Understanding China's approach to the Middle East

Following the confrontation between Iran and Israel, a number of media outlets quickly began pushing the narrative that China's lack of role in the conflict revealed its "lack of leverage" in the region. As stated in a report in Al Jazeera, various analysts claimed that Beijing sought to position itself as a mediator and seek peace, but that it was ultimately ignored.

In responding to this, first China has a very different approach to the Middle East than the United States, which itself is derived from a different meta basis in foreign policy doctrine between the two powers. Although both the United States and China view their relationship with the Middle East as critically important, and thus necessitate involvement in the region, this is where the comparison ends. The methodology, outlook and goals of the two are completely different.

The United States views its relationship with the Middle East through militarism and hegemony. Washington believes that in order to secure its interests in the region it must control the overall security architecture and present itself as a security guarantor. In order to sustain the need for this status quo, the United States actively seeks to divide the region into "blocs" on an "us vs them" basis so it can present itself as protector and arms supplier.

Since the War on Terror strategy ended with the first Trump administration in 2018, the US has subsequently sought to use strategic competition for regional dominance against Iran as its primary strategic justification for regional intervention. As such, the United States does not want the region to be able to form its own unified, integrated system of diplomacy, regionalism, or reconciliation, but to use conflict to sustain division and bloc reproachment. This is so to speak, the US strategy the world over, sparring conflict and tensions in order to justify its continued engagement and power, and we have seen this pattern in both Europe (with Russia) and Asia (with China).

China, on the other hand, rejects a militarist and "bloc" approach to Middle East politics. China, through its longstanding foreign policy doctrine of non-alignment, prefers stability and unity through diplomacy in the region, and avoids placing a military presence there. Beijing prefers to cultivate individual bilateral relationships on good terms with each player, including building strategic partnerships with seemingly contradictory players, such as both Iran and Saudi Arabia, seeking to utilize diplomacy to bring them together as per the famous deal.

While this approach does not give China military "teeth" on the ground like the United States has, it does not make it irrelevant. China's presence already has allowed many states in the region, such as the Gulf States, to better preserve their sovereign decision making and prevent strategic dependency on the United States. If on the other hand, China was to do such a thing, this would only promulgate regional instability and even conflict further, and thus further enable the US as a hegemonic force who would absolutely frame the situation in the region in more overt ideological terms.

On the contrary, China's position is anti-hegemonic by nature of its refusal to engage in Middle East wars and insisting on reconciliation and diplomacy as the point of resolution. It holds its cards well; therefore every player can engage with Beijing without sensitive lines being crossed, and thus China stands as a voice of reason: friends to all, enemies to none.

Beijing is also not accountable, or obligated to illustrate its power for the decisions made by the United States. The fundamental strategy of China's foreign policy is to avoid global cold war, not escalate one by making regional spats worse and enabling the worst hawks in Washington. Sometimes, there is wisdom in restraint.

(The author, a postgraduate student of Chinese studies at Oxford University, is an English analyst on international relations. The views are his own.)