Xi’s peacemaker pretensions

Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s sudden initiative in calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday after refusing to talk to him for more than a year was, according to the latter, “long and meaningful”. But if Beijing is to have any credibility as the peacemaker it claims it wants to be in the crisis, it has a lot of ground to make up. It needs to show it is more than Vladimir Putin’s close “no limits” ally in the Russian despot’s onslaught against Ukraine. So far, the signs that there may be more to Mr Xi’s initiative are not promising.

From the start of Mr Putin’s invasion, Beijing has behaved reprehensibly by refusing to utter a single word to condemn his lawless action. It has supported him at the UN, refusing to back resolutions that would have made life more difficult for him. It also has enhanced its economic ties with Moscow, stepping up energy imports that have provided the Kremlin with an economic lifeline, enabling it to circumvent Western sanctions.

Mr Xi was in Moscow last month in a brazen demonstration of public support for Mr Putin. Even as the Chinese leader was preparing to talk with Mr Zelensky on Wednesday, it emerged that Beijing’s new Defence Minister, Li Shangfu, had made Moscow his first port of call following his appointment. After holding talks aimed at enhancing bilateral military co-operation, China’s top military brass praised Mr Putin for “promoting world peace”. That is despite the fact he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes. In a war movie, it would be hard to believe.

It is no less hard to believe that according to the official Chinese printout of Mr Xi’s hour-long conversation with Mr Zelensky, the Chinese leader did not once mention the words Putin or Russia. There were, according to the printout, plenty of predictable, dubious assertions from Mr Xi about “China always standing for peace” and its “core stance” being to “facilitate talks for peace”. There was even a reference to “mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity” being “the political foundation of China-Ukraine relations”. But not a single word about Mr Putin’s lawless, unprovoked assault on the sovereignty of Ukraine and its people.

In light of Mr Xi’s perfidy and shameless lack of candour, it would be hard to lend much credibility to suggestions that following its brokering of a diplomatic peace deal between arch-enemies Saudi Arabia and Iran, Beijing is positioning itself to be the peacemaker in Ukraine. Mr Xi was right when he told Mr Zelensky that “talks and negotiation” were the “only way out of the war”. But that raises the question of why China has not acted sooner to make use of its position as virtually the only country able to exert the pressure needed to bring Mr Putin to his senses. Instead, Mr Xi’s public and private backing of the Russian dictator has encouraged Mr Putin to persist with his onslaught. During his conversation with Mr Zelensky, Mr Xi said he intended to send officials to Ukraine charged with brokering a peace deal. The Chinese leader needs to realise that doing so will get nowhere unless he is clear about the root cause of the crisis – Mr Putin’s unprovoked attack against the sovereignty of independent, democratic Ukraine. There can be no compromise on that point. As Mr Zelensky told Mr Xi in discussing “possible co-operation to reach a fair and sustainable peace for Ukraine”, peace “at the expense of territorial compromises (with Russia)” is not an option.

That is a reality China has failed to understand since the start of the conflict. Unless it does, it is unlikely to be able to play any effective role in trying to achieve peace. After 12 months of solid backing for Mr Putin and its refusal to talk to Mr Zelensky, Beijing has brought disgrace on itself. That will be amplified if, after breaking the ice with the Ukrainian leader, it still refuses to admit that blame for the war lies squarely with Mr Putin. Beijing’s pretensions about being a peacemaker depend on it doing so, not in playing the Russian tyrant’s cat’s paw.