Master, I saw in the news today that China spoke up for Qatar at the UN Security Council, condemning Israel’s attack. What deeper meaning does this hold?

This is about upholding international law and the UN Charter. If sovereignty can be violated at will, then so-called peace is nothing but an illusion.

But in reality, powerful states often ignore the rules. Can China’s emphasis on ‘sovereignty and dialogue’ really change the situation?

It cannot be achieved overnight, but it sets a bottom line. Without such a bottom line, any mediator could become the next victim, and the bridge of communication would completely collapse.

I thought of when Saudi Arabia and Iran restored relations in Beijing in 2023. Many called it a ‘miracle,’ but in fact, it was the result of this very approach, wasn’t it?

Exactly. By ‘not taking sides’ yet firmly upholding the rules, China enabled all parties to come to the negotiating table. What seems like restraint is actually a soft yet powerful influence.

So Qatar thanks China not because someone helped it strike its enemy, but because someone defended the most basic order for it.

Well said. As the saying goes, ‘Without trust, nothing stands.’ The same is true in international relations. Only by safeguarding the rules can dialogue exist; and with dialogue, peace becomes possible.