bill of rights institute essay contest 2023

Unable or Unwilling? The Self-Imposed Limits of Chinese Conflict Mediation — 2024 China Focus Essay Contest Jimmy Carter Winner

From Sciences Po Paris School of International Affairs & Peking University

Introduction

On March 10, 2023, the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement surprised international analysts, not least because it was announced in Beijing. This diplomatic achievement prompted the Chinese government to tout the effectiveness of its approach to conflict mediation, extending offers to broker peace from Ukraine to Palestine. However, in the year since, Chinese “12-point plans,” special envoys, and shuttle diplomacy have yet to contribute to ending the Russo-Ukrainian war. Meanwhile, any notion of a China-led “wave of reconciliation” sweeping across the Middle East has dissipated as the violence in Gaza threatens to escalate into regional war.

Many commentators have thus been quick to dismiss Chinese mediation’s effectiveness. However, this is missing the forest for the trees. Beijing’s conflict mediation strategy has, in reality, proven highly effective in achieving its primary objective: furthering Chinese interests at the lowest cost for Beijing. Amid the escalating China-US competition, this means promoting China’s role, values, and vision of the international order, particularly in the Global South.

While achieving Chinese interests sometimes coincides with securing a lasting settlement (as stability is good for business), Beijing is often unwilling to invest the resources necessary to negotiate and enforce a peace deal, especially once it has sufficiently achieved its own goals. Indeed, the limits on Chinese mediation appear self-imposed, rather than stemming from China’s diplomatic capacity or its fundamental foreign policy principles.

The Origins of Chinese Conflict Mediation

Examining China’s track record, even the origins of its role in international mediation are rooted in self-interest.

In the 2000s, Beijing’s “Go Out” policy propelled Chinese businesses to expand globally. Enticed by abundant resources and the absence of foreign competitors, numerous state-owned enterprises set up shop in weak states and pariah regimes across Africa and the Middle East. As economic engagement flourished, the Chinese economy grew increasingly reliant on the energy resources and raw materials of these countries, prompting Beijing to take a greater interest in their stability.

A prime example is Sudan, home to extensive Chinese oil investments, which at their peak in 2002 supplied over 8% of China’s energy imports. When war erupted in Darfur in 2003, Beijing not only blocked UN resolutions aimed at halting Omar al-Bashir’s campaign of ethnic cleansing, but even continued to sell arms to Khartoum. However, as international outrage mounted, fueling calls for humanitarian intervention that could threaten Chinese oil infrastructure, Beijing began abstaining from UN Security Council resolutions aimed at de-escalating the conflict.

Nevertheless, China remained indifferent to brokering an end to the violence in Sudan until the specter of a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics spurred the People’s Republic to begin engaging in mediation as well. With assistance from China’s first Special Envoy for African Affairs Liu Guijin, Sudan eventually agreed to the deployment of a joint UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. Despite operating with Sudan’s consent, Beijing’s actions demonstrate that, when its interests are on the line, China has the capacity to wield its influence to pressure other states.

Although China remained involved in Sudan, particularly to safeguard its oil investments in newly independent South Sudan, Beijing appeared to step back from international conflict mediation until 2013. That year marked the announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), aimed at promoting and formalizing a new wave of Chinese economic engagement, while projecting China as a rising and responsible global power. Given that Beijing’s renewed mediation efforts largely targeted South Asia, the Middle East, and East Africa—regions considered pivotal for the BRI’s connectivity goals—it is evident that China was interested in safeguarding its growing investments. The 2011 NATO-led military intervention in Libya likely catalyzed Beijing’s desire to play a more proactive diplomatic role, as the ensuing conflict not only paralyzed lucrative Chinese oil investments but also left tens of thousands of Chinese nationals stranded amid the unfolding civil war. This war shaped China’s approach to mediation during the BRI’s initial years as to prevent similar interventions from imperiling Chinese interests and nationals, as well as China-friendly regimes, Beijing barged its way into conflict mediation processes across the world.

Beyond ensuring that China’s position and interests were evident to all parties involved, this proactive diplomatic engagement had the added benefit of allowing Beijing to present itself as a reliable and responsible global stakeholder, particularly in contrast to the Trump administration. This newfound interest in promoting its global image and influence may explain why China intervened in high-profile crises where it had limited direct economic concerns, such as the Syrian Civil War and the Rohingya refugee crisis.

However, this period of Chinese mediation has also been characterized as largely ineffective. China’s one-size-fits-all approach, consisting of participating in high-level meetings with government officials, failed to yield any sustainable peace settlement.

