Chinese President Xi Jinping is someone President Obama does not want to alienate. U.S. giving China a pass on Syria?

As American officials bitterly denounce Russia for blocking the United Nations from endorsing action over Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons, another global power that has taken a similar stand seems to be getting a free pass from the U.S: China.

The double standard was fueled by the meeting President Barack Obama held Friday morning with Chinese President Xi Jinping in St. Petersburg, Russia.


Xi got his sit-down with Obama, while American officials have been vocal about the fact that — in part because of Russian intransigence over Syria — Obama has no plans to hold a formal meeting with Putin even though the two men are within spitting distance of each other at the G-20 Summit in Putin’s home country.

( PHOTOS: International response to Syria)

During a brief photo-op at the beginning of the Obama-Xi session Friday, neither man made any mention of Syria — even though the issue has loomed over the St. Petersburg conference.

Much of the difference in U.S. treatment of Russia and China can be chalked up to simple realpolitik: the U.S. values its relationship with China more than with Russia and is more willing to jeopardize ties with Moscow over a single issue like the brutal Syria conflict.

“Whereas our relationship with Russia is important but not the primary relationship in the new global world, we have concluded otherwise with regard to China — that whatever we may think of their form of government, whatever their deportment may be, we have to engage,” said Orville Schell of the Asia Society. “That presumption is sort of behind the way we treat each of them in a rather different manner.”

( PHOTOS: Syria: Where politicians stand)

Speaking to reporters Thursday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power laid blame for the impasse regarding Syria squarely at the feet of the Russians.

“Even in the wake of the flagrant shattering of the international norm against chemical weapons use, Russia continues to hold the council hostage and shirk its international responsibilities, including as a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention,” Power said.

She made no mention of China’s role, although that country, too, is a signatory to the anti-chemical weapons pact. State Department spokespeople did not respond to queries about whether the U.S. also views China as holding “hostage” the U.N. Security Council.

In fact, when a Security Council resolution offered by the British was blocked last week, it was the third time a Syria-related measure had been defeated. In each instance, Russia and China acted in lock step to prevent its adoption.

( Also on POLITICO: President Obama could lose big on Syria in House)

Yet, Russia remains the focus of U.S. ire.

“We would never expect to achieve full consensus among the countries here because Russia just takes a different position on the issue of Syria generally,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters at the G-20 Summit Thursday.

China is also in attendance at the summit, but Rhodes did not suggest at that point that its opposition to international action in Syria would be any obstacle to consensus.

During a briefing Friday on Obama’s talks with Xi, Rhodes acknowledged China’s opposition to action in Syria, but did so in a notably understated way.

“We’ve obviously had a difference with China on this issue,” Rhodes told journalists. He said Syria came up only briefly in the exchange because it had been discussed at length during a dinner with all the leaders Thursday night.

“The fact of the matter is China, too, has been unwilling to support action through the Security Council,” Rhodes added. “But to be candid, this is one of those issues where Russia really is in the lead in terms of its support for the Assad regime. So I think it has not been the principal issue in the U.S.-China relationship by any measure.”

The U.S.’s intense public focus on Russia is in part the product of the fact that Syria’s diplomatic, military and economic ties to Russia are stronger and deeper than its connections with China. Some analysts also believe that if Moscow budged on the issue, China would follow — maybe.

“Syria is Russia’s client state and North Korea is China’s client state,” said one former U.S. diplomat who’s worked extensively with Beijing and asked not to be named. “On North Korean issues, Russia defers to China. And China defers to Russia on Syrian issues.”

Under those circumstances the U.S. is right to have Moscow in the cross hairs, experts say. “China has relatively little directly at stake in Syria, and nothing at stake that would motivate it to diverge from the Russian position,” said Andrew Nathan, a professor of political science at Columbia University. “Likewise if the Russian position changes, China does not have enough directly at stake to refuse to change along with Russia … No use working on Beijing in the meantime.”

China’s alignment with Russia in the Syria dispute may also be driven by a desire to bolster Russia’s standing as a global counterweight to the U.S.

Still, many analysts see China’s opposition to U.N intervention as more principled and historically rooted, while Russia’s approach is viewed as more driven by allegiance to the regime in Damascus.

“China doesn’t want to see the U.S. or other big countries interfering in any other countries domestic affairs because it doesn’t want interference in the domestic affairs of China,” Schell said.

While China has maintained that position for decades, one recent case provided a notable exception. In 2011, China abstained from a U.N. Security Council vote on Libya, allowing the council to adopt a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone aimed at preventing civilian deaths at the hands of Muammar Qadhafi’s regime.

A Chinese diplomat said the country had “serious difficulty” with the resolution but let it take effect in part because the Arab League had also endorsed action in Libya. In the case of Syria, the Arab League is more divided and has stopped short of backing a military response.

Many observers said China wavered in the Libya crisis because Beijing feared being seen as responsible for a massacre in Libya if one took place.

Chinese officials have said no action should be taken in Syria until U.N. investigators complete a report into the alleged use of chemical weapons there.

“Whoever used chemical weapons, if proven, should be held accountable,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said Thursday. “China supports the U.N. investigation team in carrying out objective and impartial investigation. The next move should be decided by the U.N. Security Council on the basis of the final investigation report. Unilateral military action runs counter to the international law and basic norms governing international relations. It will further complicate the Syrian issue and add to regional turmoil.”

Despite legitimate distinctions that can be drawn between China and Russia, American officials have sometimes described the Syrian conflict in such starkly moral terms that it’s hard to see how China’s role could be overlooked.

“To block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria,” then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last year just after one U.N. resolution condemning the regime’s actions failed following vetoes by China and Russia.

Some U.S. allies have been more willing to couple criticism of Russia’s Syria stance with that of China.

“It is very regrettable that Russia and China have refused for some time to come to a common position [with the West] on the Syrian conflict,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the Augsburger Allgemeine newspaper last week. “This considerably weakens the role of the United Nations.”

“More than 2,000 people have died since Russia and China vetoed the last draft resolution,” British Foreign Secretary William Hague said last year. “How many more need to die before Russia and China allow the UN security council to act?”