Pax Sinica vs Pax Americana

The term Pax Romana is often used for a two-century period that encapsulates the Roman Empire at its zenith. Literally translated as 'Roman peace,' contemporaries and Western imperialists it inspired hailed it as a glorious 'golden age,' marked by stability and prosperity.

Outside Rome, however, Pax Romana must have appeared anything but peaceful. For while peace and progress flourished in its heartland, these 200 years were marked by aggressive expansionism and fierce competition with neighboring polities and empires.

The optimism following the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War birthed what some see as another myth: the international community. As the world moved into a unipolar order dominated by the United States, the absence of another great rival suggested a convergence of nations toward harmony.

Yet, what seemed like the 'end of history,' as Francis Fukuyama termed it, revealed itself more as Pax Americana, evident through unilateral US military interventions. Like to Pax Romana's deceptive calm, the international community masked a grim reality—a world divided into 'haves and have nots,' perpetuating the dominance of the sole superpower.

No one has arguably summed the myth better than two American political thinkers. Ralph Nader called the international community “a term used by the powerful to refer to themselves.” Noam Chomsky viewed it as “a forum for powerful countries to impose their will on the weaker." However, nothing has exposed the myth of the international community more than two ongoing conflicts – in Gaza and Ukraine – and the bias the US and other Western governments have betrayed in their stance towards them.

Sympathy for Gaza

In Gaza’s case, especially, the US far from containing the conflict, has encourage Israel with cover and support, even as the world recoiled in horror at the brutalities inflicted on civilian Palestinians. When the UN General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire on October 27, the US sided with Israel in rejecting it. It exercised its veto a week before to strike down a similar resolution at the more powerful UN Security Council.

Invoking Israel’s right to self-defence, the language from Washington and Western capitals has been bellicose, highlighting the divisions that exist between the Global North and the Global South. The US has also matched that language with potentially destabilising actions, pledging to provide more of the guided missiles and bombs Israel has employed indiscriminately in Gaza.

It appears somehow fortunate that the world is moving towards multipolarity once more, as China takes a proactive role in global politics and conflict. On Gaza and Israel, Beijing’s stance has been consistently measured and cautious. Where US President Joe Biden ordered two carrier strike groups to the eastern Mediterranean, readied the deployment of 2,000 troops and visited Israel in person, China called for ceasefire and addressing the root of the conflict.

“The crux of the matter is that justice has not been done to the Palestinian people,” said China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, as he urged that the “collective punishment” of the Palestinians must come to an end. During China’s rotating UNSC presidency, resolution 2712 was adopted on November 15, calling for “urgent and extended” humanitarian corridors throughout Gaza “to save and protect civilian lives”.

This week, Beijing also issued its first formal position paper on the Israel-Gaza war, calling for a comprehensive ceasefire and a UN conference to draw up a road map for a two-state solution. Contrasting to the US veto, the five-point paper emphasised the “active and constructive role” the Security Council should play in resolving the Palestine question. In his congratulatory message to the UN, China’s President Xi Jinping also affirmed that his country would continue to uphold “justice and righteousness” on the question of Palestine and actively promote peace and dialogue.

A new Middle-East peacebroker

While it may appear so, China’s interest in resolving the Palestine question was not spurred by the October 7 actions of Hamas. Under Xi, as China evolves a vision of global harmony based on respect and non-interference between nations, Beijing has begun to seek a more proactive role in Middle Eastern conflicts.

In the case of Palestine, this was evident back in June, when Xi welcomed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to Beijing and invited Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu to visit. A month later, a spokesperson for a Chinese embassy said Beijing was ready to play a positive role in promoting peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

The optimism was spurred on by China’s role in the détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia in March. Seen by observers as a sign Beijing was supplanting waning US influence in the Middle East, the move spurred hopes in China and the region that the rapprochement would spur a “wave of reconciliation”. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia were invited to join BRICS in August, along with UAE and Egypt, signalling a pivot towards the Middle East based on that reconciliatory spirit.