This lackluster performance can mostly be attributed to Beijing’s tendency to exclude relevant non-state actors from peace processes. While China justifies this approach with the principle of “respect for state sovereignty,” a more plausible reason is that dealing with non-state actors is time and resource-intensive. Additionally, engaging solely with other governments is mostly sufficient to achieve China’s objectives of safeguarding its interests and enhancing its global standing, as only states can launch major military interventions, implement sanctions, and vote at the UN.

Nevertheless, this approach led to sidelined rebel and terrorist groups continuing to target Chinese projects and citizens in unstable areas like the Central African Republic and Balochistan. Furthermore, while Chinese mediation did help ensure the survival of pro-China authoritarian regimes in Syria and Myanmar, it did not significantly increase Beijing’s global standing. Indeed, although China did become increasingly recognized as an economic partner, its mediation track record failed to establish it as a credible political and security actor.

A “New Era” of Chinese Conflict Mediation?

Toward the latter part of the 2010s, China’s approach to conflict mediation underwent a noticeable shift due to three key factors. Firstly, as early as 2017, Chinese infrastructure financing under the umbrella of the BRI began to dwindle. What remained of Chinese financing steered clear of unstable and weak states due to mounting concerns over the risk of debt distress. Furthermore, with the decreasing number of Chinese workers overseas and Beijing prioritizing “small and beautiful” projects, safeguarding investments and nationals became a less pertinent issue for Chinese diplomacy.

Secondly, the rivalry between the US and China intensified. Following Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 US presidential elections, Washington recommitted to multilateral diplomacy and embarked on an effort to mobilize democracies, like-minded nations, and regional allies against Beijing. This prompted China to intensify its own diplomatic endeavors, with its rhetoric increasingly aimed at defaming the US.

Finally, the Chinese government became more open about its vision to reshape the international order, affirm itself as a premier world power, and create a “community of shared future.” To achieve this, China has begun establishing a growing number of new initiatives for promoting its values and norms around the world (e.g., Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, Global Civilization Initiative) and supporting the expansion of China-led regional organizations like the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Against this backdrop, China’s motivation for engaging in conflict mediation remains self-interest, though its main interest appears to have become undermining the US, while championing its worldview and global leadership. This is evident in China’s departure from prioritizing participation in established, predominantly Western-led international platforms. Instead, Beijing now favors establishing its own conferences, where it can assert itself without opposition.

A noteworthy example is the first Horn of Africa Peace, Good Governance and Development Conference, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in June 2022.

Safeguarding Chinese economic interests was not a significant factor behind this high-profile China-organized event. When war erupted between the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the Ethiopian federal government in November 2020, China’s initial response was not attempting to broker peace, but rather establishing a “security safeguarding mechanism” with Ethiopia to protect its investments. When Beijing began to engage in mediation efforts in early 2022, Chinese economic interests were secure, as the fighting had already died down.

Despite China’s considerable influence in the region—being a major economic and development partner for all the Horn’s states and having its only official overseas military base in Djibouti—brokering peace also did not seem to be a priority. Unlike Special Envoy Liu Guijin, Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa Xue Bing was not a seasoned diplomat with substantial African experience. His nomination likely reflects China’s reluctance to allocate sufficient resources to resolving the many border and security issues in the region. Even Xue himself stated that his discussions with African leaders “did not touch upon the mediation efforts and nobody raised this issue.”

Thus, while this conference did little to ease tensions in the Horn, where the specter of war looms as Ethiopia threatens to use force to secure access to the sea, it was effective in achieving Beijing’s primary goal: establishing a new China-led international forum in this strategic region for countering US influence. Through this platform, Beijing managed to legitimize the China-friendly Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, despite the US imposing sanctions on his government for engaging in a “pattern of gross violations of human rights.” Additionally, the high-visibility nature of this event showcased Beijing’s commitment to Global South countries being “masters of their own destiny.”

Unsuccessful or Successful, but Always Half-hearted

In February 2022, Beijing issued its 12-point position paper on reaching a “Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis.” Widely misconstrued as a peace plan, the document more aptly resembles a shopping list of principles and talking points, lacking a clear framework or concrete steps to resolve hostilities. Notably, it does not bind China to any commitments, demonstrating Beijing’s hesitance to involve itself in the conflict or assume the responsibility of brokering peace between the two sides.

Similarly to the Horn of Africa Peace Conference, the main objective of this position paper was to present China as a responsible power. Specifically, Beijing sought to mend its relations with European countries, avoid alienating Russia, and show Global South states its commitment to resolving a war that is causing them significant economic hardship.

Although the position paper faced criticism from Europeans, who interpreted Beijing’s failure to condemn Moscow or take tangible measures to hinder Russian aggression as “pro-Russian neutrality” and disregard for European security concerns, it garnered support across the Global South, which appreciated its condemnation of unilateral sanctions and “Cold War mentality.” Thus, despite Beijing not actively contributing to mediation efforts, the paper helped China achieve most of its goals, albeit failing to help bring peace to Ukraine.

