While China has had mediated in the Saudi-Iran agreement that restored diplomatic relations between the twin rivals, here's an exploration, and summary, of some commentaries from prominent Chinese international relations academics.
Research fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS), Jin Liangxiang (金良祥), describes Iran’s easing of tensions with its neighbours as an “inevitable choice” (必然选择). Although the agreement took much of the world by surprise, the sense provided by most of these experts is that the reconciliation came as the result of a natural and inevitable process.
The rough consensus is that after years of exhausting tensions, Iran and Saudi Arabia have chosen peace and development over conflict. Liu Zhongmin (刘中民), director of the Middle East Institute at Shanghai International Studies University (SISU), identifies “stalemate” and “strategic overreach” (战略透支) as factors pushing Iran and Saudi Arabia towards the negotiating table. The trend in the Middle East, he claims, is toward better neighbourly relations, which he sees as part of an ongoing need for “internal development and external easing” (内求发展、外求缓和) in the Middle East.
Liu sees Saudi Arabia’s emphasis on “internal development” as practice of a lesson learned from the Arab Spring – that “the security of the regime comes from the performance of governance”. Pursuit of performance-based legitimacy and faith that “development is a master key to addressing all problems” is, of course, a core tenet of Chinese Communist Party philosophy.
Other opinated pieces are summarised below:
Most of the experts see the agreement as an inevitable outcome and in keeping with historical trends: Saudi Arabia and Iran have chosen development over conflict.
Many strike a note of caution, remarking that the Beijing-brokered agreement is only a first step.
The experts are in agreement that only China could have brokered this deal, largely because it is trusted by both sides in the conflict.
Naturally, a comparison is made with the US, which, according to these experts, has a record of interference and hegemonic bloc-building in the Middle East.
They claim that China sets the table for peace, while the US tries to set the agenda. China’s respect for countries’ autonomy and adherence to the principle of non-interference are distinguishing characteristics.
In line with official rhetoric, the experts largely see the Beijing-brokered agreement as proof that China’s “new model of diplomacy” works better than that of the US.
The experts do not focus so much on what the agreement means for US power in the Middle East, but they do note the reality of the USA’s decline in the region.
However, some of the authors hint that, if the peace agreement does not work out, we will know who to blame (the USA).
Some of the commentators accentuated details on the different approaches as undertaken by US hard geopolitics and China soft diplomacy style in mediation.
In a way, many an observer sees China as setting the table, rather than merely dishing out the agenda.
Referencing to the US-brokered ending the Bosnian war, Shen Yi describes US mediation as “coercive diplomacy” (胁迫式的协调). The US, he writes, does not care about the “free will” of these countries, but only retain to accept the US-set agenda within a given time frame.
It has to be said that non-interference is the primary principle as clearly articulated often in Chinese foreign policy rhetoric which is linked to China respect for countries’ autonomy.
One also need to express that this is often the characteristic of China soft diplomacy.
Therefore, it is unsurprising that successfully brokering of international interactions is often well executed.
As instances,
Fan Hongda (范鸿达), a professor at SISU’s Middle East Studies Institute, contrasts China’s approach to peace in the Middle East with that of the US. Fan claims that “one of the distinctive features of China's Middle East diplomacy,” is to oppose “interference” by other countries in Middle Eastern affairs and respect the “strategic autonomy of Middle Eastern countries.” The US interferes where it can and “unites with friendly countries to suppress others”, he says. The result can only ever be “continued confrontation”. Meanwhile, China’s successful mediation “shows that China's approach to the Middle East security conundrum has more merit”, Fan writes.
Official Chinese rhetoric emphasised Saudi and Iranian ownership of the deal and the commentators also celebrate the agreement as a success for Saudi Arabia and Iran’s strategic autonomy.
The Saudi-Iranian reconciliation towards a China-brokered mediation is definitely A new model of diplomacy
Shen Yi writes that tensions in the Middle East are the fault of the “old international political and economic order established by the USA and the West.” In response, says CASS researcher Zou Zhibo (邹治波), “China has created a new model of great power mediation.”
There are comparisons between the USA’s hegemonic impulses and China’s “win-win” style of diplomacy. All of them reference Xi Jinping’s Global Security Initiative and, although few explicitly draw the link between the Saudi-Iran deal and a potential Chinese-led solution to the war in Ukraine, most of them frame the agreement as proof that China’s model of diplomacy works better.
Renmin University’s Tian Wenlin (田文林) attributes these contrasting foreign policy styles to historical differences. China’s concept of "Tianxia", he writes, “emphasises cultural integration and mutual respect, rather than pursuing conquest and confrontation.”
Fan Hongda claims that China’s success in mediating the Saudi-Iran agreement will lead the world to “expect more from China as a mediator”, and that “in the spirit of the Global Security Initiative”, China will be making greater contributions to world peace.
This is firmly in line with the official framing of the agreement. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin calls the “Beijing dialogue” a “robust and successful effort to put the GSI into practice”. Again the GSI is defined by what it is not and with a nod to the USA. Wang remarks in the next breath, “tactics like ‘bolster one and bash the other’ or ‘divide and rule’ or ‘bloc confrontation' have never been proven to work on security issues.”
The Saudi-Iran agreement is resultant of endogenous processes. As such, with any successful negotiation, future administrative tasks and diplomatic activities to be followed up shall thus depend on both sides being ready to fulfill the agreement.
Related Readings: