its citizens, its culture, and its policies; encouraging increased cooperation; meaningfully altering governments’ policies; bringing about political or cultural change in other countries; and preventing, managing, mitigating and winning wars with foreign enemies (2011, p. 19).^[28] For Washington, the debacle lies in how to prudently and effectively facilitate cultural diplomacy in today’s uncertain geopolitical landscape.

To meet these challenges, domestically, the CCP should encourage Chinese families and parents to adopt Chinese children and not restrict parents from wanting to grow their family if they so desire. Putting the father back into the parental picture is another key aspect that Beijing needs to prioritize. While the role of the mother is invaluable, fathers also want and should be present in their child’s life. The CCP should also re-evaluate its philosophical realities, particularly of the human soul. Beijing should not forget its historical memories, and the toll it had on its people and society.

Moreover, the advocation of marriage and family establishment is important. Hungary has been an important example for this, instilling a message that the family unit is a notable establishment. Cultivating a meaningful message and image for the role of family is essential for societal flourishment. Washington should continue its messaging on the significance of democracy and human dignity, and be more aware of CCP’s misconstrued worldview. If Washington can better understand how to effectively communicate to Beijing what democracy means and entails, including personhood and human dignity, this may be beneficial. Although, any changes rest on the will of Leader Xi and his party.

If nation citizens are reluctant to adopt Chinese children and families are burdened to grow their family, there may be a larger issue within society as a whole. Revitalizing cultural diplomacy through the means of international adoption not only invites the deepening of national pride and cooperation between nations, but incurs the message that human flourishment is essential. Children seek joy, profound security, and a forever family, whether that family is in China or abroad. Beijing has every means to alter its course. Leader Xi should recognize that citizens are not simply tokens of power politics but individuals who can positively shape and impact Beijing’s cultural diplomacy story with the West.

China’s International Adoption Ban and Its Effect on Cultural Diplomacy

Leader Xi Masking China: A More Brazen Way

Unmoving Policies from Beijing

A Leader’s Lens Matters in Foreign Policy

Making Cultural Diplomacy Worth It

Discussion about this post