Conversely, Chinese mediation was successful in ending the seven-year standoff between Iran and Saudi Arabia in March 2023. This reconciliation in a historically US-dominated region significantly enhanced Beijing’s global prestige. It also fostered stability in a region crucial for Chinese energy imports, while cementing the expansion of BRICS in the Middle East, reinforcing Chinese influence.

However, this diplomatic triumph cannot be solely credited to Chinese mediation. Similarly to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, Beijing did not exert much effort to broker peace. Analysts and journalists have noted that Tehran and Riyadh had shown willingness to set aside their rivalry for the sake of regional stability and economic development for quite some time. Moreover, Oman and Iraq played more prominent roles during the initial, more critical phase of mediation. China’s involvement only came in the final stages, likely at the behest of both parties, to offer additional assurance from outside the Middle East.

This trend of limited effort also extends to China’s response to the ongoing war in Gaza. Despite presenting several “X-point plans” to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 2002, maintaining cordial relations with both sides, and delivering strong rhetoric at the UN, Beijing has yet to take any tangible actions to halt the bloodshed, secure the release of Israeli hostages, or prevent a regional escalation. Instead, to bolster its influence in the Muslim and Arab world vis-à-vis the US, China has adopted a position described as “pro-Palestinian neutrality,” which includes not condemning or even naming Hamas.

An often-cited reason for China’s passive approach to conflict mediation is its alleged adherence to its core foreign policy principles, particularly the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,” which some argue limit its effectiveness as a mediator. However, as evidenced by its response to Darfur and Ukraine, China is willing to disregard principles like non-interference, respect of sovereignty, and territorial integrity when its own interests are in play. Moreover, Beijing has no qualms about leveraging its economic influence to compel actors to alter their policies, as demonstrated by its past imposition of punitive trade measures against Lithuania and Australia. In Myanmar, China even overcame its distaste for engaging with non-state actors when, in order to secure its border, it facilitated a (short-lived) ceasefire between the ruling military junta and a coalition of armed rebel groups.

Nevertheless, when China lacks vested interests, it exhibits minimal willingness to participate in mediation efforts. A stark illustration is its disinterest in the ongoing civil war and humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan. This significant reversal from its stance just fifteen years ago is due to the collapse of Chinese economic engagement after the independence of South Sudan, which resulted in Sudan losing most of its oil reserves.

Implications and Conclusion

In summary, Chinese conflict mediation efforts now appear less driven by economic interests—likely due to China’s growing economic self-sufficiency and diversification—and more by its interest to bolster its global standing vis-à-vis the US. While Chinese mediation can yield positive results, Beijing is reluctant to shoulder the costs required for securing a lasting resolution. As a result, China tends to favor flashy, superficial, cost-effective mediation efforts that elevate its role, narratives and values in the Global South, without committing to more substantive efforts that could genuinely resolve conflicts.

Despite this, China’s approach to conflict mediation has undeniably contributed to promoting its image across the Global South. Recent polls in the Middle East and Southeast Asia show a notable shift in public opinion favoring China over the US. Given the adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,”  is therefore probable that Beijing will maintain its mediation strategy, especially concerning the Russo-Ukrainian War and the conflict in Gaza.

While one can hope that Beijing might reassess its stance, other states could ensure that China’s interests align with more active engagement in conflict mediation. History shows that when faced with significant international pressure, China has acted against its immediate interests to uphold its global standing. For instance, threats of boycotts against the 2008 Beijing Olympics compelled China to pressure Sudan, while a unified stance from Arab, African, and Muslim states led Beijing to abstain from the UN Security Council resolution allowing the NATO-led military intervention against Libya.

Finally, if the US intends to counteract how Chinese mediation strengthens Beijing’s influence across the Global South, it must present a compelling alternative. The appeal of Chinese mediation lies in its purported potential for economic and development cooperation and its critique of Western hypocrisy. Hence, Washington’s mediation efforts should not only strive to be more effective but should also offer tangible trade and investment opportunities while avoiding double standards.

