China’s disinterest in Red Sea policing role underscores Beijing’s reluctance to back its rhetoric on Middle East peace with substantive action.

China’s disinterest in Red Sea policing role underscores Beijing’s reluctance to back its rhetoric on Middle East peace with substantive action.

The Chinese government appears to be brushing off Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s call for Beijing to assist an international coalition in protecting commercial shipping in the Red Sea from Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militias.

Beijing signaled that it has no interest in joining the Pentagon’s Operation Prosperity Guardian , a multinational force including Canada, the United Kingdom and Bahrain, in providing security for cargo ships under threat of Houthi attack.

“We believe relevant parties, especially major countries with influence, need to play a constructive and responsible role in keeping the shipping lanes safe in the Red Sea,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said on Thursday in an indirect reference to U.S. military and diplomatic heft in the region.

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
    93·
    11 months ago

    If you believe China’s reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it’s improbable,

    Yeah that’s true. I meant: The US has no grounds asking China for help with “maintaining peace in the Middle East”. I’m more objecting to the article’s way of putting it, like it does here

    China’s disinterest in Red Sea policing role underscores Beijing’s reluctance to back its rhetoric on Middle East peace with substantive action.

    While I definitely don’t like China, “help us protect our genocidal ally from the consequences of their actions” isn’t something I’d expect or want them to agree to, either.

    There’s no geopolitical or moral reason for China to step out of its yard, so to speak, is what I meant.

    • test113@lemmy.worldEnglish
      75·
      11 months ago

      Apologies for the misunderstandin of your statement. My bad.

      Why do you think China, one of the main trading partners with the West, should not be expected to participate in securing a primary trading route, especially after expressing a desire to play a more proactive role in securing the Middle East?

      Certainly, the recent surge in attacks stems from the Israel/Palestine conflict. While one could argue that we all bear some responsibility for reaching this point, the attacks on trading routes are carried out by a third party financially backed by another entity, mainly Iran. These attacks, though related to the conflict, involve non-direct participants, including the ships they target. This categorizes them plainly as terror attacks on a trading route, and there’s no need to let it escalate or reach a point where other uninvolved groups might be tempted to join in.

      I agree; China’s best move for now would be to sit and wait, maintaining distance. It gives them more breathing room. China, especially the CCP, has its interests in mind and isn’t particularly interested in helping causes that don’t further their goals. More “chaos” in the Middle East is something CCP leaders would likely appreciate.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
        31·
        11 months ago

        Why do you think China, one of the main trading partners with the West, should not be expected to participate in securing a primary trading route, especially after expressing a desire to play a more proactive role in securing the Middle East?

        These attacks, though related to the conflict, involve non-direct participants, including the ships they target.

        These attacks were made with the stated intent of stopping international shipping from reaching Israel. Basically a DIY sea blockade in response to the war in Gaza. The only sane response to America’s request here is “clean up your own mess”, which is what China did. That’s what I’m saying: This is Israel, and therefore America’s, mess.

        • test113@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          11 months ago

          I get your point and understand where you’re coming from. I think you’re right from a certain perspective.

          But I want to add that it doesn’t matter that they declared they want to stop shipping to Israel; if the entire trade route is affected, it’s just terrorism, plain and simple. Securing vital trade routes and sending a clear signal that this conflict won’t spiral is crucial for stability.

          Also, this is an international issue (trade route security), not purely an American one. While the U.S. could handle it easily by themselves, it would lead to more significant problems and conflicts in the long run.

          I just believe inclusivity is always better than exclusivity.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.worldEnglish
      42·
      11 months ago

      There’s no geopolitical or moral reason for China to step out of its yard, so to speak, is what I meant.

      It’s one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, which China uses to send its goods to the West. I feel like protecting that major trade route would be a geopolitical reason for China to step up. I get that they are currently targeting Israel’s allies in the attacks, but sometimes mistakes happen and sometimes rebel groups don’t share the same goals as their financial backers.