China’s rise as a global powerhouse is undeniable, with some even predicting it will soon overtake the United States as the world’s leading force. But does its influence match the hype? In reality, China has so far played a strikingly passive role, both globally and regionally. Take the war in Ukraine, for instance: China chose to sit on the sidelines, issuing vague diplomatic statements. In the Middle East, particularly during the Gaza conflict, it has done little beyond calling for peace. The same was true after Israel’s strike on Iran last month. Therefore, is this silence a deliberate strategy to expand influence without confrontation, or does it signal an inability to lead? Put simply, is China’s restraint a strategic move to expand influence without direct confrontation, or does it reveal an inability to steer the global stage?

China’s Global Role in Perspective

Let us be clear: China has earned its place among the world’s great powers. According to 2024 reports from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, it is the second-largest economy and third-strongest military globally. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China extends its economic reach across over 140 countries, from Asia to Africa and Latin America, funding massive infrastructure projects. This strategy strengthens its grip on strategic regions, often by tying developing nations to loans and exporting its technology. Politically, China has made rare diplomatic moves, like brokering talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, but such instances are exceptions, not the norm.

Yet, despite its stature, China remains passive in many global crises, favoring silence or ambiguous statements over decisive action or direct intervention. This raises doubts about its leadership capacity. Take the Russia-Ukraine war since February 2022: China has abstained from UN Security Council votes condemning Russia or demanding its withdrawal. Instead, it has issued generic calls for “restraint” and “peaceful solutions” without proposing concrete mediation efforts.  A 2023 BBC report highlights how China avoids clear positions to keep ties with both the West and Russia intact. This passivity has led to perceptions of China as an ineffective player in managing European crises, undermining its credibility as a potential rival to U.S. global leadership.

Similarly, in the Gaza conflict since October 2023, China has stuck to broad statements supporting a “two-state solution” and urging ceasefires. Unlike Qatar or Egypt, it has not pursued mediation efforts or leveraged its Security Council influence to push binding resolutions. Even in global forums, it has avoided direct criticism of Israel or the U.S. to stay neutral. Despite its long-standing support for Palestine, China’s stance has not moved beyond rhetoric, drawing criticism in the Arab world for failing to back words with actions like funding reconstruction efforts or mediating. This has reinforced the perception among Arab states that China is a reliable economic partner but not a go-to player in political or military crises.

The same pattern emerged during the Israel-Iran clash in June 2025, where China limited itself to calls for calm without taking a firm stand. While it condemned Israel’s attacks, it avoided sharp criticism, despite deep economic ties with Iran, from which it imports roughly 90% of its oil exports. With 40-50% of its oil imports passing through the Strait of Hormuz, China merely urged stability when Iran threatened to close the strait, without pressing Tehran directly to prevent such a move. This passivity revealed the limits of China’s political and military sway in the Middle East, undermining its ambitions as a global mediator.

In Africa, too, China has stayed silent on conflicts in Sudan and tensions in Mali, despite significant economic investments there. Unlike Russia, it avoids taking sides or commenting. Nor has it proposed stabilizing initiatives in Sudan, where it is the largest foreign investor. This silence has led African nations to see China as incapable of handling security crises, pushing them instead to powers like Russia or France.

So, we come back to the core question: Is China’s quiet approach a sign of weakness or a clever strategy?

Passivity as a Strategic Play

China’s silence helps it avoid antagonizing major powers like the U.S. or regional players like Israel, Iran, or Turkey, letting it build wide-ranging ties. This is evident in its balanced relationships with Saudi Arabia and Iran, which paved the way for its 2023 mediation between them. During the Israel-Iran conflict, staying quiet preserved China’s economic links with Iran (a key oil source) and Gulf States like Saudi Arabia (where it invests heavily in projects like NEOM) without being dragged into the conflict. This neutrality put China as a trustworthy economic partner for all, unlike the U.S., whose overt support for Israel has alienated some Arab nations.

China relies heavily on soft power, with the Belt and Road Initiative as its cornerstone. By funding projects like Pakistan’s Gwadar Port or Kenya’s railways, alongside exporting Huawei’s 5G tech and drones, China creates economic reliance without needing political or military intervention. For example, while avoiding involvement in Mali and Sudan’s coups (2020-2023), China kept investing in their oil and infrastructure sectors ($6 billion in Sudan alone), boosting its influence without the burden of crisis management. This makes China a go-to partner for developing nations seeking alternatives to the West’s strict conditions, like those of the IMF. China’s 2016 Arab policy paper underscores this, stressing “mutual benefit” and cooperation.