References:

Aboudouh, A. (2023, October 25). China’s approach to the war in Gaza is not anti-Israel. It’s designed to contain the US. Chatham House . https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/10/chinas-approach-war-gaza-not-anti-israel-its-designed-contain-us

AFP. (2023, April 18). China ready to broker Israel-Palestine peace talks, says foreign minister. The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/18/china-ready-to-broker-israel-palestine-peace-talks-says-foreign-minister

Allen-Ebrahimian, B. (2023, October 15). In claiming neutrality, China picks a side in Israel-Hamas war. Axios . https://www.axios.com/2023/10/15/china-israel-hamas-war

Bardhan, S. (2022, June 21). China aims for bigger role in Horn of Africa security . TRT World. https://www.trtworld.com/africa/china-aims-for-bigger-role-in-horn-of-africa-security-58190

Brender, F. (2024, April 26). Words Come Easy, Action Does Not: China in the Context of Sudan. The China-Global South Project . https://chinaglobalsouth.com/analysis/words-come-easy-action-does-not-china-in-the-context-of-sudan/

Burton, G. (2019). China and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Confluences Méditerranée , 109 (2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.3917/come.109.0147

CAR authorities accuse rebels of killing nine Chinese miners . (2023, April 19). Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/19/car-authorities-accuse-rebels-of-killing-nine-chinese-miners

China and Russia ‘arming’ Sudan. (2007, May 8). Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2007/5/8/china-and-russia-arming-sudan

China appoints special envoy for Horn of Africa affairs . (2022, February 8). People’s Daily Online. http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0223/c90000-9961688.html

China, Ethiopia ink accord on establishing security safeguarding mechanism for major projects under BRI . (2021, March 7). Xinhua. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-03/07/c_139792150.htm

China to send special envoy to mediate Ukraine crisis: Xi. (2023, April 26). Xinhua . https://english.news.cn/20230426/d538062bff0c40dea9daacc1434e3ae0/c.html

China-brokered Saudi-Iran deal driving ‘wave of reconciliation’, says Wang. (2023, August 21). Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/21/china-brokered-saudi-iran-deal-driving-wave-of-reconciliation-says-wang

ChinaMed Data—Sudan . (n.d.). ChinaMed. Retrieved April 25, 2024, from https://www.chinamed.it/chinamed-data/north-africa/sudan

Clark, N. (2023, April 6). The Rise and Fall of the BRI | Council on Foreign Relations . Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/rise-and-fall-bri

Contessi, N. P. (2010). Multilateralism, Intervention and Norm Contestation: China’s Stance on Darfur in the UN Security Council. Security Dialogue , 41 (3), 323–344.

Cutler, W., & Wester, S. (2024). Resilience & Resolve: Lessons from Lithuania’s Experience with Chinese Economic Coercion | Asia Society . Asia Society Policy Institute. https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/resilience-resolve-lessons-lithuanias-experience-chinese-economic-coercion

Economy, E. (2024, April 23). China’s Alternative Order. Foreign Affairs , 103 (3). https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/chinas-alternative-order-xi-jinping-elizabeth-economy

Esfandiary, D., & Jacobs, A. (2023, March 17). How Beijing Helped Riyadh and Tehran Reach a Detente . International Crisis Group. https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa-saudi-arabia-iran-china/how-beijing-helped-riyadh-and-tehran-reach-detente

French, H. W. (2024, September 10). Why Ukraine Is Not a Priority for the Global South. Foreign Policy . https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/19/unga-ukraine-zelensky-speech-russia-global-south-support/

Gabuev, A. (n.d.). Inside China’s Peace Plan for Ukraine. Carnegie Politika . Retrieved August 2, 2024, from https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2023/03/inside-chinas-peace-plan-for-ukraine?lang=en

Gering, T. (2023, September 7). China guiding the world; the Middle East is riding a wave of reconciliation but US power reserves are massive; Jews licking honey and making money [Substack newsletter]. Discourse Power . https://discoursepower.substack.com/p/china-guiding-the-world-the-middle

Ghiselli, A. (2022, April 5). Understanding China’s relations with the Middle East . https://eastasiaforum.org/2022/04/05/understanding-chinas-relations-with-the-middle-east/

Ghosh, B. (2023, March 23). Not Everyone Is Laughing Off Xi’s Plan for Peace in Ukraine. Bloomberg . https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-03-23/china-s-peace-plan-for-ukraine-not-everyone-is-laughing-it-off

Green, M. A. (2024, January 16). Debt Distress on the Road to “Belt and Road.” Stubborn Things | Wilson Center . https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/debt-distress-road-belt-and-road

Hillman, J., & Tippett, A. (2021, July 6). Who Built That? Labor and the Belt and Road Initiative. Council of Foreign Relations . https://www.cfr.org/blog/who-built-labor-and-belt-and-road-initiative

Hirsh, M. (2024, September 10). ‘America Is Back,’ Biden Says. Foreign Policy . https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/04/biden-foreign-policy-speech-america-is-back-diplomacy/

Hofmann, C., & Schneckener, U. (2011). Engaging non-state armed actors in state- and peace-building: Options and strategies. International Review of the Red Cross , 93 (883), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383112000148

