Could the US-China rivalry save the peace process in the Middle East?

The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh risks sabotaging an agreement between the disparate factions leading the Palestinian territories only days after it was signed. The deal, which was brokered by Beijing and was already viewed with scepticism and cynicism by Western pundits. Haniyeh’s assassination lends further fuel to critics who have dismissed China’s involvement as futile diplomatic theatre.

However, China’s leadership of these peace initiatives, regardless of their success, is more than political posturing. As America and its closest allies abandon diplomacy for a hard-power approach, China’s “diplomatic theatre” is the spearhead of a profoundly influential agenda to fill in this soft-power vacuum. Underestimating these efforts not only misses out on critical opportunities to revive the abandoned Israel-Palestine peace process, it is also an oversight that may seal the fate of the American-led Liberal Order.

The hard power ruse

China hawks have tended to focus on the threat of Chinese economic and military might. Headlines hand-wringing about the Belt and Road Initiative or crying wolf about the imminent invasion of Taiwan abound.

Chinese hard power can certainly threaten both American interests and international security. For instance, China’s military and economic aid to Russia has made it much harder to defend Ukraine. But this has only moved the stalemate from the Ukrainian border to the front lines of Mariupol and Crimea.

When it comes to shaping the actual balance of power, Chinese soft power is what really moulds the two countries’ spheres of influence. In March 2023, China brokered an agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, easing tensions between the two countries who for decades have been fighting by proxy for influence in the Middle East. Despite US National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan’s, apparent approval, then-CIA Director, William Burns, was less nonchalant behind closed doors, allegedly expressing ‘frustration’ with his Saudi counterpart after the fact.

Likewise, the recent China-brokered agreement between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and others is markedly different from what America and close ally Israel want, which is an Israeli-led post-war reconstruction of Gaza.

Western observers are all too happy to point out, correctly, that China’s diplomatic efforts are pragmatic moves for normative (and eventually economic) influence. After all, China’s own human rights record, which has been condemned by the United Nations, sullies any claim that it sincerely cares about matters of peace or justice. But the pragmatism driving China’s efforts has not made them any less impactful.

In April 2023, China helped broker a ceasefire in Yemen, which was welcomed by the UN special envoy to Yemen, Hans Grundberg. This ceasefire has been more durable and effective than any the West has been able to achieve since the start of the conflict. The peace process faltered only in the wake of Israel’s horrific response to Hamas’s attack on 7 October, when the Houthis resumed firing at Israeli- and American-aligned assets, who responded in kind.

Moreover, China’s diplomacy is working to bolster its global reputation more so than we like to admit. Pundits often cite the Pew research centre’s polls tracking public opinion on the US and China, which show median global opinions strongly favour the US among the surveyed countries. However, three-quarters of the 24 countries routinely surveyed are close allies of the US, belonging to either NATO, the Five Eyes, or the top ten recipients of American arms. Among the rest, favourable views of China’s contributions to international peace rise from 23 to 41 per cent, while views that Chinese foreign policy accounts for their country’s interests double from 22 to 44 per cent. In both categories, favourable views on America fall to almost exactly 50 per cent.

The American soft power vacuum

Evidently, Chinese soft power has not overtaken the American-led Western liberal order. Beyond the numbers, observers have pointed out that Chinese norms have failed to win over Taiwanese voters, control domestic unrest in Hong Kong, or quell widespread dissatisfaction with Xi Jinping’s zero-COVID policy.

But increasingly, America is also losing its grasp on the liberal norms it purports to champion. Last month, the ICJ issued an advisory ruling formally accusing Israel of apartheid, joining dozens of humanitarian and international law organisations in condemning one of our closest allies. The previous day, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been accused by the ICC of war crimes, received numerous standing ovations at a joint session of Congress. Though these institutions lack enforcement capacity, their rulings are hardly trivial; from anti-NATO protesters in Munich to pro-Palestinian protesters in the US, Western populations are growing weary.

The erosion of American soft power has raised concerns among our own foreign policy officials. Former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, lamented the “over militarisation of American foreign policy”, criticising the shrinking of USAID and the abolishment of the United States Information Agency (USIA). “If the United States wants to compete effectively with authoritarian governments, it will have to overhaul its public messaging,” he wrote. “The current effort is an embarrassment.”

Proxy war, proxy peace

On public diplomacy, America blinked, and in that moment, China seized an opportunity to take its place. Like it or not, it is now inevitable that competition with China will be as much about the strength of America’s reputation as the strength of its currencies or militaries.

As regional players begin to leverage this soft-power rivalry for peace deals once thought impossible, the future of this rivalry will be one of proxy peace, in which the leading superpowers compete for the reputational boon of being seen as the global mediator.

From the time of Oslo and Camp David to that of the Abraham Accords, the West appears to have given up on a diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet even in the absence of Western support, China’s regional ambitions led to an unexpected agreement between the Palestinian factions. And while Haniyeh may be dead, the peace process is not.

Regardless of individual peace plans falling through, proxy peacemaking can and will march forward with or without the US. After all, those suffering from decades of violence and mounting humanitarian crises do not care if mediation comes in Mandarin or English.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.