Yesterday’s air strikes drove a bigger wedge between the American and Chinese positions on Syria. Although China has eschewed military engagement and lacks political leverage over major players in Syria’s conflict, Beijing could do more to provide humanitarian aid. Playing a proactive role now would not only help the Syrian people, but would also help Beijing expand its global leadership on conflict management and alleviate concerns about its intentions.

Liu Jieyi (centre left), Permanent Representative of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, with Harald Braun, Permanent Representative of Germany, at the meeting.
Liu Jieyi (centre left), Permanent Representative of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, with Harald Braun, Permanent Representative of Germany, at the meeting. Photo Courtesy of U.N. Photo/Rick Bajornas

When then-President Barack Obama considered military action with his “red line” after a 2013 chemical attack by Bashar al-Assad’s forces, China cautioned against a direct strike. Unlike its view of Russia’s military intervention in Syria, which came at Assad’s request, Beijing sees a U.S. strike as a violation of Syria’s sovereignty.

Yet the horrific chemical attack earlier this week by forces backing Assad highlighted the immediate need for more concerted action—not just military strikes, but also increased diplomatic efforts and greater humanitarian assistance. 

Diplomatically, China has played a supporting role in the peace process, endorsing mediation efforts by United Nations envoys, participating in the Geneva negotiations, and hosting both Syrian government representatives and opposition groups in Beijing. China also is not insisting that Assad stay in power, and probably would accept any negotiated agreement between him and opposition groups backed by the international community.

In the aftermath of the U.S. strikes, China reiterated its calls for a political settlement, and expressed hope that “relevant parties stay calm, exercise restraint and avoid doing anything that might raise tensions.”

Yet Beijing’s influence remains limited, as China is not militarily involved and lacks leverage over any of those involved. Additionally, China’s six vetoes on U.N. resolutions on Syria—including blocking a February proposal to sanction the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons—have tarnished its image in the region and fed the perception that Beijing is protecting Assad. Chinese leaders are unlikely to change their stance at the U.N. Security Council now.

China does have financial resources it can bring to bear. In September 2016, China pledged $100 million in humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees and said a portion of the $1 billion China-U.N. Peace and Development Fund could go towards helping frontline countries like Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey tackle the refugee crisis.   

Beyond humanitarian aid, China also could provide economic assistance to stabilize areas as ISIS militants are expelled, but it would need to do so carefully. Giving aid directly to the Syrian government, as it did last month, rather than to the U.N. and other aid groups, only raises concern that the assistance will never reach the people who need it most. Further, some observers worry that China is more interested in cashing in on post-conflict infrastructure projects rather than addressing the current humanitarian crisis.

To maximize its positive impact, Beijing should invest more financial and diplomatic capital now to help refugees, assist in stabilization plans and deepen its commitment to the citizens of Syria.

Related Publications

South Sudan’s Pitfalls of Power Sharing

South Sudan’s Pitfalls of Power Sharing

Friday, February 16, 2018

By: USIP Staff; Susan Stigant; Aly Verjee

This week, a new proposal for a power sharing government was tabled at the ongoing Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) High Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF) peace talks for South Sudan. An earlier, 2015 peace deal also contained a formula for power sharing; that arrangement failed and the civil war re-ignited a year later. Power sharing arrangements are appropriate if certain conditions are met, but not enough has been done to ensure the latest proposal will overcome the obstacles present in South Sudan, according to Susan Stigant, USIP’s director for Africa programs and Aly Verjee, a visiting expert at USIP and a former senior advisor to the IGAD mediation, who comment on the proposal and suggest how it could be improved.

Democracy & Governance; Fragility and Resilience; Global Policy

To Stabilize Iraq After ISIS, Help Iraqis Reconcile

To Stabilize Iraq After ISIS, Help Iraqis Reconcile

Sunday, February 11, 2018

By: USIP Staff; Nancy Lindborg; Sarhang Hamasaeed

An international conference opens in Kuwait Monday to plan ways to rebuild Iraq and secure it against renewed extremist violence following the three-year war against ISIS. A USIP team just spent nine days in Iraq for talks with government and civil society leaders, part of the Institute’s years-long effort to help the country stabilize. The Kuwait conference will gather government, business and civil society leaders to consider a reconstruction that Iraq has said could cost $100 billion. USIP’s president, Nancy Lindborg, and Middle East program director, Sarhang Hamasaeed, say any realistic rebuilding plan must focus also on the divisions and grievances in Iraq that led to ISIS’ violence and that still exist.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Violent Extremism

Understanding China’s Response to the Rakhine Crisis

Understanding China’s Response to the Rakhine Crisis

Thursday, February 8, 2018

By: Adrienne Joy

Following attacks on police posts by an armed Rohingya militia in August 2017, reprisals by the Burmese government have precipitated a humanitarian crisis. More than six hundred thousand Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh, where they face an uncertain future. Publicly stating that the root cause of conflict in Rakhine is...

Global Policy

View All Publications