Why China should support Ukraine and condemn Russia’s aggression

China’s peace plan falsely implies both parties are equally at fault; if it sends weapons to Russia, it also risks making an enemy of Nato
Vitally, it is in Beijing’s interests to uphold the UN Charter and the sovereign rights of nations – which underlines its view that Taiwan is Chinese territory

Alexander Görlach

Published: 3:30am, 3 Mar 2023

Why you can trust SCMP

While in most capitals in the democratic world, calls for resilience prevailed at the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a representative study has found that large groups in China (42 per cent), India (54 per cent) and Turkey (48 per cent) wished for the war to end now, even if it meant Kyiv ceding territory to Moscow.

This split in opinion is the result of a year-long communication war on how to perceive the war and resolve it. In the wake of this interpretation controversy, China’s Communist Party published a peace proposal last Friday.

Unsurprisingly, the paper was criticised by Western governments. The main reason for this judgment stems from the paper itself: It invokes the UN charter, which gives prerogative to the inviolability of the sovereignty of nation states, and expresses the right of each state and its people to determine their destiny.

There is no doubt the Ukrainians did exactly that. It does not matter whether the leader of Russia agrees that Ukraine has a right to do so. Ukraine is a country recognised by the United Nations, hence the charter applies. So why would Beijing not support what it claims itself?

02:21

China releases 12-point position paper on 1-year anniversary of Russian invasion of Ukraine

The document issued by the China’s foreign ministry does not say that Russia invaded a sovereign nation in direct violation of the aforementioned treaty. Although it does not repeat Kremlin’s false accusations that Ukraine needs to be “de-Nazified”, it implies that Nato is to blame for the Russian war and makes it sounds like the Kremlin acted in self defence, rather than as an aggressor.

Only if one views Nato’s expansion through imperial policies that predate the UN might one feel it is right to invade a sovereign nation to emphasise one’s rejection of this country’s chosen path.

But this view, often abbreviated by the formula “might makes right”, is not reflective of the spirit and, more importantly, the legal framework of the international order established after the end of World War II.

It is this formula that also supports the view of the People’s Republic of China that Taiwan is a part of its territory. It would therefore be in the vital interest of Beijing, especially in case of a military escalation over the island, to assert Ukraine’s sovereignty now and thereby, at the same time, mark Russia as the transgressor it is.

All the more because when the war against Ukraine started, Nato membership for the former Soviet state was very much not in reach. Some in Beijing may have misinterpreted the situation and conflated economic and political engagement with the European Union with a membership in the transatlantic security alliance.

But they are not the same and do not come in a bundle. Further, Nato does not view China as a threat (language it reserves for Russia, while describing China as merely a “challenge”), unless China finds itself at war with America – an outcome that becomes more likely should Beijing decide to send weapons to the Russian army.

Given the state of the relationship with the US, if China had signalled a route to peace other than the one echoing the Kremlin’s view, it would have helped a great deal in repairing ties. But the closing of ranks between the US and China would first and foremost benefit the people in Ukraine, who have suffered the most from this war.

Washington has shared its intelligence that Beijing is contemplating sending lethal weapons to the battlefield. Not only would such an action be hypocritical – China condemns weapon deliveries by democratic nations to Kyiv – it would also prolong the war that China has said it is willing to help to end.

By sending weapons to Ukraine, countries are fulfilling their duty as laid out in the UN doctrine “Responsibility to Protect”, which demands that help be given to those attacked by other nations through no fault of their own. Bolstering the aggressor with weapons would be the sheer opposite.

And by asking Ukraine and Russia to come together and negotiate, suggesting a potential to cede territory that is illegally occupied, Beijing implies that both parties are equally at fault, equally to blame. This is not the case.

Dr Alexander Görlach is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in New York