Holslag, J. (2007). China’s Diplomatic Manoeuvring on the Question of Darfur. Journal of Contemporary China , 17 (54), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560701693088

Hussain, A. (2024, March 29). March of ‘terror’: Pakistan grapples with deadly attacks on China interests. Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/29/march-of-terror-pakistan-grapples-with-deadly-attacks-on-china-interests

Hussain, T. (2023, April 16). Oman looks to raise profile in Asia after role ending Saudi-Iran feud. South China Morning Post . https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3217161/oman-looks-raise-profile-asia-after-helping-saudi-arabia-and-iran-bury-hatchet

Kelecha, M. (2024, January 26). Ethiopia’s Red Sea gambit raises tensions in Horn of Africa. Africa at LSE . https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2024/01/26/ethiopias-red-sea-gambit-raises-tensions-in-horn-of-africa/

Kim, P. M., Dong, K., & Prytherch, M. (2024, January 22). Chinese narratives on the Israel-Hamas war. Brookings . https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinese-narratives-on-the-israel-hamas-war/

Kovrig, M. (2018, October 24). China Expands Its Peace and Security Footprint in Africa . International Crisis Group. https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/north-east-asia/china/china-expands-its-peace-and-security-footprint-africa

Large, D. (2008). China’s role in the mediation and resolution of conflict in Africa . 35–41. https://www.hdcentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/20DanLargeChinainAfricaWEB-June-2008.pdf

Legarda, H. (2018, August 22). China as a conflict mediator | Maintaining stability along the Belt and Road . MERICS. https://merics.org/en/comment/china-conflict-mediator

Li, J. (2019, August 27). Conflict Mediation with Chinese Characteristics: How China Justifies Its Non-Interference Policy. Stimson Center . https://www.stimson.org/2019/conflict-mediation-chinese-characteristics-how-china-justifies-its-non-interference-policy/

Lidarev, I. (2023, June 24). China’s Ukraine peacemaking aims to court Europe. East Asia Forum . https://eastasiaforum.org/2023/06/24/chinas-ukraine-peacemaking-aims-to-court-europe/

Mamouri, A. (2023, March 18). Explainer: How Iraq planted the seeds for China’s Saudi-Iran deal . Al-Monitor. https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/03/explainer-how-iraq-planted-seeds-chinas-saudi-iran-deal

Marks, J. (2022, March 25). China’s Evolving Conflict Mediation in the Middle East . Middle East Institute. https://www.mei.edu/publications/chinas-evolving-conflict-mediation-middle-east

McGregor, R. (2022, October 20). Chinese coercion, Australian resilience | Lowy Institute . Lowy Institute. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/chinese-coercion-australian-resilience

Moradi Afrapoli, E., & Dashtgard, M. (2023, November 14). Why China Has Not Condemned the Hamas Attack on Israel • Stimson Center. Stimson Center . https://www.stimson.org/2023/why-china-has-not-condemned-the-hamas-attack-on-israel/

Murphy, D. C. (2023, April 14). The Deep Foundations of China’s Mediator Role in the Middle East . Australian Institute of International Affairs. https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/the-deep-foundations-of-chinas-mediator-role-in-the-middle-east/

Nantulya, P. (2022, October 12). China’s Conflict Mediation as Power Politics. Africa Center for Strategic Studies . https://africacenter.org/spotlight/china-diplomacy-horn-conflict-mediation-power-politics/

Nyabiage, J. (2022, June 21). China’s Horn of Africa envoy offers to mediate regional disputes. South China Morning Post . https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3182442/chinas-horn-africa-envoy-tells-regional-peace-conference-he

Polgreen, L. (2008, February 23). China, in New Role, Presses Sudan on Darfur. The New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/world/africa/23darfur.html

Scam Centres and Ceasefires: China-Myanmar Ties Since the Coup | Crisis Group (No. 179; Crisis Group Asia Briefing). (2024). International Crisis Group. https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/north-east-asia/china-myanmar/b179-scam-centres-and-ceasefires-china-myanmar-ties-coup

Schiavi, F. S. (2023, March 16). Is China’s Iran-Saudi Deal a Step Towards Peace in the Middle East? ISPI . https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/is-chinas-iran-saudi-deal-a-step-towards-peace-in-the-middle-east-121510

Seah, S., Lin, J., Martinus, M., Fong, K., Aridati, I., Thao, P. T. P., & Chee, D. (2024). The State of Southeast Asia 2024 Survey . ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/centres/asean-studies-centre/state-of-southeast-asia-survey/the-state-of-southeast-asia-2024-survey-report/

