Ukrainian President Zelenskyy recently identified China as one of the few global actors with enough power and influence to help terminate the war with Russia. China’s peace proposals have garnered attention even in the Israel-Gaza conflict. With its growing influence in West Asia, some have gone so far as to call Beijing a relatively fair arbiter. These opinions reflect a growing perception of China as a prominent mediator in global conflict. While its interest in peacemaking initiatives are driven by economic and diplomatic considerations, as per its own political literature, Chinese civilisational notions that emphasise its “peaceful rise” can also help explain this interest.

What tools of mediation appear to set China apart from other traditional mediators? Are they indeed unique, as characterised?

China’s Approach to Mediation

China’s approach to mediation has characteristics that are distinct from the conventional, US-led, western mediation outlook. Certain values that China projects as central to its professed national ideology find their way into its position on mediation as well. Foremost among these is its emphasis on upholding the principles of sovereignty and non-interference. Sovereignty as an inviolable pillar draws from historical infringements on its own sovereignty and a general wariness about external interference in its controversial ‘domestic affairs’ like Hong Kong and Taiwan.

In this light, China’s own mediation efforts appear to suggest a facilitator role, in which internal stakeholders are encouraged to define their own peace. Beijing directs its efforts towards facilitating dialogue and using its influence to bring all groups to the negotiating table. In Afghanistan, for example, China focused mainly on diplomacy and enabling dialogue. This included stakeholders like the Taliban, whom China has had differences with. This method of enabling other countries and actors to determine their own fate differs from the US’ modus operandi in Afghanistan, which entailed military and domestic political involvement.

China also has a preference for high-level diplomacy. Further, it offers opportunities and incentives for economic development within its peace proposals. Its belief that poverty is the crux of all instability could be why it accounts for economic assistance in its conflict mediation approach. This can be seen in Mali, for example, where China focused on helping rebuild deteriorated infrastructure, standards of living, and Malian economic growth. This, too, is a shift from military combat, which the French have used in Mali since the 1960s.

Evaluating the Uniqueness of China’s Mediation Practice

While this approach to mediation—with ‘Chinese characteristics’—is different from other, more dominant approaches, it isn’t unique nor is it free of flaws. The values that China claims as part of its mediation practice are not exclusive to it. The centrality of sovereignty and non-interference are in fact embedded in the foreign policies of many countries of the Global South, particularly those that were once colonised. Prominently, India, too, has consistently upheld its commitment to sovereignty and territorial integrity, and promoted diplomacy and dialogue as the ideal pathway to conflict resolution.

China’s ability to mediate effectively is also a product of timing, i.e. the stage of conflict at which Beijing enters the negotiation. Take for example the highly publicised Saudi-Iran deal. While its success led to praise for Chinese diplomacy, it can’t be attributed to Beijing alone. Other actors, particularly Oman, put in several years of work that laid the foundations for the deal. The situation’s ripeness thus played a key role in enabling China’s efforts.

Countries in regions such as the Sahel and West Asia welcome Chinese mediation due to an absence of historical baggage and expectations of ‘true’ neutrality. On the flipside, this absence of historic interaction can also mean a lack of contextual and cultural understanding. The Chinese strategy of pushing development projects can backfire if it overlooks local conflict sensitivities. In 2007, the Ogaden National Liberation Front attacked a Chinese-run oil field in Ethiopia, killing 74 people and taking seven Chinese workers hostage. The group, which campaigns for the independence of ethnic Somalis, urged international oil companies to avoid agreements with the Ethiopian government, claiming it lacks effective control over the area. Similar attacks on Chinese investments have been common in Nigeria, highlighting the risks of sidelining local dynamics.

Conclusion

China has projected itself—and is being perceived—as an influential global power that offers alternatives to conventional peace mediation. Its rise as a mediator is marked by sovereignty-centric diplomacy, economic incentives, and high-level facilitation, contrasting with traditional US-led approaches. While these methods distinguish China, they are not unique to it. Many Global South countries share similar principles. As China refines its mediating role and practice, we wait to observe its evolving strategies.

Fiona Raval is Research Assistant with IPCS’ South East Asia Research Programme (SEARP).