Why China is an unlikely mediator in the Russia-Ukraine war

25 July 2023

With Russia’s war in Ukraine ongoing, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has been mentioned time and again as a potential mediator in the conflict. Some commentators argue that China is the only actor that is realistically capable of moderating future peace negotiations, as well as the only actor that could be accepted by both conflict parties. It is true that NATO members such as the United States (US), and also the European Union, are unfeasible as mediators. However, at this stage, regarding China as a realistic peace broker amounts to wishful thinking.

Does China even want to mediate?

Despite recent developments seemingly pointing to China’s interest in increasing its involvement in crisis resolution, it remains unclear whether Beijing would want to mediate the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In the past, Chinese leaders have been reluctant to engage in conflicts outside of China’s borders, commonly evoking the principle of non-interference as the bedrock of their foreign policy. PRC officials regularly criticise Western states — above all the US — for their interventionist policies, and present PRC foreign policy as an alternative way of doing international relations.

While Chinese scholars have debated the perceived irreconcilability of the PRC’s changing international role and a strict interpretation of the principle of non-interference — leading some to conclude that China’s interpretation of said principle must be modernised amid Beijing’s increasing economic involvement in other countries — the official line remains that China will mind its own business.

Naturally, mediation is not ‘interference’. Taking on the role of mediator presupposes that all parties accept the legitimacy of the relevant actor in this role. Thereby, any mediation activity is immune from allegations of illegitimate involvement. Indeed, China’s mediation activities have increased considerably since Xi Jinping came to power. However, they have commonly remained contained within larger multinational efforts. Then, on 10 March 2023, Beijing pulled the successful PR stunt of brokering a Saudi-Iran deal. Yet, even if we disregarded the fact that China actually played a rather marginal role compared to Iraq’s former Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, Beijing’s track record as a (successful) peace broker remains poor.

Despite China’s interest in increasing its involvement in crisis resolution, it remains unclear whether Beijing is willing to mediate, and whether it can be a fair broker, in the Russia-Ukraine war.

This is not to say that China could not build on such a track record, with the Saudi-Iran deal potentially constituting the first of many coming successes. Indeed, Beijing’s proactive stance in the deal could be an indication that China increasingly acts “in keeping with its responsibility as a major country”. Its 12-point position paper on Ukraine could also be understood in this context, as the publication of such a position paper itself marked the end of Beijing’s initial silence on the war.

Moreover, China’s posting of a Special Envoy on Eurasian affairs, Li Hui, implies that Beijing wants to increase its diplomatic role internationally. Considering China’s official position that it “will continue to play a constructive role in facilitating the proper settlement of hot-spot issues around the world”, assuming that Beijing would in fact be interested in acting as a mediator in the Russia-Ukraine conflict seems plausible. The question then remains how viable a Chinese brokering role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict would be.

China cannot be an impartial actor

According to the UN Guidance on Effective Mediation, mediators must be “objective, impartial and authoritative”. While Chinese representatives cast China’s position in the conflict as neutral, Beijing’s actions paint a different picture. For instance, Xi Jinping’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on 26 April 2023 was a welcome development. However, comparing this to Xi’s numerous phone calls and meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin since Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbour, it is difficult to construe China’s diplomatic activities as impartial.

What was discussed during these phone calls and meetings is even more indicative of Beijing’s not-so-neutral position. During meetings with Russian government representatives, Xi joined Putin in blaming NATO expansion for Russia’s aggression, signed agreements to further increase the already soaring bilateral trade volume, and spoke of the two leaders driving “changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years” — together. Additionally, Xi’s defence minister, Li Shangfu, in April rather cynically hailed President Putin as “promoting world peace”.

Even if US reports of alleged secret lethal aid to Russia prove untrue, it seems clear that Beijing has only strengthened its partnership with Russia since 2022. In contrast, Zelenskyy had to wait over a year just for one phone call with the Chinese leader who, incidentally, still refuses to refer to the “Ukraine crisis” or “Ukraine situation” as a war. All this is not to say that China supports Russia unreservedly; it is only to argue against voices that presently regard China as a genuinely impartial third party.

Going forward

At the end of the day, it is on the Ukrainian and Russian leaders to decide who they accept as peace brokers. Indeed, the UN Guidance lists ‘consent’ before ‘impartiality’ and elaborates that “a mediator must be accepted, credible and well supported”. If the Ukrainian government decides to accept Chinese involvement — which surely would be well thought-out and based on strategic considerations — there is no reason not to welcome the chance of a peace settlement.

A possible strategic argument in favour of asking China to act as broker for Ukraine could be considerations regarding China’s future role in reconstruction: Beijing has been Kyiv’s top trading partner since 2019, and, as one commentator writes vis-à-vis reconstruction: “China can make an offer that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy cannot refuse”. Additionally, Kyiv may expect Beijing to use its internationally unmatchable influence and leverage over Moscow in favour of a peace deal that also works for Ukraine. It goes without saying that Russia, too, would need to agree to a Chinese mediating role in peace negotiations, which currently does not seem to be the case.

This brings us to the elephant in the room. According to the UN: “First and most importantly, the main conflict parties must be open to trying to negotiate a settlement”. Thus, not only do Russia and Ukraine get to decide who they accept as mediator(s), but it is also on them to decide when peace negotiations start. As long as neither the Ukrainian nor the Russian leadership agree to negotiate a ceasefire, the question of China’s potential role remains highly hypothetical.

Once the parties at war are ready for peace negotiations, the most promising solution at this point lies in multinational efforts. Several countries from the Global South have already expressed a willingness to broker peace, some offers being more promising than others. As past performance has shown, in a multinational setting, China could well be one of several countries to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, possibly alongside Türkyie’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, or even in a multilateral effort led by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. All this, however, depends on Ukraine and Russia’s decisions on how and when to end the war.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.

Author biography

Dr Eva Seiwert is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg and an Associate Research Fellow at the OSCE Academy in Bishkek. She is also a Managing Editor at 9DASHLINE. Eva’s research focuses on China’s international relations, with a particular interest in the PRC as a global security actor and China-Central Asia relations. This article was originally published by ISPI and is reposted with their permission. Image credit: Kremlin.ru.