Seiwert, E. (2023, June 22). Why China Is an Unlikely Mediator in the Russia-Ukraine War . ISPI. https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/why-china-is-an-unlikely-mediator-in-the-russia-ukraine-war-133260

Soliman, A., & Lannaud, E. (2024, April 4). Securitizing the Ethiopia–Sudan border: How cross-border conflict is shaping trade and the control of land. Chatham House . https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/04/securitizing-ethiopia-sudan-border-how-cross-border-conflict-shaping-trade-and-control-land

Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa Affairs of the Foreign Ministry Xue Bing Attends the Horn of Africa Peace Conference . (2022, June 22). Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Montenegro. http://me.china-embassy.gov.cn/mon/wjbxw/202206/t20220623_10708778.htm

Sun, D., & Zoubir, Y. (2018). China’s Participation in Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa: A Case of Quasi-Mediation Diplomacy? Journal of Contemporary China , 27 (110), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2018.1389019

Sun, Y. (2020, August 14). China and South Asia Crisis Management in the Era of Great Power Competition • Stimson Center. Stimson Center . https://www.stimson.org/2020/china-and-south-asia-crisis-management-in-the-era-of-great-power-competition/

Tesfaye, A. (2019, September 20). China-Ethiopia Relations and the Horn of Africa. ISPI . https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/china-ethiopia-relations-and-horn-africa-23968

The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence Stand Stronger . (2014, June 29). Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Islamic Republic of Iran. http://ir.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/dtxw/201407/t20140702_1894012.htm#%3A~%3Atext%3DThe%20Five%20Principles%20of%20Peaceful%20Co%2DExistence%20are%3A%20mutual%20respect%2Cmutual%20benefit%2C%20and%20peaceful%20coexistence

Tiezzi, S. (2014, June 6). In South Sudan Conflict, China Tests Its Mediation Skills. The Diplomat . https://thediplomat.com/2014/06/in-south-sudan-conflict-china-tests-its-mediation-skills/

van der Kley, D. (2021, May 11). Do Belt and Road projects provide local benefits? The Interpreter – Lowy Institute . https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/do-belt-road-projects-provide-local-benefits

Wang, Y. (2024, January 9). The Facilitation of the Reconciliation Between Saudi Arabia and Iran Sets a New Example of Political Settlement of Hotspot Issues . Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Republic of Indonesia. http://id.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/xwdt/202403/t20240319_11262331.htm

Webster, J. (2023, November 23). The West Shouldn’t Forget China’s Pro-Russia Neutrality. The Diplomat . https://thediplomat.com/2023/11/the-west-shouldnt-forget-chinas-pro-russia-neutrality/

Wendel, S. (2024, April 8). Al-Monitor/Premise poll finds Biden’s unpopularity in Mideast makes room for China, Russia to outshine US – Al-Monitor: The Middle Eastʼs leading independent news source since 2012 . Al-Monitor. https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2024/04/al-monitorpremise-poll-finds-bidens-unpopularity-mideast-makes-room-china-russia

Widdersheim, N. (2023, July 20). Why Say Who Did What? The Ethiopia Case and the Power of US Atrocity Determinations | Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch . https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/20/why-say-who-did-what-ethiopia-case-and-power-us-atrocity-determinations

Xue, Y. (2024, April 16). China’s energy trade with Middle East to surge in light of Iran-Saudi deal: UBS. South China Morning Post . https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3259077/chinas-energy-trade-middle-east-set-surge-beijing-brokered-last-years-iran-saudi-deal-says-ubs

Yager, S. (2024, February 8). How to End America’s Hypocrisy on Gaza | Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch . https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/08/how-end-americas-hypocrisy-gaza

Yu, Y. (2022, May 24). Making the Belt and Road Initiative ‘small and beautiful.’ East Asia Forum . https://eastasiaforum.org/2022/05/24/making-the-belt-and-road-initiative-small-and-beautiful/

• Latest Posts

Leonardo Bruni

Latest posts by leonardo bruni ( see all ).

• Unable or Unwilling? The Self-Imposed Limits of Chinese Conflict Mediation — 2024 China Focus Essay Contest Jimmy Carter Winner - August 15, 2024

Start typing and press Enter to search

Latah County Human Rights Task Force

Strengthening the bonds of community to embrace diversity and reject bigotry..

Art and Essay Contest

Each year a topic concerning human rights is chosen with grade-specific contest parameters.  The information below is provided for the 2023-24 contest.

