The ongoing Red Sea crisis, China and the United States, the world's two most powerful countries, seem to have chosen completely different ways to deal with it. The United States relies on its military presence in the Middle East to undermine the Houthis' ability to attack the Red Sea route through surgical strikes.
China, on the other hand, opposes a military solution, arguing that the Red Sea shipping crisis is the result of the spillover of the Gaza war, and at the same time using diplomatic mediation to reduce the impact of the crisis on China's interests. The Houthis, for example, have made it clear that they will not attack targets linked to China and Russia. However, in the past few days, the New York Times has condemned China for this, claiming that China is "indifferent and selfish".
In the eyes of the Americans, China, as the biggest beneficiary of smooth shipping in the Red Sea, refuses to contribute to the escort. China has a military base in Djibouti and is fully capable of sending ** to carry out escort operations. China has not come up with a viable alternative to U.S. strikes, and is content to sit idly by and make a veiled critique of the U.S. military response.
Americans also believe that China wants to ride the protection of American power for free, intending to have the best of both worlds. China's main goal is to distract the United States from Asia through the Red Sea crisis, to buy time for China to build up power in the Western Pacific, and to project itself as a benevolent power that does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. The New York Times claims that the United States must condemn China's inconsistencies and pressure China to start behaving like a responsible power.
This begs the question, does China's "indifference and selfishness" as described by the New York Times really exist? It can be said that it is complete nonsense.
First, in China's view, the U.S. surgical assault on the Houthis will not help resolve the crisis. The Houthis interfere with the security of the Red Sea route, mainly for the purpose of anti-Israel and anti-American, and they use asymmetric technical means. This, coupled with the fact that the actions of the United States and Britain are not authorized by the United Nations, also means that military strikes against the Houthis will not help resolve the crisis.
The current response strategy of the United States is nothing more than to show the status of a global hegemonic power, and it is the biggest selfish move in itself to conclude that even if the Red Sea route is interfered with, it will have little impact on the strategic interests of the United States.
Second, the fact that the Americans do not see it does not mean that China has not used diplomatic mediation to reduce the impact of the Red Sea shipping crisis, otherwise it would not be the current situation. The Houthis have adjusted their strategy to attack the Red Sea route, shouting "nothing to do with Israel" and allowing them to pass, which in itself is justified by China's mediation. In the future, there is a high probability that the Red Sea route will be targeted by the Houthis, only targets related to the United States, Britain and Israel.
Third, the United States actually rejects the participation of Chinese ships in escorting ships in the Red Sea, because this will establish the image of the PLA as a broad undertaking of world security obligations. China does not send ** to participate in the Red Sea escort, mainly because it does not want to stand directly opposite Iran and the Houthis, but it cannot be ruled out that China will participate in the escort operation independently in the future.
Regardless of the Americans' verbal accusations that China is unwilling to assume the responsibility of a superpower, they are actually more afraid of the Chinese Navy's participation in such an independent escort, because this will be one of the symbols of the PLA stepping onto the big stage of ensuring world security.
Fourth, the essence of the Red Sea shipping crisis is the spillover of the Gaza war, and China cannot easily list the Houthis as hostile targets if it does not support Israel's collective punishment of the people of Gaza. The Americans accuse China of being irresponsible, forgetting that only Britain and the United States have launched military strikes against the Houthis in the world, and America's European allies are also absent.
This also proves from one side that the United States and Britain favored Israel on the issue of the Gaza war and was the fundamental reason for their isolation in the "Guardian of Prosperity" operation. If nothing else, almost none of the Arab countries in the Middle East have agreed to allow the US military to use its own base to fight the Houthis.
It can be seen from the strange logic of the "New York Times" that the United States wants to throw the pressure of solving the Red Sea shipping crisis caused by the spillover of the Gaza War to China, the world's largest country. The U.S. media portrays the U.S. as the world's security defender, forgetting the root cause of the spillover of the Gaza war caused by the U.S. favoritism toward Israel, and even more forgetting the U.S. anti-Iranian foreign policy, which is the fundamental reason why the Houthis took the opportunity to attack in the Red Sea.
Will the Chinese Navy independently participate in the escort of shipping in the Red Sea? This is something to look forward to.
Project Sword