Italy’s Entry into the Belt and Road Initiative: Expectations and Controversies
On March 22, 2019, Italy became the first G7 country to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with China to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This decision, made under the first government of Giuseppe Conte, marked a significant turning point in Italy’s foreign policy orientation. Launched by President Xi Jinping in 2013, the BRI is a large-scale infrastructure and connectivity initiative aimed at enhancing global trade networks and expanding China’s geopolitical influence through investments across more than 140 countries.
Italy’s participation was primarily driven by economic considerations. Policymakers aimed to boost exports, attract Chinese investment, and modernize infrastructure—particularly port facilities—by leveraging Italy’s strategic position in the Mediterranean. From China’s perspective, Italy represented not only a key logistical gateway into Europe but also a symbolically important partner, given its status as a founding member of the European Union.
However, the decision quickly generated significant controversy both domestically and internationally. Western allies, particularly the United States and the European Union, expressed concern that the BRI was not merely an economic initiative but also a geopolitical instrument for expanding Chinese influence. Critics pointed to issues such as the lack of transparency in financial agreements, the risk of debt dependency, and potential vulnerabilities in strategic sectors.
Within Italy, the decision exposed deep political divisions. The Five Star Movement strongly supported participation, emphasizing economic opportunities and the diversification of international partnerships. In contrast, members of the League party raised concerns about national sovereignty and the risk of excessive economic dependence on China. These internal disagreements reflected broader tensions within Italy’s political system and foreshadowed future policy shifts.
In sum, Italy’s accession to the BRI was a calculated yet controversial move—driven by economic ambitions but constrained by geopolitical realities. While the initiative promised tangible economic benefits, it simultaneously exposed Italy to growing strategic scrutiny from its traditional allies. The decision therefore reflected a broader dilemma faced by middle powers in an increasingly polarized international system: how to balance economic pragmatism with geopolitical alignment. As external pressures intensified and domestic debates evolved, Italy’s initial engagement with the BRI became increasingly difficult to sustain, ultimately setting the stage for a complex and gradual policy reassessment shaped by both internal dynamics and shifting global power structures.
Shifting Geopolitics and Italy’s Policy Recalibration
Following Italy’s entry into the BRI, the global geopolitical landscape underwent rapid and profound transformation. The intensifying strategic rivalry between the United States and China increasingly polarized international relations, placing growing pressure on countries to align with one side or the other. The United States, in particular, came to view the BRI as a strategic challenge rather than a purely economic initiative, and it consistently urged its allies to adopt a more cautious and security-oriented stance toward China. As a result, Italy’s decision to engage with the BRI was gradually reinterpreted within a broader context of great power competition.
At the same time, the European Union began to reassess its relationship with China in a more critical light. In 2019, the EU officially labelled China a “systemic rival,” marking a significant shift in its strategic outlook. This redefinition was accompanied by concrete policy initiatives, including the launch of the Global Gateway as a competing connectivity strategy and the strengthening of regulatory frameworks to screen foreign investments. Particular attention was given to strategic sectors such as technology, energy, and infrastructure, where concerns over security, dependency, and technological sovereignty became increasingly prominent.
Italy’s domestic policy trajectory largely mirrored these broader geopolitical shifts. While the second Conte government maintained formal participation in the BRI, it adopted a more cautious and diplomatically balanced approach in managing relations with China. This gradual recalibration became more pronounced under the government of Mario Draghi, which marked a clearer return to Euro-Atlantic alignment. The use of regulatory instruments such as “golden power” to block Chinese acquisitions in sensitive industries illustrated a growing emphasis on national security, strategic autonomy, and alignment with European and transatlantic priorities.
The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated and deepened these transformations. Disruptions to global supply chains, combined with heightened concerns over economic dependence and systemic vulnerabilities, reinforced the importance of diversification and resilience. Across Europe, including Italy, policymakers began to reassess economic engagement with China through a more strategic and risk-sensitive lens. Consequently, Italy’s scope for policy flexibility in maintaining close cooperation with China narrowed significantly, as the convergence of transatlantic pressure, evolving EU policies, and global crises collectively drove a gradual yet decisive recalibration of its foreign policy priorities.
Two-Level Game Theory and the Dynamics of Foreign Policy
To explain Italy’s shifting position on the BRI, this study employs Robert Putnam’s Two-Level Game Theory, which conceptualizes foreign policy as the outcome of continuous interaction between international negotiations (Level I) and domestic political processes (Level II). Rather than treating the state as a unitary actor, the framework emphasizes that political leaders must simultaneously negotiate with external counterparts while securing internal approval. This dual-level perspective provides a useful lens for understanding how Italy’s BRI policy evolved in response to both external pressures and internal constraints.
At Level I, governments engage in negotiations with foreign actors in order to reach preliminary agreements. However, these agreements only become effective once they are accepted and ratified at Level II by domestic political institutions, interest groups, and public opinion. A central concept in this framework is the “win-set,” defined as the range of international agreements that can obtain domestic approval. The size of the win-set directly affects a government’s bargaining flexibility: a larger win-set allows greater room for compromise, while a smaller one constrains policy options but may strengthen negotiating leverage.