LATAH COUNTY HUMAN RIGHTS TASK FORCE 2023-24 MARTIN LUTHER KING ART AND ESSAY CONTEST THEME: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND OUR LIBRARIES

The Nixon-Khrushchev Kitchen Debate

Written by: john e. moser, ashland university, by the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the continuities and changes in Cold War policies from 1945 to 1980

Suggested Sequencing

Use this narrative with the Richard Nixon, “Checkers” Speech, September 1952 Primary Source and the Kennedy vs. Nixon: TV and Politics Lesson to have students analyze the impact television made on the perception of politics in the 1950s and 1960s.

On July 24, 1959, at Sokolniki Park in Moscow, a remarkable exchange took place between two of the most powerful men in the world: Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and U.S. Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Standing in a model of a typical U.S. home, the two leaders debated the relative merits of communism and capitalism, with video cameras capturing the event in color for rebroadcast in both the United States and the Soviet Union.

The “Kitchen Debate” had its origins in an agreement signed by Washington and Moscow the previous year. In it, each side pledged to construct an exhibit in the other’s country for the purpose of educating the population about what life was like in that country. The exercise was supposed to be part of a cultural exchange that would create mutual understanding and decrease Cold War tensions. A Soviet exhibit opened in New York in June 1959, and in the following month, Nixon traveled to the Soviet Union to be on hand for the opening of the U.S. exhibit in Moscow. That exhibit featured displays of consumer goods made by some 450 different companies, but the most memorable exchanges between Khrushchev and Nixon came in a model of a suburban home equipped with the latest modern conveniences, such as a dishwasher, refrigerator, and electric stove.

Soviet citizens toured the American exhibit at Sokolniki Park, Moscow, in 1959.

The encounter between the two men began in the Kremlin. Khrushchev hammered Nixon over a resolution just passed in the U.S. Congress recognizing the third week of July as “Captive Nations Week” and calling attention to the plight of the millions in Asia and Eastern Europe living under Communist rule. From there, the heated discussion continued at the exhibit, where Nixon took the opportunity to show off the standard of living available to ordinary Americans under capitalism. In the course of the so-called Kitchen Debate, the vice president emphasized that the model home and all the technological wonders within could be purchased for only approximately $14,000, well within the means of the average working family.

Khrushchev did not seem impressed. On the one hand, he appeared to question whether all the new devices were necessary, asking sarcastically whether American families had a machine that “puts food into the mouth and pushes it down.” He claimed that Soviet workers had access to products that were as good or better. Any Soviet citizen, he asserted, qualified for a house simply by being born in the U.S.S.R. Moreover, whereas U.S. builders designed homes to last no more than 20 years – so they “could sell new houses at the end” – Soviet homes were built “for our children and grandchildren.” Whatever they may lack now, Khrushchev assured Nixon, they would have in the near future.

“This is what America is capable of,” he quipped, “and how long has she existed? 300 years? 150 years of independence and this is her level. We haven’t quite reached 42 years, and in another 7 years, we’ll be at the level of America, and after that we’ll go farther. As we pass you by, we’ll wave ‘hi’ to you, and then if you want, we’ll stop and say, ‘please come along behind us'”.

Nikita Khrushchev (left) and Richard Nixon (right) traded insults during the Kitchen Debate in July 1959.

Undoubtedly, the exchange between Khrushchev and Nixon became testy at times, but in many ways, the debate represented a healthy development in U.S.-Soviet relations. Each thought he had accurately portrayed the strength of the system he represented and won the debate. Before parting company, the two men agreed that their conversation would be aired on television in both countries, with their words translated into one another’s languages. Afterward, Nixon and Khrushchev headed to the Soviet leader’s personal residence, where they continued their discussions for another five hours, though the nature of those conversations was never made public. Building on the spirit of relative harmony, in September, Khrushchev became the first Soviet premier to visit the United States. He spent 12 days touring the country and meeting with President Eisenhower as well as other U.S. political figures, business leaders, and even celebrities, such as the singer Frank Sinatra and the actors Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe.

That the debate occurred at all was noteworthy in itself. It certainly would never have been possible just a few years earlier, when Joseph Stalin ruled the Soviet Union and U.S. forces were fighting against Soviet-backed Chinese and North Korean troops in Korea. But it was also striking that in their conversation, neither man sought to prove the superiority of his social system by pointing to numbers or types of weapons systems such as bombers or tanks, or the amount of land under his respective government’s control. Instead, each leader insisted that his country’s way of life was better able to provide for the well-being of ordinary citizens.

The Kitchen Debate was aired on U.S. television on July 25 and on Soviet television two days later (although it was shown late at night in the Soviet Union, and with Nixon’s comments only partially translated). The reaction in the United States was mixed. The New York Times dismissed it as little more than a political stunt by Nixon. However, it is likely that it gave a boost to Nixon’s popularity, making him a more credible contender for the Republican nomination in the upcoming presidential election. As Time magazine put it, “Nixon was getting through to the Russian people with a message that told of a man, a system, and a country dedicated not to war, as Communist propaganda had insisted, but to prosperity and peace.” Most importantly, however, the debate demonstrated that the Cold War had moved into a new phase, one characterized less by the threat of looming military conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, and more by a contest to win over the people of the developing world.

