A Private Sector Role in U.S.-China-MENA dialogue?
In a recent dialogue with Chinese business leaders, I was struck by how prominently concerns over economic decoupling with the United States and the trajectory of bilateral economic relations featured on their agenda. For experts in political economy and commercial affairs, this focus may seem overwhelmingly obvious. However, approaching this issue from the lens of geopolitics, security, and strategic stability offers a different perspective. My preoccupation lies not with the dynamics of trade itself but with the foundational conditions that enable commerce: peace, stability, and the physical infrastructure that sustains them.
When peace is absent or stability falters, industries suffer—though there are exceptions in war economies that thrive amidst conflict. Conversely, durable peace and stability serve as catalysts for economic opportunity and growth. This paper seeks to explore this relationship, drawing on research from institutions like the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue and others, while examining the dual role private industry can play in either fostering or hindering peace.
This analysis is not intended to be definitive but rather to provoke a deeper consideration of how private sector actors influence the conditions that underpin sustainable economic development and political stability. The focus will largely center on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, where the intersection of U.S. and Chinese economic interests is most pronounced. While acknowledging the broader complexity of applying this framework to the Levant—where war economies have entrenched themselves within overlapping ideological and financial structures—this paper narrows its scope to the GCC for clarity and relevance.
The GCC offers fertile ground for such an analysis. As one of the world’s most strategically vital regions, it stands at the crossroads of global energy markets, trade routes, and geostrategic competition. The economic ambitions of both China and the United States in this region underscore the potential for private industry to serve as a stabilizing—or destabilizing—force. By examining the mechanisms through which businesses can contribute to or detract from peacebuilding, this paper aims to contribute to a growing dialogue on the intersection of private industry and international stability.
The BLUF [Big Line Up Front] of this paper is simple: The premise of this paper is simple: private industry and business leaders are essential to advancing trilateral dialogue between the U.S., China, and the Middle East, and promoting stability in the Middle East. While this is not a new concept, it has gained renewed urgency as the economic interests of both China and the United States in the region grow. Engaging the private sector in stability-building efforts is not just desirable—it is a strategic necessity. Without proactive involvement, businesses risk losing access to one of the world’s most dynamic and lucrative investment markets, particularly in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Stability is not only the bedrock of sustained economic growth but also a prerequisite for realizing the region’s transformative ambitions, such as Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.
The global competition challenge
The GCC sits at the nexus of global power competition. Both U.S. and China strategic interests converge on the Gulf region. The region’s political and economic stability have created an environment which facilitates global trade and energy security, both shared Sino-US interests. However, U.S.-China rivalry remains the dominant paradigm in the Middle East. Both approach the Middle East with distinct agendas. Washington leans on enduring security partnerships with Israel and Gulf states to safeguard energy access and maintain regional stability, prioritizing defense, counterterrorism, and economic engagement. Beijing, by contrast, focuses on economic development through infrastructure investments and trade under the Belt and Road Initiative. This economic-centric strategy allows China to position itself as a facilitator while steering clear of political and military entanglements, a role traditionally assumed by the U.S. Yet, this divergence in strategies complicates sustained collaboration. Strategic competition dominates their global outlook, and mutual trust remains elusive.
For international and GCC businesses operating in energy, logistics, and technology, the costs of instability in the region are both immediate and severe. Supply chain disruptions, rising operational costs, and diminished investor confidence jeopardize profitability and deter foreign direct investment (FDI). Economic initiatives across the GCC—like Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030—depend on attracting private investment in sectors such as renewable energy, tourism, and advanced technology. These opportunities are contingent on a secure environment that mitigates risks for investors and reduces the costs associated with conflict, including elevated insurance premiums and security expenses–as we saw with the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping.
Although the GCC is not immediately threatened by conflicts like those in Gaza or Syria, the persistent “Iran question” remains a significant concern. This decades-long crisis, though mitigated by the 2023 Saudi-Iran rapprochement, represents a residual risk, especially for sectors like energy. The potential for escalation is always present, yet often beyond the direct control of GCC states, as it hinges on the actions of external actors, including Israel and Iran.
For businesses, the stakes are clear: conflict introduces volatility and uncertainty, which ripple across the region and beyond. The October 7 war in Gaza has underscored this, reversing previous trends toward improved dialogue and escalating tensions across the region. Meanwhile, the overlay of U.S.-China competition has added another layer of complexity, further destabilizing the environment for regional industries.
GCC countries are working to balance these competing pressures to sustain an attractive business environment and secure investment. However, the highly uncertain interplay of regional conflicts and global rivalries creates persistent challenges. One solution lies in fostering dialogue. More specifically, establishing mechanisms for dialogue between the U.S., China, and Arab states. Such dialogue is not just a mechanism for mitigating conflict but aims to create a stable, predictable environment where business and peoples can thrive and contribute to the region’s long-term stability.