In the Italian case, the initial decision to join the BRI was facilitated by a relatively large win-set. Domestic political conditions—characterized by a populist coalition government and strong expectations of economic gains—created a favourable environment for engagement with China. These conditions allowed policymakers to pursue a more flexible and opportunistic foreign policy approach. Over time, however, this win-set gradually contracted as both international pressures and domestic political dynamics evolved in a less supportive direction.
A key mechanism driving this transformation was the “reverberation effect,” through which changes in the international environment influenced domestic political attitudes and preferences. As geopolitical tensions between the United States and China intensified, and as the European Union adopted a more critical stance toward Beijing, Italian political elites and public opinion became increasingly skeptical of the BRI. This shift in perception contributed to a narrowing of the domestic win-set, making continued participation in the initiative more politically costly and less sustainable.
Leadership choices also played a decisive role in shaping the outcome. Under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Italy embraced a strongly pro-Atlantic foreign policy orientation, prioritizing alignment with the United States and the European Union. This strategic preference further constrained the domestic win-set by reducing the range of acceptable policy options involving China. In this context, disengagement from the BRI became not only a viable option but also a politically and strategically coherent choice.
Overall, the Two-Level Game framework demonstrates that Italy’s withdrawal from the BRI cannot be explained solely by economic considerations. Instead, it reflects a complex interplay between shifting international pressures, evolving domestic political conditions, and deliberate strategic leadership decisions.
Italy’s Exit from the BRI: Strategic Realignment and Implications
In December 2023, Italy formally decided not to renew its Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with China, effectively withdrawing from the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This decision marked a significant turning point in Italy’s foreign policy and signalled a broader strategic realignment toward the Euro-Atlantic bloc. Rather than an abrupt shift, the withdrawal was the culmination of a gradual reassessment shaped by changing international conditions, evolving domestic priorities, and growing concerns over the long-term implications of participation in the initiative.
One of the primary factors behind this decision was the disappointing economic performance of the agreement. Although bilateral trade between Italy and China increased between 2019 and 2023, the benefits were unevenly distributed. Italian exports experienced only modest growth, while Chinese exports to Italy expanded significantly, nearly doubling over the same period. Moreover, the expected surge in Chinese investment did not materialize, weakening one of the central economic arguments that had initially justified Italy’s participation in the BRI.
At the same time, strategic considerations played an equally—if not more—decisive role. The United States exerted sustained diplomatic pressure on Italy to reconsider its involvement, particularly in sensitive sectors such as 5G technology, energy security, and critical infrastructure. In parallel, the European Union strengthened its regulatory and normative frameworks aimed at limiting external influence in key industries, thereby reinforcing a more cautious and coordinated European stance toward China. These external pressures significantly constrained Italy’s policy options.
From a theoretical perspective, Italy’s withdrawal can be interpreted as a case of “voluntary defection” within Putnam’s Two-Level Game framework. Rather than being driven primarily by domestic opposition, the decision reflected a deliberate and strategic choice by the government to realign with its international partners. By intentionally narrowing its win-set, Italy sought to enhance its credibility, policy coherence, and strategic reliability within the Western alliance system.
The withdrawal also carried important signalling effects at the international level. It was welcomed by the United States and NATO as a clear demonstration of Italy’s commitment to transatlantic security and cooperation. Likewise, the European Union interpreted the decision as reinforcing a unified and coordinated European approach toward China, particularly in the context of growing geopolitical competition and strategic uncertainty.
In conclusion, Italy’s exit from the BRI represents more than a simple policy adjustment; it reflects a broader redefinition of national priorities within an increasingly polarized global order. The case illustrates how economic considerations, geopolitical pressures, and alliance dynamics intersect and interact in shaping foreign policy decisions, highlighting the complex and multidimensional nature of strategic realignment in contemporary international relations.
Overall Assessment
The Italian case illustrates the inherent complexity of foreign policy decision-making in the contemporary international system. Italy’s initial engagement with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was largely driven by economic considerations, including the pursuit of increased trade, investment, and infrastructure development. However, this economic rationale was gradually overshadowed by shifting geopolitical dynamics, particularly the intensifying strategic rivalry between the United States and China and the evolving stance of the European Union. As these external conditions changed, Italy’s policy flexibility became increasingly limited, making its continued participation in the BRI more difficult to sustain.
At the same time, the Italian experience highlights the extent to which foreign policy choices are shaped by the interaction between international pressures and domestic political adjustments. The growing expectations from Euro-Atlantic allies, combined with a shift in domestic political leadership and strategic priorities, contributed to a reassessment of Italy’s position within the global order. In this context, the BRI came to be viewed less as an opportunity for economic expansion and more as a potential source of strategic vulnerability, particularly in sectors linked to national security and technological sovereignty. Ultimately, Italy’s withdrawal from the BRI should be understood not as a simple policy failure, but as a deliberate process of strategic realignment. It reflects the country’s effort to adapt to an increasingly polarized international environment while preserving its credibility and coherence within its traditional alliance framework. More broadly, the case demonstrates how economic interests, geopolitical pressures, and alliance commitments intersect in shaping foreign policy, underscoring the multidimensional nature of decision-making in contemporary international relations.
