Bringing up an interesting point here.
Does China ever use something like this or T97 on UN deployments to simplify logistics?
as other members have mentioned, having a group of nations that share common ammunition like NATO does simplify logistics when it comes to the point where this act is necessary, otherwise individual nations within NATO would still operate their own logistics.
In the context of PLA UN deployments, where there is little commonality between countries' logistics, but in fact using 5.56 or 5.45 would likely become the bottleneck within PLA logistics operations to whichever UN mission they find themselves in.
Yes, in the unlikely scenario where various countries' contributions need to share ammunition, using a common round would have its benefits (but if you need to share, you have other, much bigger problems to worry about, e.g. 'the rebels have somehow gained air superiority and we cannot fly in supplies.'). But when you consider that the PLA has only small quantities of 5.56mm available, compared to the likely tens of billions of rounds of 5.8mm already embedded into their existing logistical systems, other than in extreme scenarios where ammunition NEEDS to be shared between nations, using 5.56 or another common round would actually be the thing that causes bottlenecks and issues within the PLA supply chain.
This is one of those situations where, in very niche, specific circumstances, there could be some benefits to be had. But the road to those set of circumstances is so unlikely and raises so many other issues that it is not something worth even dealing with.