A dual game by China

“China is trying to win the Geopolitical Chess Game without moving a single piece on Chess Board.”

The Central banks worry about another inflationary spike following 35% drop of traffic through the Red Sea-thanks to the Houthis attacks that have ruptured the world’s busiest and the most important shipping routes. Amidst this turbulence, four out of the five largest companies have decided to reroute their ships from the Red Sea to the Cape of Good Hope-leading to an addition of 3,200 miles with a delay of nine days at 15 knots from Asia to Europe. The addition of extra miles has not only delayed the delivery of products but escalated the costs of global shipping as well, leading to global inflation and spreading woe across the entire global community.

As the explosions of Houthi attacks echo through the shores of Red Sea, one question looms large; Why has China sealed her lips over the crisis despite being a significant player in the Red sea?

Houthis have claimed Israel and their supporters to be the legitimate targets in response to the Gaza genocide. Nevertheless, they have indiscriminately drawn everyone in the game putting global economy at stake. Although China has been exclusively shielded from the attacks, yet it suffers the economic repercussions as the different countries are shifting to the “near-shoring” approach in order to mitigate the impacts of disruption.  Beijing’s abstain from indulging into the matter despite these large economic repercussions has raised eye brows across the entire global community.

According to Pentagon’s 2023 China Military Power Report, People’s Liberation Army has the biggest navy in the world. On one side, U.S with only 293 ships has initiated Task Force to secure the passages of the Red Sea while on the other hand, China with a total of 370 ships, has not only abstained from indulging into the operation but also criticized this coalition as adding fuel to the fire.

Analysing the circumstances through the lens of hegemonic Stability Theory, Beijing’s muted response can be seen as a deliberate strategy with a goal to counterbalance America’s dominance in the region. China is actually playing a dual game to establish its own monopoly in the Red Sea fulfilling its aspirations of becoming the dominant power. On one side, it adheres to its policy of non-interference and does not get directly involved into the regional conflicts portraying itself as a peaceful nation. By doing this, China does not let its relations be exploited with Houthis and ensures a smooth flow of trade for the future.  Maintaining the diplomatic flexibility instead of expanding military presence, allows China to strengthen its ties with various regional players, including those that have an interest opposed to America.

“China is trying to win the Geopolitical Chess Game without moving a single piece on Chess Board.”

On the other side, China is acting as a free rider conserving its own resources while enjoying the security and stability maintained by the presence of American military. China’s restrained response can be seen as a strategic move to get America entangled in the regional conflicts leading to overextend of its resources and influence. Taking the pragmatic and cautious approach, China seeks to secure its economic interests while being neutral and avoids risks to its broader diplomatic goals.

Beijing’s non-interference stance stands in stark contrast to America’s historical and on-going interventions. This enhances China’s appeal to local governments as being wary of American interference. China cannot afford spoiling its relations with Iran as it not only secures its interests in the Red Sea but bolsters its geopolitical standing as well. Both countries have joined hands together by supporting Russia against Ukraine. The is one of the other reasons China maintains smooth relations with Iran as both countries have been collaborating to supress America by supporting Russia in the Russia Ukraine war.

Moreover, China garners global sympathy by using the rhetoric of Gaza genocide as the main cause of Houthi attacks, positioning itself as a human rights defender while subtly challenging American policies. This helps China create global pressure on America to cease its military actions in the Red Sea weakening latter’s influence and enhancing its own position as a dominant power.

But at the same time, China’s limited response to the crisis portrays its rhetorical posture of Global Security Initiative (GSI) as an empty slogan. By avoiding a clear declarative stance over the crisis, China positions itself as a less responsible actor as compared to America. The lack of actions, however, has exposed the limited capability of China and lack of interest in providing security and stability to the region. The crisis demonstrates that China prefers to rely on the help from other countries even if its own interests are at stake.

However this criticism has a little impact on China because U.S operation has created a win-win situation for it. If the operation gets successful, China would get its interests fulfilled by restoring smooth trade through the Red Sea while the opprobrium would be faced by U.K and U.S. If it fails, China would get a bigger share from the Red Sea as a reward for its compliance with Houthis during the crisis. The other shipping actors may face the threat of attacks or less economical route around Africa.