Recent cases show that China prefers strategic ambiguity and bureaucratic caution over assuming a high-profile mediator role. Understanding why China is a reluctant quasi-mediator for most global conflicts – specifically ones in which it is not directly embroiled – behooves acknowledging the complexity of dynamics involved. Another hypothesis, then, is that China is wary of setting precedents for justifying foreign interventions into its domestic affairs – e.g. The more it intervenes into other countries’ affairs, the reasoning goes, the more ammunition there is thus delivered to those who seek to play up domestic issues in China as a means of demonising – and instigating political changes on the ground in – China. China’s “Strategic Ambiguity” and Bureaucratic Risk-aversionA far more plausible explanation contains two key components.