Why Did China Attend The Jeddah Ukraine Peace Plan Summit?
Theories are in short supply as to what the meeting achieved, but there are emerging pointers
There has been very little commentary about the outcomes of the Ukrainian Peace Summit organised by Saudi Arabia earlier this month. Senior officials from about 40 countries – but not Russia – met in Jeddah in an attempt to draft key principles on ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Eyebrows were raised at this as both Saudi Arabia, as hosts, and China have both been considered as friendly towards Russia. So – what actually happened?
The official participation of China’s representative Li Hui in these negotiations did not cause much excitement in the Chinese press. From the point of view of development and strengthening of cooperation between China and Russia, these steps are difficult to understand. But perhaps China has quite objective reasons for such steps, as did Li’s participation in the negotiations.
China’s official news agency Xinhua limited itself to a short comment: “Negotiations on the Ukraine crisis concluded in the Saudi Arabian city of Jeddah, where participants called for continued international efforts to create a common foundation for peace. Participants also stressed the importance of using the views and positive proposals presented during the two-day meeting. The meeting, chaired by Saudi Minister of State and National Security Adviser Musaad bin Mohammed Al Aiban, was attended by security advisers and representatives from more than 40 countries and international organisations, including China and the United Nations.”
So, what happened in Jeddah? The Wall Street Journal quoted Western diplomats as saying “One of the reasons for choosing Saudi Arabia to host this meeting was to persuade China to take part in these negotiations, since Saudi Arabia and China have a close relationship.”
However, according to the Chinese State Owned China.com, “The participation of Chinese representatives in the meeting is seen by some Western media as a diplomatic reward, but some analysts believe that this does not represent any change in China’s policy on the Ukrainian issue.”
Analysing the outcome of the meeting, Reuters quoted Sun Yong, director of the China program at the Stimson Centre, that China is committed to a peaceful settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, “but Beijing also knows that at this stage the West is unlikely to accept the peace initiative proposed by China… And participation in the meeting only shows that (China) is ready to listen and participate in the discussion. This in no way means that China agrees to anything.”
Ukrainian officials meanwhile said the conference venue was a victory for them and “completely destroyed Russia’s claim that Ukraine receives support only from Western countries.” In turn, according to China.com, Western diplomats stated that Beijing played a constructive role in the negotiations. At a meeting in Jeddah, Chinese representatives put forward a 12-point position on a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. The plan was first made public in February. suggesting that China’s position hasn’t altered but that changing circumstances on the ground in Ukraine might make the proposal increasingly feasible.
China.com quoted a French diplomat as saying: “Did this meeting create the necessary conditions for such negotiations? Obviously not. This is a long-term work.”
According to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin, China is ready to cooperate with the global community in order to continue playing a constructive role in finding a political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.
Russia’s Kommersant stated that “According to the participants of the consultations, there were few disagreements at the meeting in Jeddah, because the participants tried to be flexible.”
One of the manifestations of this flexibility, according to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, citing its own sources in the European Union, was that meetings in Saudi Arabia to resolve the conflict in Ukraine reached an agreement on respect for the integrity of Ukrainian territory. It was also decided to form working groups on key issues of the peace formula proposed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Statements were made that a meeting of the Heads of State to further discuss a Ukraine peace formula has not yet been determined, but it is likely that this will happen before the end of the year, although this also has not been mentioned in either the Russian and Chinese media. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
So the question still remains amongst all the quiet: What was this meeting? Another negotiation platform or something else?
There are US hawkish views that China is slowly aligning itself without Russia as part of a new world order, although to some extent this seems unlikely without provoking a conflict – China needs Russian energy.
On the other hand, alternative views have been expressed that the meetings in Jeddah were partially to establish what the West – and especially the United States – has in store as regards global dynamics. In presenting the event as a ‘peace plan’, strategic opinions become better understood. One element of these – off the Ukraine agenda – were side meetings that were apparently held as concerns the US intentions in Africa. In terms of delaying or disrupting challenges to perceived Western hegemony, attention was paid to the potential for Washington to become involved in creating a series of regional conflicts, and especially in Africa. It is useful to note that the Jeddah summit took place very soon after the Russia-Africa summit in St. Petersburg, an event in which Moscow apparently made significant progress with African ties.
Interestingly, after the Jeddah event, China’s Li reported back to his superior, the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Wang then called Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, to explain the position. Following that discussion, according to the Chinese foreign ministry, Lavrov told Wang that “Moscow agreed with China’s position paper on the political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis, and appreciates and welcomes China’s constructive role in this regard.”
But perhaps the reality is even more surprising. Statements made this week made by Stian Jenssen, the Head of the NATO Secretary-General’s Office, has suggested that Ukraine could potentially join the Alliance in exchange for its territory, saying “I think a possible solution for Ukraine could be to give up the territory in exchange for NATO membership. Ukraine should decide when and under what conditions it wants to negotiate.”
That was further clarified in comments he made to Norway’s VG newspaper, where Jenssen noted that discussions about Ukraine’s future NATO status after the conflict is over are already ongoing, and options including Kiev giving up parts of its territory. “I’m not saying it has to be exactly like that. But it can be a probable solution.”
Although Jenssen has since rolled back on that position, stating it was ‘a mistake’, this doesn’t mean the idea has been dropped. Similar conversations have been taking place in London.
Further comment from senior British political figures in Russian media have also been aired, with calls for a “new Helsinki” where participants look together with Russia for a means to end the various frozen conflicts and come to a detente where the Russian Federation would once again be seen as a valuable part of Europe.
In terms of Ukraine, there is opinion that the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, which are ethnically Russian and currently occupied by Russian forces, are subjected to a confirmatory referendum organised by agreement with Russia, monitored by UN and related forces, asking if they wish become part of the Russian Federation.
In fact, Russia held such a referendum in 2014, however this was declared illegal by both Ukraine and the EU and was not recognised. Over 90% of the residents had voted to return to Russian administration and to be considered part of Russia.
Additionally, it was mooted that Crimea should be recognised as vital to the security of Russia and remain as an Autonomous Republic within the Russian Federation.
If this came to pass, then a mutual pact involving both sides being given security guarantees would be desirable and possible. But it needs to be recognised that Germany is going to lead on these negotiations as far as Europe is concerned.
The interesting thing is that these opinions are being leaked – Jenssen’s statement about Ukrainian territory and conversations taking place in London. That isn’t by accident. Instead, following the Jeddah summit, it is more likely a quite deliberate ploy to place pressure on Zelensky to shift his position, and to begin to smooth the path for a gradual acceptance of a new Ukrainian reality.
That feeding into the Western media that Ukraine will ultimately have to concede will not go down well after 18 months of highly anti-Russian media sentiment. It will take some time for politicians to work out how to sell and explain such a deal. There will be more twists and turns and strange occurrences, claims, and counter-claims. But reading between the lines, either the Jeddah summit was a ruse to understand the United States overall Eurasian strategic viewpoint as a form of covert intelligence, or progress was made. The leaking of ideas concerning Ukraine’s future may be a pointer that eventually, a ‘New Helsinki’ is now more likely than not to happen.
Chris Devonshire-Ellis is the Chairman of Dezan Shira & Associates. He can be reached at asia@dezshira.com
Related Reading
