China’s Balancing Act: Condemning Terrorism Without Naming Names

China condemns terrorism broadly, avoids naming Pakistan, and continues strategic support despite global calls for accountability and de-escalation.

In the intricate web of South Asian geopolitics, China has once again played a familiar tune — condemning terrorism in principle, yet stopping short of naming Pakistan, its “ironclad friend,” in the wake of India’s anti-terror operations. On May 7, following India’s strikes on terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, China’s foreign ministry expressed regret and called for restraint from both sides. While such statements appear even-handed on the surface, they reflect Beijing’s long-standing strategic posture of hedging between principles of global counterterrorism and its geopolitical allegiance to Pakistan.

The terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, which targeted innocent civilians, drew brief condolences from Beijing. Yet the core of China’s response lay not in unequivocal condemnation of the perpetrators but in generalized appeals for peace and an “impartial investigation.” This pattern was echoed in Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s conversation with Pakistani counterpart Mohammad Ishaq Dar, in which he stressed shared responsibility for counterterrorism but quickly pivoted to praising Pakistan’s counterterror efforts and reaffirming China’s unwavering support for Islamabad’s sovereignty and security concerns.

China’s stance is neither surprising nor novel. As the primary architect and backer of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and a major creditor through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Beijing views Pakistan as a crucial geopolitical and economic partner. The support extends beyond infrastructure and investment. Time and again, China has used its veto power at the United Nations Security Council to shield Pakistan-based terrorists, such as Sajid Mir, from international sanctions — despite compelling evidence of their involvement in atrocities like the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

This seemingly contradictory posture — condemning terrorism yet shielding perpetrators — is deeply rooted in China’s realpolitik. Beijing seeks to maintain regional stability, particularly to protect its investments in Pakistan and avoid any destabilization that could impact Xinjiang or the western borders. At the same time, it cannot afford to alienate India, an emerging regional rival and a vital economic partner. Thus, China’s diplomatic language remains calibrated — vague enough to avoid accusations of partisanship, yet clear in its strategic priorities.

Meanwhile, China’s approach to broader international tensions, such as the US-China tariff negotiations and its display of solidarity with Russia on Victory Day, highlights its global balancing strategy. Beijing seeks to portray itself as a responsible global power — willing to mediate, participate in multilateral talks, and support conflict de-escalation. However, its selective application of international norms, especially in South Asia, reveals a preference for national interest over normative consistency.

Experts within China, like Qian Feng of Tsinghua University, have acknowledged that India-Pakistan friction is unlikely to dissipate and poses serious risks due to the nuclear capabilities of both states. Yet such recognition is rarely accompanied by a frank critique of Pakistan’s state-sponsored militancy. This strategic silence serves China’s interest — preserving its influence in Pakistan while maintaining plausible deniability on the world stage.

In the final analysis, China’s reactions to India’s Op Sindoor and the Pahalgam terror attack exemplify a diplomacy steeped in ambiguity. It reflects a carefully curated image of neutrality while quietly tilting toward its longstanding ally. For New Delhi and the international community, this duality underscores the challenge of securing a united global front against terrorism when geopolitics outweigh principle.