After Chinese Premier Li Keqiang managed to sign a high  speed rail export agreement with Romania during his trip to East Europe last month, many analysts have been talking about a new concept - high speed rail diplomacy - to describe how China is using economic cooperation to blaze a new path for its diplomacy.

In general, this new approach relies on infrastructure exports to boost Chinese diplomacy. However, it is possible that such an abrupt combination of economic activities with diplomatic efforts will backfire and lead China's diplomacy into pitfalls and misunderstandings.

Chinese enterprises, whether they are State-owned or private, export their products, such as high speed rail technology, for profit instead of diplomatic purposes. If these business activities are put under the label of diplomacy, China's exports of infrastructure technologies and projects will be interpreted as political moves instead of normal market behavior.

It is true that almost all governments are doing similar things, and China is treading a well worn path. When British Prime Minister David Cameron visited China early this month, he led a large delegation with more than 100 people. Among them, most were CEOs of multinational corporations. In the last 20 years, examples like this - the alignment of political and business interests - have been numerous.

However, it cannot be denied that this kind of "economic diplomacy" or "high speed rail diplomacy" could pose negative effects which cannot be ignored, especially for China, whose name is often used with the term "threat."

In fact, looking back on world history, one can see that in every country, if the government has become too involved in foreign economic activities, it jeopardizes both its diplomacy and foreign trade.

It's impossible to wipe out political influence in the sphere of business activities, but what must be ensured is that the involvement of government is limited.

The so-called high speed rail diplomacy doesn't need to be widely acclaimed. China should realize that its foreign investments still face precarious situations. A simple "national security" concern can render these investments blocked. It is also the most commonly used excuse by many Western countries to institute trade protectionism.

China should be sober-minded when engaging in exports of infrastructure. This, in essence, is an international trade activity. The principles of multinational operations must be the top priority.

Some countries may misinterpret China's high speed rail exports as one of China's national strategies. Exports of high speed rail thus face the risk of politicization.

China has grown to become one of the major powers with massive foreign investments. This achievement should keep China alert that it might face more political obstacles.

China has been promoting its "go out" policy for years, and at this critical moment, it is unwise to actively link foreign business activities up with Chinese diplomacy, which would supply evidence for trade protectionists and people who believe in the so-called China threat.

Business is business, and respecting the power of market instead of building up a few vanity projects for China's diplomacy is more critical to China's image in the international community.

Such a practical attitude will also bring sustainable and actual benefits for the areas which host Chinese investments.

The rapid increase in China's foreign trade also means an increase in the risk of more frictions between Chinese investors and the countries which receive the investments.

The view that it is always inevitable for infrastructure assistance to improve bilateral relations is outdated.

Chinese diplomacy will face the real challenge of how to control the risks and tackle the issues which are provoked by China's expanding foreign investments.

Chinese diplomacy should be cautious that bigger rewards usually mean bigger risks.

Too much correlation between economic activities and diplomacy might make China face graver challenges in the future.

The author is a professor at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn