Opinion by Tom Rogan
The Chinese Communist Party finds itself caught between the rock of its diplomatic duplicity and the hard place of its foreign policy agenda.
Enter Beijing’s newly released peace plan for Ukraine, “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis.” The plan being very short on specifics, foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin was asked two precise questions by Agence France-Presse on Friday. First, “why didn’t China call on Russia to withdraw its troops in the position document?” Wang offered a 263-word response that totally avoided the question.
AFP then asked, “Considering that China has been saying it takes an objective attitude and position, which side does China believe started and prolonged the war?”
Wang responded, “We have answered similar questions many times. … Our position is clear. We stand on the side of peace and dialogue, and on the right side of history. We have been committed to promoting peace talks and making our contribution to bringing about a political settlement of the Ukraine crisis.”
Note the unwillingness to challenge Russia. Every objective observer knows that Russia started the war. Every objective observer knows that any serious peace plan would call on Russia to withdraw at least some of its forces from Ukraine. That Beijing cannot accept these principles, even as the starting point for negotiations, is proof positive of its support for Russia. Of course, as I noted on Wednesday, China’s peace plan is not actually designed to facilitate peace. Its purpose is to provide a diplomatic veil for Beijing’s pro-Russia stance. Chinese leader Xi Jinping needs this diplomatic veil because his support for Russia is complicating China’s relationship with Europe. This complication comes at a bad time. After all, China’s balloon-based espionage antics have put its reputation under pressure.
This isn’t the only problem with the peace plan, however.
Amid reports that China is considering supplying Russia with weapons, the European Union is warning that any such provision would cross a rare EU “red line” and affect otherwise prized China-EU economic relations. But even if China does not provide those weapons (and I have long suspected it will not), that the EU views that prospect as credible poses its own problem for China. It shows that its peace rhetoric is seen for what it is: fake news. That China pursued its duplicitous peace gambit anyway only further undermines its diplomatic credibility.
Put simply, much like its recent balloon adventure, China’s diplomatic strategy on Ukraine appears to be built on a thin layer filled with hot air.