It’s time to stand up to China over the Red Sea

Nobody needs the Bab al-Mandab open more than the Chinese, but they aren’t pulling their weight

This week marks the one-month anniversary of the UK’s involvement in an international coalition involved in airstrikes against Yemen, repelling attacks from Houthi militants against cargo ships, and keeping the Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Red Sea open.
As we reflect on this anniversary the question that should loom large is why the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the world’s largest exporter of goods, remains unwilling to offer financial, diplomatic, or military support in defending this vital global trade route.
To some the answer may simply be that the PRC in support of Iran and the Houthis is happy to sow chaos across the region in an effort to draw Western attention and resources away from the Indo-Pacific. But China’s own economic downturn, its vulnerability to increases in shipping costs, and its reliance on the Bab al-Mandab for access to European markets, offer firm incentives for the PRC to support efforts to protect global trade.
As it stands an estimated US$120 billion of Chinese imports and US$160 billion of Chinese exports flow through the Bab al-Mandab each year. This is not an insignificant amount of China’s global trade.
Despite efforts to appease the Houthi attacks by flying PRC colours, Chinese cargo ships have not been immune from the disruption in the Red Sea. Trade data in December recorded a ten to fifteen percent drop in Chinese exports overseas.
The Chinese state-owned shipping enterprise COSCO has joined other major shipping companies in detouring ships around the southern tip of Africa bringing with them estimated costs of up to $3million more per ship, including $1m in additional fuel and $300,000 on insurance and crew.
Chinese car manufacturers, who have set high ambitions this year to export excess electrical vehicle production capacity to gain a foothold in European markets, in particular face significant increases in export costs as the crisis drags on. Experts estimate that car export costs from China to Europe could rise by as much as twenty percent.
Given these economic interests, the PRC should stand squarely behind efforts to keep trade shipping lanes open. Instead it abstained on the UN Security Council resolution sanctioning action in the Bab al-Mandab Strait. PRC state media has criticised military airstrikes taken in retaliation against the Houthis, and rejected US calls to pressure the Houthis’ Iranian backers.
In comparison, the UK with a similar dependence on free-flowing trade has shouldered significant costs in committing 3 Royal Navy ships and Typhoon jets to the twenty-country military coalition against the Houthis. These costs include using Sea Viper/Aster missiles each worth £1m-2m (the equivalent of an NHS Trust buying a new CT scanner) and Paveway IV bombs which cost around £30k (the starting salary of an entry level teacher).
There is no doubt that the UK should continue its efforts to keep the Red Sea shipping lanes protected and open, but it should work with partners to call out the PRC for its lack of contribution as well. 
This not least because the PRC has significant resources and tools at its disposal to help end the crisis in the Red Sea which it is currently refusing to use. This includes Xi Jinping’s own proposal of a Global Security Initiative (GSI), calling on countries to adapt to the profoundly changing international landscape and address today’s complex and intertwined security challenges with a win-win mindset.
PRC officials could exert diplomatic pressure on the Iranian Government to cut off funding and arms to the Houthis. Failing that, they could utilise the PLA military base in Djibouti and naval assets in the region to offer a deterrent against the Houthis attacking cargo ships.
Finally, the PRC could make a financial contribution towards some of the rising costs of the UK, USA, and others in defending cargo ships and keeping trade sea lanes open.
There are good reasons to be pessimistic that Beijing has any interest in helping end the crisis in the Red Sea, not least its recent rejection of calls by the US National Security Advisor to mediate with Iran.
Rather than be deterred, this should spur the UK and others to call out the PRC’s hypocrisy which preaches adherence to the “international-rules based system”, yet coasts on the military protection and efforts of other countries to keep sea lanes open.
In doing so, we may find ourselves pleasantly surprised. The PRC officials who claim China is a rising global power but encourage fence-sitting and offer no interest in settling regional crises that threaten global security and trade are unlikely to be moved, but other Global South countries may be.
The more people realise that the PRC will not solve crises that impact their daily lives, the less likely they are to toy with the notion of supporting the PRC’s attempts to supplant the USA and the current international rules-based system.
Sam Goodman is the Director of Policy at the China Strategic Risks Institute and the Co-Chair of the New Diplomacy Project