Review Questions

1. The discussions between Nixon and Khrushchev in July 1959 are often referred to as the “Kitchen Debate” because they

• took place in the kitchen of a model U.S. home in Moscow
• occurred in the kitchen of the White House
• were held in the home of the British historian Martin Kitchen
• happened in the kitchen of Khrushchev’s country estate

2. The main purpose of Nixon’s visit to the Soviet Union in July 1959 was

• a secret mission to negotiate the presence of Soviet forces in Cuba
• a diplomatic mission to encourage Khrushchev to sign a trade pact with the United States
• the opening of the U.S. exhibit in Sokolniki Park in Moscow
• an invitation to Khrushchev to visit the United States

3. The primary focus of Nixon’s discussions with Khrushchev in July 1959 was

• the balance of military forces in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact
• Karl Marx’s theories on the exploitation of the working class
• the upcoming presidential election in 1960
• the question whether capitalism or communism better satisfied the material needs of ordinary laborers

4. At the start of the “debate” with Vice President Richard Nixon, Nikita Khrushchev expressed his anger at

• the obviously phony American technology in the model home display
• American aggression toward Eastern Europe
• Congress’s passage of a resolution recognizing “Captive Nations Week”
• the realization that American technology for the home was superior to Soviet technology

5. In the ongoing debate between Nixon and Khrushchev, the main topic of conversation was the superiority of each side’s

• nuclear capability
• education system
• ability to provide for ordinary citizens
• space program

6. The American press concluded that a major outcome of the Kitchen Debate was that the Cold War was becoming more of a(n)

• “hot war”
• attempt by both sides to win over the people of the developing world
• propaganda ploy by the Soviet Union to persuade Western Europe to join its allies
• battle of wits in the United Nations

Free Response Questions

• Describe the significance of the so-called Kitchen Debate.
• Describe Khrushchev’s response to Nixon’s claims that capitalism provided more material benefits to ordinary workers.

AP Practice Questions

“But the day was highlighted by the sharp informal exchanges that took place between Mr. Nixon and Mr. Khrushchev. The exchanges started in Mr. Khrushchev’s quiet offices in the Presidium Building of the Kremlin. They reached a high point in an hour-long debate in the kitchen of a model house at the exhibition, and they wound up with laughs, finger-shakings and more argument at the formal opening of the exhibition. In the course of the discussion, Mr. Khrushchev accused Mr. Nixon of trying indirectly to threaten the Soviet Union. Mr. Nixon rejoined that Mr. Khrushchev, by saying that the Soviet Union had better weapons than the United States, was also making an indirect threat. But both agreed that each nation wants peace. Mr. Nixon appealed to Mr. Khrushchev not to let the Big Four Geneva conference of foreign ministers on Germany end in failure. He said it was now stalemated and that a way must be found to get it moving toward a solution. Mr. Khrushchev agreed. Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Nixon debated with strong words and forceful arguments. But their talk was straightforward and there was no hint of ill feeling in their fast and furious interchanges.”

Harrison E. Salisbury, “Nixon and Khrushchev Argue In Public As U.S. Exhibit Opens; Accuse Each Other Of Threats”

1. This excerpt can be placed in which of the following contexts?

• The outcome of World War II
• The struggle of the Cold War
• The Space Race
• Soviet support of the Communists in China

2. A source of tension between the United States and Soviet Union that immediately preceded the event described in the excerpt was the

• Chinese Revolution
• Soviet launch of Sputnik
• Soviet explosion of an atomic weapon

3. How do the sentiments about U.S. foreign policy in the 1950s expressed in the excerpt compare with those in the late nineteenth century?

• U.S. foreign policy in the nineteenth century favored neutrality
• The United States’ chief rival in the nineteenth-century was France
• In the nineteenth century, the United States was concerned only with recovering from the Civil War
• The nineteenth-century United States wanted to be the “policeman” of the Caribbean

Primary Sources

“The Kitchen Debate.” News report. July 24, 1959. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/kitchen-debate

“The Kitchen Debate. Nikita Krushchev, Richard Nixon, July 25, 1959.” http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-kitchen-debate/

Suggested Resources

Belmonte, Laura A. Selling the American Way: U.S. Propaganda and the Cold War . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010.

Philips, Sarah T., and Shane Hamilton. The Kitchen Debate and Cold War Consumer Politics: A Brief History with Documents . New York: Macmillan, 2014.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.