China Builds Image As Peacemaker

Pew Research Centre is claimed to be a non-partisan US think tank mining and providing information on social issues shaping America and the world. It is known worldwide and conducts public opinion polling, demographic survey research, and other empirical social science research. Recently, the Centre conducted the public opinion polling to gauge into American public perception of China and concludes that around 83 per cent of US adults continue to have negative views of China. It also shares that the number of the people who have very unfavourable views has increased by 4 percentage points since last year. 

According to the findings of the Centre, US citizens are broadly concerned about China’s rising role in the world. They view that China-Russian partnership has been a serious problem for the US. They appear to be more concerned about Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Moscow where he met with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and floated 12-point peace proposal. Chinese president Xi had also made an offer of Chinese mediation initiative to resolve the Russian-Ukraine conflict resulted from the Russian invasion of the latter. The key peace proposals floated by Xi include respecting the sovereignty and ceasing hostilities. The proposal stresses on resuming peace talks and resolving the humanitarian crisis, keeping nuclear power plants safe, facilitating grain exports and so on. 

Resolutions

Though the US and many Western countries, as also reflected in the Pew Research Centre’s findings, are not very positive of the Chinese peace proposals, these nonetheless, appear worth considering if these are accepted by the parties to the conflict including Russia and Ukraine. And China plays the role of neutral and impartial peacebuilder in line with the accepted norms and principles. Needless to say, French President Emmanuel Macron has acknowledged China’s potential peacemaker role in the conflict and urged President Xi to ‘bring everyone back to the negotiating table’. This underlines the growing perception that Beijing’s involvement in mediating conflicts is necessary to produce meaningful resolutions. 

As dialogue and negotiation are the only viable options to seek solution to the Ukraine crisis, international community should encourage and lend support to all efforts and initiatives conducive for peaceful settlement of the conflict.  In fact, recent developments in the Middle East have cast China as a reliable intermediary and proponent of multilateral dialogue. They indicate a departure from Beijing’s typical reluctance to participate meaningfully in conflict negotiations in the past. According  to a write up  authored by Rahul Karan Reddy from New Delhi based  Organisation  for Research on China and India,  Saudi Arabia and Iran’s decision to restore diplomatic relations has raised Beijing’s diplomatic profile. 

The agreement between the hostile Middle Eastern powers, facilitated by China and other regional states, was followed by Saudi Arabia’s decision to become a dialogue member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which furthers and strengthens the perception of China as a peacemaker. Reddy holds the view that China’s increasing willingness and capability to participate in conflict resolution and shape negotiation outcomes in its favour shows Beijing’s ability and willingness to influence,  according to Reddy, the outcome of negotiations.  

Since the announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, Beijing’s involvement in conflicts has expanded beyond its traditional approach of limited engagement.  Before 2013, China rarely participated in international mediation initiatives. Beijing’s recent diplomatic engagement in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Myanmar and Ethiopia reveal its intention to play a more political and diplomatic role in conflict zones. Reddy further contends that China’s quasi-mediation approach is rather driven by economic interests and international image. China’s interests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia in the form of the BRI and other trade and energy flows encourage Beijing to participate more actively in shaping the outcome of major diplomatic negotiations. 

Guy Burton, adjunct Professor at the Brussels School of Governance who has authored highly acclaimed book titled China and Middle East Conflicts (Routledge, 2020) echoes the views held by Reddy and argues China’s lack of historical baggage in the Middle East has also endowed it with an image of being a neutral mediator. Beijing’s BRI ventures, energy dependence and trade relationships also ensure that it remains invested in the long run. Guy Burton states further that image-driven considerations also determine China’s participation in conflicts it has more to do with cultivating its peacemaker image.  Nonetheless, the peace plan presented by China as a neutral mediator is lauded and it resonates strongly with the position of several developing countries. 

Engagement policy

While unsuccessful, China’s attempts at mediating in the Middle East between the Taliban and Afghanistan governments and in South Asia between Bangladesh and Myanmar reaffirm its posture as a mediator. Beijing has also expanded its diplomatic engagement in Africa, most notably in Ethiopia — a central hub in the BRI. Beijing has offered to mediate disputes at a time when the United States’ relationship with disputing parties in the region continues to deteriorate. Reddy observes: “China’s mediation continues to follow a policy of engagement with limited involvement, electing to participate in dialogue without leveraging its position to produce meaningful outcomes”. 

Though this suits Beijing’s desire to project a benign image, mediation policy over the last decade hints at a gradual transformation of China’s posture toward more active political involvement in conflicts. Nevertheless, harmony, collaboration and respect are some of the values based on Confucian philosophy which shape the Chinese mindset and practices of resolving disputes using mediation-arbitration. The recent Chinese overtures for interstate or regional conflicts could be interpreted as the global extension of homegrown values and practices evolved over centuries.

(The author is presently associated with Policy Research Institute (PRI) as a senior research fellow.  rijalmukti@gmail.com)