The military ability developments of the Houthis in the Red Sea and the US and British military strikes against the Iranian-backed group represent a real test of the basics of China’s influence in the Middle East. Despite its rejection of the Houthis’ destabilizing actions, China has a different interpretation of the US and its allies’ view of developments in the Red Sea region. For the Chinese leadership, refraining from supporting Western or coalition military operations is, so far, not a matter of military capabilities (given the proximity of the Chinese military base in Djibouti at Bab al-Mandab), but rather a matter of political will and a principle of support for the Palestinian. China’s failure to bring back a larger security role in the Middle East makes its ability to influence regional strategic trends, if the conflict escalates, is being very limited, while Chinese experts believe it may be the biggest victim of this development due to a fact that China is shareholder with Arabian countries.
The Houthi military escalation in the Red Sea against Israeli ships, those heading to Israeli ports, and other non-Israeli vessels, as well as the U.S. and U.K. military strikes on January 12 and subsequent attacks represent a true test of the basics of Chinese influence in the Middle East. The rush of the United States and its Western allies (except Bahrain) to form an “operational welfare protection” coalition to confront the Houthis is displaying Beijing’s dual policy on this escalation. The escalation reached a dangerous level, after the group targeted US and British warships with an attack involving eighteen drones, two cruise missiles and a ballistic missile, which were met without causing casualties, most likely causing further tension.
China’s stance on military tensions in the Red Sea
On December 10, China abstained from voting on UN Security Council Resolution 2772, which “strongly” condemned the Houthi attacks on Red Sea ships and called for an immediate halt.China’s envoy to the Security Council, Zhang Jun, explained China’s abstention, saying the resolution ignored comments from Beijing, Moscow and other countries and gave indirect legitimacy to the US-led maritime welfare coalition. It was also noteworthy that “Zhang” linked the escalation of the Red Sea to the ongoing war in Gaza, saying that the current turmoil in the Red Sea is one manifestation of the indirect effects of the conflict in Gaza. China’s abstention explains Beijing’s dual policy towards crises. On January 12, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Mao Ning called on all parties involved in the southern Red Sea conflict to “remain calm and protect themselves”. “The Red Sea region is an important international trade route for goods and energy. We hope that all parties concerned can play a constructive and responsible role in maintaining security and stability in the Red Sea, which is in line with the common interests of the international community,” he said.
Realistically, the possibility of limited proxy war seems most likely to be realized in the short to medium term. However, we must anticipate an escalation of the conflict and a change in Washington’s stance to expand military activity as the military escalates and the Houthis respond, especially if U.S. or British troops are harmed. The only development that may prevent this possibility from becoming a reality is Iran’s concrete reticence to expand the scope of the conflict. In any case, these strikes are not expected to be very effective, but their goal is more political, namely to maintain the role of the United States as a guarantor of regional security, and as a force capable of taking preventive measures, regardless of their impact.