There is a degree of sincere skepticism I have encountered in developing this line of thinking, which argues that the interests of both U.S. and China, though they may align on fundamental issues, are more prone to pursue competition and take opportunities to undermine the other. And, that this dynamic would undermine the feasibility of trilateral dialogue. I concur with my colleagues on the realpolitik view of competition over cooperation, but my perspective seeks to find ways to bridge the divide between the U.S. and China on competition by introducing two actors into the pool for dialogue: 1) Arab states and representatives and 2) private industry. The latter I discuss here, but the latter requires a little deeper evaluation.
See “Finding US-China Complementarity in the Middle East”
Why private industry?
When I worked briefly with a strategic advisory firm on China-Middle East initiatives, I learned two interesting lessons:
Private industry has a fundamental interest in peace, stability, and market predictability for sustainable business.
The Ukraine war demonstrated how political upheaval and conflict can disrupt and reshape global industries overnight. CEOs and companies faced immense pressure to exit Russia, driven by sanctions and stakeholder demands. Supply chains were forced to adapt, while the energy landscape shifted dramatically. Russian oil became largely untouchable due to sanctions, compelling Europe to seek new energy partners. This crisis accelerated a recalibration of European energy policy, pushing many EU countries to strengthen ties with GCC states. In doing so, Europe often set aside long standing grievances over social and human rights issues, prioritizing energy security and economic stability over political differences.
Business leaders are an important channel for bridging U.S.-China relations and maintaining dialogue even when state-to-state channels breakdown.
Over the decades, individuals with deep connections in both the U.S. and China have played a crucial role in navigating bilateral challenges, especially during periods of strained government-to-government relations. Figures like Stephen Schwarzman, Ray Dalio, Henry Paulson, and Henry Kissinger have frequently stepped in to bridge gaps, leveraging their influence and networks to maintain dialogue. These efforts have spurred initiatives like the Bloomberg New Economy Forum and the Future Investment Initiative, which use industry as a platform for fostering engagement.
In the Middle East, similar leaders and the broader business community have an opportunity to create and support platforms for trilateral dialogue among the U.S., China, and regional stakeholders. By funding and hosting such initiatives, they can provide a neutral space for discussions, helping to address regional and global challenges while aligning economic and strategic interests. These efforts could make the business community a central player in advancing stability and collaboration in the region.
Private sector in peace processes
For business leaders, advocating for trilateral mediation involving the U.S., China, and regional actors is not simply a diplomatic exercise—it is a strategic investment in the economic future of the GCC and their own bottom lines.
The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue conducted a study in 2008 of the ways the private sector has engaged in previous conflicts to support the various peace processes, and several examples are helpful for the GCC case.
In El Salvador, businesses supported peace negotiations after years of civil war made extortion and violence unbearable. A collective effort by the Salvadoran business community, driven by research into the economic costs of conflict, was instrumental in securing a peace agreement that ended over a decade of war. Similarly, in Northern Ireland, business leaders framed peace as an economic necessity, producing a "peace dividend" report that galvanized support for negotiations. These examples demonstrate the power of business to not only advocate for stability but also influence the political landscape by emphasizing the shared economic benefits of peace.
In the GCC, businesses have the opportunity to play a similar role. CEOs and industry leaders can serve as conveners, bringing together stakeholders from the U.S., China, and the Middle East to create platforms for dialogue. They can also sponsor research that quantifies the cost of instability and highlights the economic potential of peace, much like the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) did in Northern Ireland. Such initiatives would provide a compelling, data-driven case for stability, resonating with both policymakers and private-sector actors.
However, advocacy alone is not enough. The private sector must consider commitments to long-term engagement in post-conflict recovery and implementation. Historical examples illustrate the critical role businesses can play in building peace after agreements are signed. In El Salvador, companies funded education and training programs to reintegrate former combatants into the workforce. In South Africa, businesses facilitated dialogues that bridged divides and provided logistical support for the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). GCC businesses could adopt similar strategies by investing in infrastructure, workforce development, and community programs that promote social cohesion and economic inclusion. These efforts would reinforce stability while simultaneously creating opportunities for economic growth.
Yet, achieving these outcomes requires overcoming challenges. One key lesson from Guatemala and Sri Lanka is the importance of unity within the business community. Divisions within the private sector can derail peace efforts, especially when factions prioritize short-term gains over long-term stability. In contrast, collective action by South Africa’s Consultative Business Movement (CBM) unified diverse industries to push for meaningful negotiations. In the GCC, businesses must coalesce around shared goals of stability and growth, presenting a united front to governments and international actors.
