Sudan is a country that is attributed high strategic importance by the Chinese leadership and only has a little oil. Based on these characteristics and the history of the case, the hypothesis is that state interests are the dominant driver in Sudan. The qualitative analysis produced evidence of state interests and concerns with domestic stability, as well as economic interests, but with variation over time, in the key decisions examined. Interestingly, I find particular evidence of the concern with domestic stability in 2008, which is a novel finding. The quantitative analysis corroborates these results in two of the key decisions but not in the case of the oil workers killed in Sudan in 2008. Still, it is argued that evidence of concerns with domestic stability is more credible in this instance. Thus, generally speaking, the two methods were corroborated. The quantitative and qualitative analyses only partially support the empirical expectation, as the results show evidence of both economic interests and state interests/domestic stability (weiwen).