The 'China Squeeze' narrative is the latest product of anti-China discourse woven by the nexus of foundations, think tanks and media outlets
The fabrication and dissemination of the "China Squeeze" narrative by some Western think tanks and media exposes the manipulative tactics of certain Western cognitive operations, revealing the role they play as tools in maintaining the hegemony of the Western discourse.
The core logic of the "China Squeeze" narrative is simple. It views the global manufacturing market as a fixed-size pie and claims that the bigger China's share is in the mid-to-low-end manufacturing sector, the less room there is left for latecomers such as India and sub-Saharan Africa. Without considering the actual situation of industrial transfer or studying the division of labor in the global value chain, these narratives draw the conclusion that China is "squeezing" the development space of other countries, based on the assumption that latecomer countries would have more opportunities without China's industrialization. This narrative overlooks South-South industrial collaboration and instead aims at suppressing China's development.
Periodically, some Western think tanks release reports on China under the guise of "authoritative studies" to introduce new narratives. Western mainstream media cover these reports quickly, emphasizing their authority. Various versions of the "China threat" theory have emerged and been amplified in this manner, whether it be the recent "China Squeeze" narrative or the "sharp power" concept introduced in 2017.
The "China Squeeze" narrative was introduced by the Peterson Institute for International Economics in its report "China's Mercantilist Squeeze on Developing Countries." US media outlets such as Foreign Affairs, The Washington Post and Bloomberg quickly propagated this narrative.
Previously, the National Endowment for Democracy released a report in December 2017, titled "Sharp Power: Rising Authoritarian Influence," which coined the term "sharp power" as a counterpart to soft power, aiming to smear so-called "authoritarian regimes". This served the political agenda of US politicians accusing Russia of interfering in the 2016 elections, with China also implicated. Before the report's publication, Christopher Walker and Jessica Ludwig, writers at the National Endowment for Democracy, introduced the "sharp power" concept in a November article in Foreign Affairs, setting the stage for the report. Following the report's release, The Economist explored how China and Russia allegedly infiltrate the West using "sharp power," vigorously promoting a new "China threat" narrative.
Examining the circulation of various anti-China narratives reveals the underlying operations of mainstream Western media and think tanks. The relationship between them is mutually beneficial: the media outlets leverage think tank reports to enhance the authority of their anti-China bias, while the think tanks use media coverage to expand their influence and secure further funding.
Crucially, these Western media outlets are not as objective and neutral as they claim, masking their role in covert propaganda operations by citing think tanks. The essence of such Western mass communication is not disseminating truth but rather persuading, inducing or brainwashing audiences more effectively. This practice has evolved into cognitive warfare.
In his book Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960, US scholar Christopher Simpson examines the rise of US mass communication during the early Cold War, supported by military and intelligence agencies, revealing the underlying mechanisms of US covert propaganda operations. Whether engaging in white, grey or black propaganda, Western media participate as pawns serving political purposes, acting as tools to achieve national strategic objectives.
These Western think tanks, contrary to their self-promotion, do not prioritize analytic research and objectivity. They often propagate their sponsors' political agendas under the guise of policy advocacy, influencing public policy in their own countries or inserting their sponsors' interests into research reports to advance set political agendas.
In her book Dark Money Politics: Philanthropic Foundations and American Hegemony, Yin Peiqiu, an assistant professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University, analyzes the power mechanisms of US foundations, revealing how these foundations shape US foreign strategy, operate social networks domestically, and influence international development policy and transnational social networks to support US hegemony. These foundations, by supporting various think tanks, form a special "foundation-think tank complex," which further collaborates with friendly media to engage in cognitive warfare, creating a discourse network woven by foundations, think tanks and media outlets.
This discourse network sets agendas, shapes concepts, constructs narratives, amplifies dissemination and mobilizes public sentiment, thus shaping government policy and foreign policy agendas. Its core purpose is to maintain Western hegemony by means of ideological colonization. Various indices and rankings constructed by Western foundations, think tanks or media outlets similarly adhere to the logic of maintaining the West's discourse hegemony. One instance is the "Index of Economic Freedom," jointly created by the conservative Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation in 1995.
The "China Squeeze" narrative is merely the latest product of this Western foundation-think tank-media network. The true "value" of their anti-China narratives is to "educate" the Chinese public, only to make the Chinese people more vigilant: not to idealize Western media or perceive Western think tanks as noble and selfless. This realization is equally valuable for audiences in other Global South countries.
The author is the director of Hong Kong Insights Institute of Social Sciences.
The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.