Businesses must also balance their self-interest with broader societal goals. The perception of acting solely for profit can undermine trust and legitimacy both with states and local populations. By aligning industry efforts with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles, GCC businesses can build credibility as actors committed to the public good, especially if they can legitimately put prioritize peace and stability before profit. Maintaining neutrality is equally important. This positions the private sector as a partner in peace-building, rather than a politically motivated entity.
Without stability, the GCC’s transformative economic vision is unsustainable, and businesses will face mounting costs and diminished opportunities. By contrast, proactive engagement in trilateral mediation and peace-building ensures that the private sector not only secures its investments but also contributes to the long-term prosperity of the region. History demonstrates that businesses are not bystanders in conflict—they are stakeholders in peace with the power to shape outcomes.
As the GCC continues to navigate the complexities of global competition and regional transformation, the role of private industry in promoting trilateral dialogue cannot be overstated. Business leaders have both the means and the mandate to drive peace-building efforts, leveraging their resources and influence to create a stable, prosperous future. Failing to act risks not only losing the economic promise of the region but also ceding the opportunity to lead its next chapter of growth and innovation. Stability is not just good for business—it is essential for its survival.
The Role of Private Industry in Building Stability
Private sector engagement in peace-building is not just desirable—it is essential for ensuring regional stability and sustained economic growth. Businesses bring unique resources, networks, and credibility to the table, but their role must be earned and carefully positioned. The HD research cites several examples for business involvement in peace processes:
Credibility and Legitimacy: To influence peace processes, businesses must demonstrate credibility and a deep understanding of the conflict’s context. Examples from El Salvador, Mozambique, and South Africa show how businesses became trusted mediators by maintaining neutrality and aligning with broader societal goals.
Collective Action: Unity within the business community amplifies its impact. South Africa’s Consultative Business Movement (CBM) demonstrated how collective action can lead to meaningful peace-building, whereas divisions in Guatemala undermined private-sector influence.
“The Peace Dividend”: Highlighting the economic benefits of stability can galvanize support from businesses and policymakers. Data-driven approaches, like Northern Ireland’s “peace dividend” report, illustrate how peace reduces operational risks and creates predictable investment environments.
Social Engagement: Companies with experience engaging across diverse societal groups, as seen in Colombia and South Africa, are better positioned to foster trust and facilitate productive negotiations.
Platforms for Dialogue: Industry-led initiatives such as the Bloomberg New Economy Forum and Future Investment Initiative illustrate how the private sector can create neutral platforms for dialogue. The GCC, supported by regional and international business leaders, could establish similar forums for trilateral engagement among the U.S., China, and Arab states.
Takeaways for the GCC
Proactive Private Sector Engagement: Businesses must align their economic interests with stability-building efforts, demonstrating their commitment to regional development. This is particularly critical for international investors looking to secure their long-term position in the GCC’s diversifying economy.
Unity Within the Business Community: Maintaining a united front ensures private-sector advocacy for stability is effective. Divisions, like those in Guatemala, should be avoided to enhance influence with policymakers and regional actors.
Fostering Dialogue and Collaboration: Establishing platforms for trilateral dialogue involving the U.S., China, and GCC stakeholders can reduce tensions and foster cooperation, ensuring the region remains attractive to global investors.
Implementing Post-Conflict Recovery: Beyond advocacy, businesses can play a direct role in rebuilding stability by investing in infrastructure, workforce development, and community programs that reinforce peace.
Preparing for Global Disruptions: The Ukraine war demonstrated how conflict reshapes industries and supply chains. The GCC must position itself as a stable, reliable partner to attract investment and weather global economic shocks.
Broadening the Base
Other factors cannot be excluded in the pursuit of bolstering the participation of business in peace. Effective peace-building and stability require the engagement of a broader range of actors, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society, and international institutions. NGOs often bring expertise in humanitarian response and grassroots mobilization, addressing the social and human dimensions of conflict that businesses may overlook. Civil society organizations provide essential platforms for community engagement, ensuring that peace efforts are inclusive and responsive to local needs. These actors, working alongside governments and businesses, create a more holistic approach to stability, addressing not just economic concerns but also social, political, and cultural drivers of conflict. Integrating their contributions is essential to creating durable solutions that benefit all stakeholders.
Conclusion
The Trump administration's approach to U.S.-China relations introduces significant uncertainty, particularly concerning the Middle East and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The appointment of officials with hawkish views on China suggests a potential shift from dialogue toward heightened competition. In this context, the GCC and the business community—both of which have previously engaged with President Trump—will be crucial in advocating for sustained direct and indirect dialogue. Now, more than ever, multitrack diplomacy is essential to address escalating concerns across the Middle East.
Endnotes
Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, The Business of Peace: A Study of Private Sector Engagement in Peace Processes. Oslo Forum, 2008.
