Ceasefire in Lebanon: US Acts, China Observes

The recent ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah marks a significant achievement in U.S.-led diplomacy in one of the still most volatile regions of the world. After months of intense conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the Southern Lebanon border—an extension of the Gaza war that has raged for over a year—the agreement mediated by the Biden administration underscores the critical role of the United States in stabilising not only Middle Eastern but also international crises. Yet, as the U.S. steps into its traditional role as a leading actor, China’s hollow role underscores the ambiguity in its real intentions, contrasting sharply with the ambitions it projects through grand initiatives like the Global Security Initiative. This highlights a stark gap between Beijing’s rhetoric and tangible engagement in global diplomacy.

A Fragile Achievement

The ceasefire, finalised after months of arduous negotiations involving key US officials, provides a brief respite to communities on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border. Although delicate and fraught with challenges—particularly in enforcing terms in Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon—the agreement demonstrates Washington’s enduring influence in shaping outcomes in the Middle East and beyond. Even during a transition of power, with President-elect Donald Trump set to inherit the arrangement, the US has reaffirmed its ability to broker deals that alter the trajectory of entrenched conflicts—and regional and international stability.

This success, however, occurs against the backdrop of broader regional chaos. While the ceasefire in Lebanon offers hope, Gaza remains mired in escalating violence, compounding the complexity of achieving comprehensive peace. The recent G7 statement highlighted grave concerns over the humanitarian toll on civilians across the region, emphasising the urgent need for de-escalation. Statements from the White House have cautiously hinted at the potential for a similar breakthrough with Hamas. However, questions remain over Hamas’s willingness and good faith in engaging with such efforts, casting doubt on the viability of replicating the Lebanon model in Gaza.

China’s Position: Support Without Engagement

In contrast to Washington’s hands-on approach, Beijing’s role remains peripheral, if not absent, in the practical aspects of Middle Eastern diplomacy (and beyond). Official Chinese statements, including from Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning, have welcomed the ceasefire and called for adherence to UN Security Council resolutions. Beijing has also reiterated its longstanding support for the Palestinian cause, emphasising a two-state solution and the need for an immediate cessation of violence.

However, this rhetoric belies Beijing’s deliberate choice to maintain distance from active diplomatic processes. While celebrating outcomes like the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire, China avoids direct mediation efforts that could expose it to political risks or potential failures—such as those faced by the United States in recent months, when its attempts at mediation were repeatedly thwarted. This calculated ambiguity allows China to cultivate its image as a defender of international fairness without committing resources or assuming accountability in crisis resolution.

The Bigger Picture: US Leadership Versus Chinese Ambiguity

The Lebanon ceasefire exemplifies a recurring theme in global geopolitics: the US remains the primary actor capable of securing high-stakes agreements, even amid its own domestic and international challenges. By contrast, China’s contributions are mainly limited to rhetorical support, often delivered after the fact.

Beijing’s reluctance to engage directly in crisis diplomacy (e.g., the Middle Eastern one or the Russian war in Ukraine) raises no new questions about its aspirations as a global leader. While China seeks to position itself as a champion of multilateralism, especially in the eyes of the so-called ‘Global South,’ its aversion to active involvement suggests a gap between its ambitions and its readiness to assume the burdens of global leadership.

So China’s vocal support for the Palestinian cause, as seen in its sponsorship of events like the UN’s International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, often risks appearing devoid of substantive action. These gestures, amplified by state outlets like the Global Times, lean heavily on wishful thinking and rhetorical commitments to a two-state solution. In reality, they serve as convenient narratives to consolidate anti-Western sentiment, particularly among nations disillusioned by the prolonged conflict in Gaza. Far from offering tangible solutions, such moves highlight China’s strategic use of the Palestinian issue to expand its influence in regions where Israel’s ongoing war has heightened resentment toward Western powers.

Toward a Global Balance

As Washington navigates its responsibilities under the new ceasefire and grapples with ongoing challenges in Gaza, Beijing’s restrained approach underscores its preference for a spectator role in high-risk diplomacy. This dynamic reflects broader trends in international relations, where China selectively projects power while avoiding direct entanglements in volatile regions.

Even the normalisation agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, signed in Beijing in March 2023, reflects a leap of diplomatic opportunism by China. Tehran and Riyadh had been working on this process for some time, facilitated by Iraq and Oman, supported by the UAE and Qatar, and backed by the United States, with more lateral involvement from the European Union.

However, the question remains whether this pattern of US leadership will continue with the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House. Suppose the Biden administration’s achievement in brokering the Lebanon ceasefire illustrates the US’s enduring capacity to shape international and multilateral affairs. In that case, we must ask whether Trump’s “America First” vision could contract the US’s global reach, moving away from its traditionally internationalist role.

Will Trump maintain the threads of this international leadership, or will his transactional approach and focus on satisfying his domestic base leave the United States more isolated from critical processes and dynamics? In this context, there is a significant risk that actors like China and Russia may seize the opportunity to advance their initiatives and embed themselves in governance processes that capitalise on a potential US retreat.

The Lebanon ceasefire is a fragile testament to the United States’ ability to lead on the world stage. Yet, its future credibility will depend not only on the success of this agreement but also on whether the U.S. can sustain its role as a stabilising force in an increasingly multipolar world. Moreover, in this specific case, Trump’s transactional mentality must also be considered alongside the President-elect’s close relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. Achieving particular results requires maintaining a relative distance to ensure clarity and objectivity. Will Trump manage to do so? If not, the risk is to facilitate US rivals—not only weakening America’s international capabilities but also empowering unbalanced actors openly driven by narrowly transactional interests.