The repercussions of the signing of the ‘Beijing Dialogue’ by the senior representatives of the Palestinian factions, especially Hamas and the Fatah Movement, aiming to end the division between them and create unity under the mediation of China continue. The declaration, which envisages the establishment of a single interim government in all Palestinian territories (Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem), was supported by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, while the United States opposed it, saying ‘We do not envisage a role for Hamas’ in the Palestinian Authority. The Western press, on the other hand, ignores China’s success and argues that the initiative is ‘unrealistic and unworkable’.
We discussed these debates with Shu Meng, Assistant Professor at the Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai International Studies University, founded in 1949. Shu Meng, who is also the director of editorial department of Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, answered our questions on the Palestinian reconciliation, China’s Palestine and Middle East policy and the role of the US in the region.
After three days of meetings in Beijing, 14 Palestinian factions, including Hamas and the Fatah movement, signed a joint declaration aimed at building Palestinian unity. According to the declaration, an ‘interim government of national unity’ will be established on the basis of the Palestinian constitution. How do you evaluate this development?
I believe this progress is profoundly significant. China has always maintained that the root of the Palestinian issue lies in the long-awaited realization of the aspiration for an independent Palestinian state. Respecting the national rights of the Palestinians and promoting their statehood are contingent upon the foundation of national reconciliation and internal unity. For my part, the disparity in strength between the two sides in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, partly stemming from the fragmentation within Palestine, has been a major hurdle. China’s efforts have contributed to a relatively more equal footing for both parties at the negotiation table.
Palestinian organisations had previously signed a national reconciliation document, but this was not implemented. Do you think it will be realised this time? If yes, what makes this agreement different from the others?
Achieving complete internal reconciliation faces a certain degree of difficulty, but nevertheless, it is a crucial first step for all parties to come together and sign a peace accord.
Moreover, the current timing differs from previous instances. Israel has yet to halt its military operations in Gaza, and various Palestinian factions are increasingly realizing that division poses a significant obstacle to achieving national liberation. A unified Palestine is imperative for any participation in shaping the political future of Gaza. Therefore, this reconciliation holds greater internal momentum for Palestine.
In the future, numerous challenges lie ahead in the path towards reconciliation, such as differences in the methods of confronting Israel and intra-party competition. Nonetheless, internal reconciliation and political unity remain the correct direction for advancing the resolution of the Palestinian issue.
Tel Aviv reacted to the agreement. Is it possible to implement such an agreement without convincing Israel?
I believe that an internally united Palestine is not in Israel’s interests. However, with the signing of the peace agreement, while future internal reconciliation in Palestine may face obstacles from Israel, the key lies in whether Palestinian factions can truly set aside their differences and prioritize the overall interests of Palestine.
Do you see the two-state solution as realistic and feasible when there is an Israeli government that so clearly opposes the two-state solution?
If we solely rely on the strength of Palestine, it is evident that the two-state solution is difficult to achieve, as evidenced by the experiences of the past decades. To realize this solution, it relies heavily on the impetus of the international community. Concrete actions must be taken by the international community, and further cohesion must be fostered on this issue.
What concrete steps can and will China take to implement this agreement? Has Beijing discussed this issue with regional countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey?
China has put forward the “three-step” initiative: the first step is to promote the comprehensive, lasting, and sustainable ceasefire in the Gaza Strip as soon as possible and ensure the access of humanitarian assistance and relief. The second step is to uphold the principle of “Palestinians ruling Palestine” and jointly promote post-war governance in Gaza. The third step is to promote Palestine’s becoming a full member of the United Nations and work on implementing the “two-state solution.”
China has repeatedly communicated with Arab countries on the issue of Palestine and published a joint statement between China and Arab countries on the issue of Palestine this year. Moreover, China has long been promoting a fair resolution of the Palestinian issue in bilateral and multilateral forums.
There are criticisms that China is trying to increase its influence in the Middle East through soft power, diplomacy and trade agreements. How do you evaluate these criticisms? Will the US leave the Middle East and will China take its place?
Rather than saying, “China is attempting to increase its influence in the Middle East through soft power, diplomacy, and trade agreements,” it would be more apt to state, “China’s growth in soft power, diplomacy, and trade in the Middle East has enhanced its influence in the region.”
Historically, both China and the Middle Eastern countries are the birthplaces of splendid civilizations. In reality, China and the Middle Eastern countries have actively expanded exchanges and cooperation in various fields, greatly promoting the mutual understanding and exchange between the Chinese civilization and the diverse civilizations of the Middle East. The Middle East is one of the most complex regions in global geopolitics today. Facing the complex and ever-changing situation in the Middle East, China has always supported the Middle Eastern people in independently exploring their own development paths and the Middle Eastern countries in working together to address regional security issues. It is believed that China’s fair stance and its attitude of promoting common development will continuously enhance its regional influence in an invisible manner.
As for the second question, firstly, the United States will not completely withdraw from the Middle East, and secondly, China will not replace it. The two parties have different advantages in the Middle East and there is no reciprocal relationship between them. The Middle East is not a playground for major powers, and the influence of various countries in the Middle East is not a zero-sum game. China has no intention of replacing the United States’ position in the Middle East. Instead, China hopes to work with the Middle Eastern countries in solidarity, jointly building a community with a shared future for all humanity.
What kind of goals, principles and interests does China have in the Middle East different from the US?
China’s policies are becoming more just and impartial, refraining from favoring any particular ally. It adheres to a balanced policy of non-alignment, maintaining normal relations with all countries.
China prefers to be a mediator rather than an agitator. It has not substantially intervened in any regional crisis.
China understands that regional countries aspire to maintain a balance among major powers and enhance their autonomy. It does not coerce any country to choose sides.
