The Chinese will not need, want, or request our help.
My recommendation is that we leave it alone. It's not our business, it's not our problem, and it's very unlikely that any side of the story wants us involved in any way. We are not the solution to every problem, and there's no need for us to get involved in every problem. Let it be. We've enough issues elsewhere.
The degree to which we "enable" anything is highly debatable. In Saudi Arabia our "enabling" role is absolutely nonexistent: the US could withdraw completely from all engagement with the Saudis with no effect whatsoever on the Saudi relationship with its populace. They don't need our help to contain their populace and they don't care what we think... we'd lose a fair bit of intel (and a whole lot of defence contracts) but that's about it
In Egypt our "enabling" role is minimal: they like the aid but it's not enough to give us enough leverage to force them to change anything, and they don't step on their populace because we enable it. They'd do it in any event. Once upon a time they were dependents, not now. They could survive without the aid, and it's likely that others would replace it if we withdrew.
In Yemen, arguably, we enable a bad government to survive... but I've seen few good options proposed. Important to note that Yemen doesn't face "an insurgency" with "an insurgent leadership" that we can deal with if the government is unsuitable. Yemen faces a crawling chaos of ethnic, sectarian, and tribal conflict; the threat is not an insurgent victory but a descent into Somali-style anarchy.
The whole notion of "enabling" is something you seem to asume but do not demonstrate; I think you vastly overrate what we can or do actually "enable". Certainly in China, no matter what policy we adopt, we will not be "enabling" anything.
Bookmarks