- China’s Neutrality Narrative: Liu Hong frames China as a neutral peace broker, but her rhetoric prioritizes strategic interests and economic goals over genuine conflict resolution.
- Support for Controversial Actors: Liu subtly legitimizes groups labeled as terrorist organizations, aligning with China’s pattern of supporting anti-Western actors.
- Soft Power in Action: Through her roles at CCG and UFWD-linked organizations, Liu advances Beijing’s influence narratives globally.
In a recent column published by CGTN, Liu Hong, a special commentator on current affairs and research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization (CCG), presented Beijing’s vision for peace and development in the Middle East. However, a closer reading of her arguments reveals the contradictions inherent in China’s self-portrayal as a neutral peace broker. Her framing legitimizes terrorist organizations while reflecting Beijing’s de-facto policies, cloaked in rhetoric about multilateralism and global development.
Liu Hong begins her column by emphasizing China’s call for “action” in fostering peace and development in the Middle East. She lauds China’s role in facilitating dialogue between Iran and Saudi Arabia and highlights the region’s strategic importance in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Positioning Beijing as a force for stability, she underscores the importance of cooperation, development, and dialogue. Yet, her narrative omits the fact that China’s engagement in the Middle East is often transactional, driven by energy security and geopolitical ambitions rather than a genuine commitment to resolving conflicts.
More concerning, Liu Hong subtly legitimizes organizations widely recognized as terrorist groups under international law, framing their actions within a broader narrative of “resistance” against Western interventionism. This rhetorical strategy reflects a consistent pattern in Beijing’s foreign policy: aligning with non-state actors such Hamas and Hezbollah, or governments opposed to U.S. influence while avoiding explicit condemnation of their actions. Such a stance undermines China’s claims of neutrality and exposes its selective engagement in the region, where it frequently overlooks humanitarian concerns in favor of strategic alliances.
Liu’s professional affiliations further illuminate the broader context of her arguments. As a research fellow at CCG, a Beijing-based think tank with multiple ties to the United Front Work Department (UFWD), her commentary reflects not only personal viewpoints but also broader narratives propagated by the Chinese state. CCG has denied its links to the UFWD, a key arm of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) tasked with promoting Beijing’s influence abroad, but its connections are frequently noted in analyses, though often contested. Liu’s career trajectory also includes her role as an anchor on state-controlled China Central TV (CCTV) and a four-year tenure as program manager at the Western Returned Scholars Association (WRSA), another UFWD-linked organization. These affiliations underscore her position as an instrument of statecraft, amplifying narratives aligned with Beijing’s strategic goals.
Through CGTN, a mouthpiece of the Chinese government, Liu’s column serves as a tool to frame China as a benevolent actor while subtly advancing its geopolitical ambitions. This duality—portraying China as a neutral peace broker while tacitly supporting actors that destabilize the region—reflects the broader contradictions in Beijing’s foreign policy.
While Liu Hong’s arguments may resonate with audiences in the Global South, where skepticism toward Western interventions runs high, they warrant critical scrutiny. The vision of peace and development she outlines is undermined by Beijing’s unwillingness to confront the destabilizing actions of its partners. By legitimizing groups that perpetuate violence, Beijing risks exacerbating the very conflicts it claims to want to resolve.
China’s growing presence in the Middle East represents a significant shift in the region’s geopolitical landscape, but its approach—encapsulated in Liu Hong’s column—raises questions about the long-term consequences of its policies. True peace and development cannot be achieved through selective engagement or by legitimizing violence for political gain. If Beijing wishes to be taken seriously as a global peace broker, it must move beyond the rhetoric and adopt a genuinely balanced and principled approach to the region’s challenges.
Liu Hong’s column also reflects a broader strategy that China has employed globally: leveraging its state-controlled media and influential think tanks to construct narratives that position Beijing as a global force for peace and development. This carefully curated image contrasts sharply with its actions, which often involve bolstering authoritarian regimes, supporting non-state actors that contribute to instability, and exploiting economic dependencies in regions like the Middle East.
The Center for China and Globalization (CCG), where Liu Hong serves as a research fellow, plays a critical role in this narrative-building. Despite its claims of independence, the think tank operates within the framework of China’s soft power apparatus. It regularly publishes research and organizes forums that align closely with Beijing’s foreign policy objectives. The CCG’s ties to the United Front Work Department (UFWD)—an agency under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) responsible for managing influence operations abroad—are well-documented, even as the organization vehemently denies these links. Liu’s tenure at the Western Returned Scholars Association (WRSA), another UFWD-linked entity, further reinforces her deep integration into China’s propaganda and influence ecosystem.
This background contextualizes the intent behind Liu’s column. Her portrayal of China as a neutral peace broker, committed to fostering multilateral dialogue and economic development, serves as a soft-power tool to counter Western influence in the Middle East. However, her selective framing of key issues—such as her legitimization of groups considered terrorist organizations—raises serious questions about the sincerity of China’s approach. By failing to address the human cost of violence perpetrated by these groups, Liu’s arguments prioritize Beijing’s strategic alliances over the well-being of the populations affected by conflict.
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which Liu highlights as a cornerstone of China’s engagement in the Middle East, is another example of Beijing’s transactional approach. While the BRI has brought significant investments to the region, it has also created economic dependencies and raised concerns about debt sustainability. Liu’s narrative frames the BRI as a pathway to peace and development, yet she overlooks the geopolitical leverage Beijing gains through such projects. This underscores the dual nature of China’s involvement: it presents itself as a partner for development while using its investments to expand its influence and secure access to critical resources.
Moreover, China’s emphasis on multilateralism and respect for sovereignty, as echoed in Liu’s column, often masks its reluctance to take a firm stance on issues that require moral clarity. For example, Beijing’s unwillingness to condemn actions by its partners or to engage in meaningful conflict resolution efforts undermines its credibility as a neutral mediator. This reluctance is particularly evident in the Middle East, where China has consistently avoided involvement in high-stakes negotiations or peacekeeping efforts that could alienate its allies.
Liu Hong’s column, therefore, serves as a microcosm of China’s broader foreign policy strategy: carefully balancing rhetoric and action to maximize its strategic interests. Her legitimization of terrorist organizations, framed within a narrative of resistance and anti-interventionism, aligns with Beijing’s efforts to position itself as an alternative to the West. At the same time, her selective engagement with the complexities of Middle Eastern politics reflects China’s cautious approach to the region, which prioritizes stability and access to resources over genuine conflict resolution.
As China’s influence in the Middle East continues to grow, its actions will face increasing scrutiny. The narratives advanced by commentators like Liu Hong will play a critical role in shaping global perceptions of Beijing’s intentions. However, the contradictions inherent in these narratives—between the rhetoric of peace and development and the reality of selective engagement—will likely remain a source of tension. If China truly seeks to be a global force for peace, it must demonstrate a willingness to engage with the region’s challenges in a more transparent and principled manner, rather than merely advancing its interests under the guise of neutrality.