Consultative Business Movement, Submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. Johannesburg, 1997.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Peace – A Challenging New Era. 1994.
Vielman, G. A., Tiempo Perdido. Private Edition, Guatemala City, 1998.
Banfield, J., Gündüz, C., & Killick, N. (Eds.), Local Business, Local Peace: The Peacebuilding Potential of the Domestic Private Sector. International Alert, 2006.
Vines, A., The Business of Peace: ‘Tiny’ Rowland, Financial Incentives and the Mozambican Settlement. Conciliation Resources.
Sri Lanka First (SLF), Campaign Materials for Peace Advocacy. Colombo, 2001.
European Council on Foreign Relations, The Energy Crisis and Europe’s Response. 2022.
Fulton, J., China's Changing Role in the Middle East. Atlantic Council, 2023.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Vision 2030 Strategic Plan. Riyadh, 2016.
Future Investment Initiative Institute, Annual Forum Reports. Riyadh, 2021–2023.
Bloomberg New Economy, Forum Highlights and Reports. Singapore, 2019–2023.
World Economic Forum, The Future of ESG in Global Markets. Geneva, 2022.
Addendum
Case Studies of Lessons Learned and Potential Applications for the Gulf
The following historical examples compiled by the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue highlight key lessons from past peace processes, offering valuable insights for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and international industries as they navigate trilateral mediation and regional stability efforts. These case studies illustrate the transformative role of private industry in fostering peace and the potential applications for the GCC.
Colombia: Bridging Divides Through Private Dialogue
In Colombia, escalating violence in the mid-1990s spurred business leaders to act. Off-the-record meetings facilitated by the private sector created opportunities for dialogue between armed groups, civil society, and government representatives. Businesses also helped mobilize public support for peace through campaigns and initiatives like the Citizens’ Mandate for Peace, which garnered 10 million votes in favor of ending violence.
Lesson for the Gulf: GCC businesses can use their convening power to foster informal dialogues between stakeholders, including regional governments, international actors, and civil society. Public campaigns highlighting the benefits of peace could further bolster support for mediation efforts.
El Salvador: Aligning Economic Incentives with Peace
By the late 1980s, a decade of civil war in El Salvador had devastated the business environment. Extortion, abductions, and violence eroded economic confidence, while a rigid elite resisted reforms. However, younger, modernizing business leaders recognized the need for peace as a precondition for economic growth. The U.S.-backed Fundación Salvadoreña para el Desarrollo (FUSADES) played a pivotal role by producing research on the costs of conflict and demonstrating the opportunities globalization offered to a stable economy.
Alfredo Cristiani, a pro-business leader, won the presidency in 1989, leading swift negotiations with the opposition that resulted in police, military, and judicial reforms, as well as the demobilization of armed combatants. Businesses actively supported these efforts, including funding programs to integrate former fighters into the workforce.
Lesson for the Gulf: GCC businesses should undertake research that quantifies the economic costs of instability and advocate for peace as essential to regional development. Additionally, private industry can support post-conflict reintegration efforts, such as skills training and workforce development.
South Africa: Building Consensus Through Business Leadership
During the transition from apartheid, South Africa faced political deadlock between the government and opposition forces. The Consultative Business Movement (CBM), a coalition of private-sector leaders, played a crucial role in bridging these divides. Businesses facilitated secret meetings, convened stakeholders, and provided logistical support for the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). Through its impartial conduct and credibility, CBM helped break impasses and sustained momentum for negotiations.
Lesson for the Gulf: Business leaders in the GCC could form coalitions similar to CBM to provide a platform for dialogue and logistical support for trilateral mediation. Neutrality and transparency are key to ensuring credibility with all parties involved.
Northern Ireland: Advocating the Peace Dividend
The private sector in Northern Ireland played a prominent role in advancing peace talks during the 1990s. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) published a landmark "peace dividend" paper that quantified the economic benefits of ending violence, including reductions in security costs and increased investment in tourism and trade. Business leaders collectively lobbied political parties, emphasizing the stark choice between peace and economic prosperity or continued stagnation.
Lesson for the Gulf: GCC businesses can commission and disseminate similar research demonstrating the economic dividends of stability. This would help mobilize public and governmental support for trilateral mediation and peace-building initiatives.
Guatemala: The Perils of Division Within the Business Sector
Guatemala’s peace process following its civil war in the 1990s was marred by divisions within the private sector. While some businesses supported negotiations, others opposed them, believing a military solution was preferable. The lack of unity weakened the private sector’s influence, undermining progress.
Lesson for the Gulf: The GCC business community could present unified position in pursuit of peace and stability to avoid the pitfalls of factionalism. Collective action is crucial for amplifying the private sector’s voice and ensuring effective participation in peace-building processes.