Analysts often overlook a key point: China learns from the missteps of great powers. The U.S.’s costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (2001-2021), which burned trillions and tarnished its image, are a warning. China avoids risky military or political entanglements that could draw criticism or sanctions. For instance, abstaining from Security Council votes against Russia allowed China to expand trade with Moscow without facing Western sanctions.

This approach boosts China’s appeal in the developing world as an alternative to Western dominance, though it leaves questions about its leadership potential.

Passivity as a Sign of Political and Military Limits

Compared to the U.S., which has led globally since World War II, China lacks crisis-management experience. The U.S. dominates diplomatic backchannels, mediating conflicts from Egypt-Israel to recent Trump-led efforts between India-Pakistan and Iran-Israel. China’s diplomatic reach is thinner, with rare successes like the Saudi-Iran deal, which likely succeeded due to Saudi distrust in the Biden administration. When China has tried broader intervention, like its vague 12-point Ukraine peace plan, it failed due to its lack of clarity and failure to address military realities.

Militarily, China’s experience is limited compared to the U.S., which has fought major wars like Vietnam, the Gulf War, and Afghanistan, honing its operational skills. China’s last notable conflict was the brief 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. While it invests heavily in drones and cyber warfare, it lacks real-world experience in complex conflicts. The U.S. has a vast network of global bases for rapid deployment, while China relies on drills and limited overseas presence (a single base in Djibouti). A 2023 TRENDS Research & Advisory study notes that, despite economic growth, China trails Western powers in military expertise.

Domestic priorities like Taiwan and post-COVID economic recovery further limit China’s global reach. Taiwan is a strategic obsession, with vast resources devoted to naval drills and ballistic missile development amid U.S. tensions. This drains political and military capital, limiting China’s willingness to engage in distant crises like Ukraine or the Middle East. The post-COVID economy, slowed to 4.5% growth in 2024, faces real estate crises and rising unemployment, pushing China to focus on domestic stimulus over costly global ventures.

Despite its global presence, China avoids crisis leadership, leaning on allies like Russia or the UN. This hesitation leaves the stage to powers like the U.S. and Russia, undermining China’s credibility as a great power for now.

China’s Impact on the Global Landscape

China’s approach benefits developing nations, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, by offering investment without the West’s political strings. For instance, the IMF’s $8 billion loan to Egypt (2022-2024) demanded currency flotation, sparking inflation and public discontent. In contrast, China’s $20 billion investment in the Suez Canal Economic Zone by 2025 carries no such conditions. Militarily, its affordable Wing Loong drones give Saudi Arabia and the UAE cheaper alternatives to U.S. weapons. Politically, China’s neutrality makes it an appealing partner for countries like Egypt and Algeria seeking to diversify alliances.

However, this passivity undermines confidence in China’s ability to solve crises. Its absence from mediation in global or regional conflicts puts it behind the U.S., Europe, or even Turkey. Militarily, its limited presence forces countries to rely on the U.S. for security. For example, Egypt benefits from Chinese investment in the Suez Canal but depends on the U.S. for military and political support.

Future Outlook: Will China’s Passivity Change?

If China’s quiet stance is strategic, we might see it gradually step up, perhaps with a stronger military presence or bolder diplomacy. If it stems from incapacity, China may stay a dominant economic player but a secondary one in political and military crises. For now, nations should capitalize on China’s neutrality to advance their interests without fully tying themselves to it. China, in turn, needs clearer diplomatic and military moves to build credibility as a great power. Regional states should maximize Chinese investment while keeping security and political ties with the West.

Conclusion

China’s passive approach to global crises does not diminish its tangible influence today. Its silence may be a calculated move to dodge risks or a sign it is not yet ready to lead. Perhaps China knows its moment has not arrived and sees no need to rush. The U.S. itself rose slowly, avoiding wars and focusing on economic support for much of its rise. But the question remains: In a world racing toward multipolarity, especially in a volatile region like the Middle East that craves effective solutions, will China stay a quiet onlooker, or will it step boldly into shaping the future of global crises?

Nadhem Mahmoudi is a translator and interpreter with an MA in Translation and Interpreting, specializing in the linguistic impact of non-native English accents.