Sino Strategies: China's Influence & its Implications for the U.S.

It has been 20 months since Russia invaded Ukraine, and the world appears to be on the brink of an all-out war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Many nations have provided economic, military, and socio-political support to all involved parties in these conflicts. China, on the other hand, has kept its foreign involvement relatively limited. While this is not new from a historical point of view, this lack of significant response does go against what Beijing is trying to promote for its global image. This article considers the past, present, and future of the PRC’s involvement in international conflict and what U.S. policymakers, businesses, and consumers might consider thinking about with respect to China’s presence on the global stage. 

China and international conflict: a brief history

In the decades after the People’s Republic was formally established, China was relatively uninvolved on the world stage, restricting its foreign policy to addressing questions related to regional Asian dynamics. Indeed, under Mao Zedong, the PRC was primarily interested in international relations agreements and policies that would advance or protect its domestic interests. One prominent example of this is the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance, signed in 1950 by Chinese and Russian leadership so that the two sides would come to each other’s aid if either were attacked by Japan or the U.S. The Sino-Soviet Treaty was the top priority of the PRC’s diplomacy throughout the 1950s. Another example is China’s involvement in the Korean war, which the PRC entered primarily because it feared a growing military threat from the U.S. and believed that Sino-American military confrontation was inevitable. China was also involved in the Vietnam War, supporting the improvement of the Vietnamese military through labor training, mobilization, and resource sharing.

In the past few decades, China has become more involved on the world stage. Beijing’s involvement in global affairs and international conflict still stems from an interest in advancing a domestic agenda and promoting national security. The Belt and Road Initiative, for instance, was adopted in hopes that it would support China’s domestic economy and redirect trade and investment away from the West to further boost China’s growth. 

Under Xi Jinping, the PRC’s global involvement also stems from an interest in gaining political clout overseas and establishing itself as a global diplomatic leader. When he came into power, Xi established a new type of major country diplomacy characterized by “mutual understanding and strategic trust,” seeking to establish the PRC as a nation of equal footing to the U.S. on the global stage. He put forth a vision of the world as a community of common destiny, seeking to reconfigure the world as a network of interconnected nations. Thus, resolution of the crises in Ukraine and Gaza are important milestones in China’s path to bring its global visions to life.

War in Ukraine and Gaza

Since the outbreak of war in Ukraine in early 2022, China has promoted peaceful resolution of the conflict. In the months following Russia’s invasion, Foreign Minister of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke and agreed that ending the war was in the interests of peace, food security, and international trade. Yet China’s actual position on the war is full of ambivalence. On the one hand, Beijing is apparently in no rush to provide an economic lifeline to the Kremlin. On the other hand, the PRC opposes sanctions imposed on Russia and views them as counterproductive. Additionally, Wang Yi expressed that China is willing to deepen exchange with Russia and that Beijing will staunchly support Putin to help lead the Russian people to “overcome difficulties, eliminate disturbances, realize the strategic goals of development, and further establish Russia on the international stage.” It’s unlikely that China will strongly support Russia or Ukraine in the conflict due to competing interests that it has with both countries, Russia being an important ally of the PRC’s and Ukraine being an important gateway to China’s prominence on the world stage. Still, the U.S. and Europe hope that China will play a role in putting a stop to the war in Ukraine.

China’s stance on the violence in Gaza between Israel and Hamas is similar to its stance on the war in Ukraine to the extent that China wants to reduce violence in both regions, but Beijing is more inclined to side with Hamas over Israel than it was to side with Russia or Ukraine. The PRC’s stated goal is to achieve peace in the region, yet it rejected – alongside Russia – a UN resolution put forth by the U.S. calling for a ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid access, the protection of civilians, and a slowdown in arms procurement of Hamas. Importantly, the U.S. resolution explicitly designated Hamas as a terrorist organization and previously vetoed a resolution put forth by Russia that omitted said designation. China has expressed its desire to broker peace in the Middle East and promised to “contribute Chinese wisdom and strength to the resolution of the Palestinian issue,” and the PRC has had success in the Middle East as recently as this year when, in a notable geopolitical win, it brokered the re-establishment of diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia – both of which would later become new additions to the BRICS grouping. Yet the country remains wrapped up in the politics of competition with the U.S. and the West. In its aspirations to become a force on the global stage, China will likely seek to leverage its economic influence to curry favor with other countries in the meantime of finding its diplomatic footing. 

Implications for the U.S.

1. U.S. Policy Implications

Because of China’s lack of defined stance in Ukraine and Gaza, peaceful resolution of the conflicts will require intervention from other actors. To this end, the U.S. could work with China where possible on resolving the ongoing conflicts and preventing further conflicts around the world. China and the U.S. met to discuss resolving the situation in Gaza, and they could collaborate more closely, leveraging their collective global influence as future crises arise to reduce the spread of violence and the impact of conflicts. Additionally, the U.S. could seek to collaborate more closely with China on nuclear non-proliferation. Mitigating the development and potential use of nuclear weaponry is of paramount importance for ensuring international security, so the U.S. has much to gain from working with China to reduce proliferation as much as possible. 

At the same time, the U.S. could seek to remain steadfast in its promotion of international order and friendly competition with China. Washington could focus on preventing Beijing from accumulating too much diplomatic leverage overseas to prevent Chinese influence, and the influence of China’s allies, from becoming too widespread. 

2. U.S. Business Implications

In light of China’s anti-Western political stances and foreign allegiances, along with Beijing’s increasing – albeit somewhat ambivalent and inconsequential – role in global conflict, American businesses may need to reconsider which entities they serve. In particular, aerospace and defense companies could consider adjusting their customer bases to focus away from Chinese players and institutions aligned with the PRC. They could consider fulfilling demand from institutions on the fence politically between the West and the East, as such players may be more inclined to partner with American companies due to the quality and consistency of U.S. businesses.

American businesses in critical industries such as energy, food & agriculture, infrastructure, and transportation will also be impacted by China’s involvement – or lack thereof – in international conflict. Players in these critical industries could seek to serve institutions, businesses, and consumers in countries allied with China during times of crisis. This service would enable  businesses in critical industries to establish and cultivate meaningful relationships with their customers, thus providing these businesses with an alternative income stream and potential entry into new markets. China’s international conflict resolution strategy – whether focused on delivering peace or remaining relatively quiet, both of which have been demonstrated by Beijing – would facilitate customer intake for U.S. businesses of Chinese allies since China would have to deal with the conflicts as opposed to consolidation of the global business environment.

3. U.S. Consumer Implications

Because China’s involvement in global conflict is still largely motivated by national security and a desire to spread its global influence, Beijing’s international role is still primarily political. China will seek to involve itself in international affairs if it has something to gain politically. It is in everyone’s best interest that international conflicts reach resolution, so U.S. consumers could consider promoting solutions that will lead to global peace, whether originating from China or the U.S.   

That said, China’s best interests are not the U.S.’s best interests on many issues and in many conflict resolution scenarios. Thus, it is important for U.S. consumers to remain informed on which countries consider themselves China’s allies and how China seeks to influence the global order and economy to its advantage. Remaining informed will enable American consumers to invest financially and politically in solutions that benefit the U.S. and the world.