Unlike the United States’ security-driven paradigms, China’s engagement in the Middle East is primarily structured around economic cooperation, according to analysts. It’s status as the world’s largest oil importer has deepened its trade ties with the Gulf, resulting in a slew of deals and investments across a wide range of sectors, from technology to stock markets.

Despite this increasing footprint in the Middle East, China has cautiously side-stepped the security realm. Under its policy of non-interference and peaceful coexistence, Beijing has tried to shape itself into a neutral actor, avoiding sides in Middle Eastern conflicts and disputes.

An article by New Lines Institute noted China’s nuanced stance in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, contrasting it with Washington’s more ‘assertive’ stance. It noted that Beijing chose to engage with both parties, refraining from an overtly adversarial posture towards Israel while advocating for a two-state resolution.

Live and let live

Discussing China’s more proactive global role in recent years in an interview with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, scholar Zhao Kejin noted that under Xi, the country had moved from looking at issues from a China-centric perspective. Instead, Beijing now sees them from a global angle and is willing to assume greater responsibility.

As it assumes this responsibility, however, China has followed an approach that can be summed up as ‘live and let live’. President Xi has outlined this approach in a series of speeches at various international forums.

At a UN conference marking his country’s 50-anniversary of joining the organisation, Xi underscored Beijing’s commitment to a world order defined by the pursuit of peace, democracy and human rights, and rejection of unilateralism and foreign interference. More recently, during his meeting with Biden in San Francisco, Xi called for rejecting the zero-sum mentality of provoking rivalry and confrontation, that could drive the world toward division. At a dialogue meeting between global political parties in Beijing, he introduced the Global Civilisation Initiative to encourage countries to “appreciate the perceptions of values by different civilisations and refrain from imposing their own values or models on others”.

While the US and its allies continue to view China’s moves with suspicion, this model of non-interference has won Beijing clout where Washington has lost. This is particularly true for developing nations, which Zhao noted, are a cornerstone of China’s foreign policy under Xi.

Researcher Andy Mok, quoted in an Al Jazeera article, noted China’s approach was “less defined by shared values and more defined by a shared future.” Where the US and other Western nations seek to modify countries’ behaviour by conditional engagement, China’s policy seeks to leverage development potential, he said.

Clout shift

Last month's meeting between Biden and Xi revealed a shift in the US's ability to mediate conflicts as it once could when the former urged the latter to use his influence to try to calm global tensions, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East. In particular, the US president asked his Chinese to pressure Iran not to widen the conflict between Israel and Hamas. He also pressed Xi to continue to withhold military support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Partisan stances on both fronts have eroded Washington’s clout outside its circle of allies, creating a credibility gap. Simultaneously, there's a noticeable reluctance in the US to engage in new conflicts after prolonged involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Support for military intervention and financial commitments is steadily waning among the American and broader Western public at a time when the conflict in Ukraine shows no signs of resolution and concerns mount about potential escalation in Gaza. Iran especially has been vocal on the latter, warning that the expansion of the scope of war in Gaza is ‘inevitable’ due to Israel’s heightened aggression.

China’s proactive approach to engaging with all involved parties has carved out a space that the US can no longer claim. While avoiding confrontation with Russia, Beijing has consistently reiterated its stance on the Ukraine conflict, advocating for peace talks. In April, President Xi held discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over the phone, shortly after a state visit to Russia. This conversation was followed by a diplomatic push to gather support for a peace process aimed at resolving the conflict.

While the Chinese proposal still has ground to cover, Europe at least seems to have acknowledged the effort. France’s foreign minister encouraged China to continue working on its Ukrainian peace proposal last month. “France underlines once again how its cooperation with China is essential to promote a just and lasting peace,” Catherine Colonna said following talks with her Chinese counterpart.

Whether this proposal or the one pertaining to Gaza bears the desire result remains anyone’s guess at this stage. What is clear, however, is that China's willingness to engage and mediate in these global conflicts marks a significant evolution in its role as a diplomatic force, potentially reshaping the dynamics of international relations. Beijing's choice to assert its position without isolating stakeholders has granted it a distinctive global standing, particularly in spheres where the United States now runs into constraints.