The article published by a Chinese newspaper titled “Quad Taking China as a Target” presents an analysis of the Quad Leaders Summit, which involved the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia. The tone and structure of the article suggest the framing of the Quad as an alliance primarily formed to contain China. While some of the arguments presented may hold merit, such as concerns about the Quad’s ambiguous agenda, the article contains significant propaganda elements and framing techniques that deserve analysis and fact-checking.
1. Framing the Quad as Anti-China: A Narrative of Encirclement
The article begins by suggesting that “everyone knows” the Quad summit is aimed at China, despite official denials from leaders, including U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. The implication that the Quad’s primary agenda is the “encirclement” of China positions the country as a victim of an international conspiracy. The framing implies that the Quad is an instrument of aggression rather than a legitimate regional security initiative.
This narrative oversimplifies the Quad’s broader objectives, which include promoting a “free and open Indo-Pacific” through cooperation on issues such as maritime security, counterterrorism, and economic development. While China may feel targeted by some of these initiatives, there is no explicit evidence from official Quad statements or actions that the alliance is solely focused on containing China. The propaganda technique of casting international coalitions as hostile or conspiratorial is used to solidify internal support and external sympathy.
2. Selective Quoting and Misinterpretation
The article refers to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken supposedly naming China as the first topic in the Quad leaders’ meeting, claiming this as evidence that China is the primary focus. However, this claim is not backed up by direct quotes or context, and it relies on a camera feed interpretation when reporters were allegedly out of earshot.
By emphasizing this moment, the article promotes a conspiracy theory-like narrative, suggesting that the Quad is intentionally hiding its anti-China agenda. This framing is a form of strategic ambiguity, where incomplete or unverifiable information is used to build a persuasive narrative.
3. Downplaying Regional Support for Quad
The article argues that the Quad’s “encirclement of China” enjoys little support in the international arena, claiming that the joint statement issued by the Quad leaders did not directly name China. By doing this, the article attempts to discredit the Quad’s influence and popularity in the region, portraying it as weak and ineffective.
However, the Quad enjoys broad diplomatic and strategic support in many Indo-Pacific nations, particularly smaller states that benefit from enhanced maritime security and economic cooperation. Countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines have expressed concerns about China’s growing influence and appreciate initiatives aimed at balancing power in the region. The Quad’s objectives extend beyond military containment, involving partnerships for infrastructure development, climate action, and health security.
4. False Equivalence: China as the Regional Stabilizer
Another key framing element in the article is the portrayal of China as a “major contributor to regional peace and stability.” While it is true that China plays a significant role in the Indo-Pacific economy and regional affairs, the article neglects to mention China’s contentious actions in the South China Sea, where its military expansion and territorial claims have raised tensions with neighboring countries.
By omitting this context, the article presents a false equivalence, suggesting that China’s influence is entirely benign while framing the Quad’s initiatives as disruptive. In reality, the Quad aims to address concerns about freedom of navigation and territorial disputes, especially in areas where China’s activities have been viewed as aggressive by its neighbors and international observers.
5. Criticizing the Quad’s Effectiveness: A Dilution Strategy
The article repeatedly emphasizes the alleged ineffectiveness of the Quad, claiming that little progress has been made in its six working groups and that the mechanism “seems adrift.” It cites opinions that the Quad is facing an “existential crisis”, largely due to India’s autonomy and the varying national interests of the member countries.
While it is true that the Quad has faced challenges in aligning the strategic priorities of all four nations, dismissing the entire framework as ineffective overlooks several recent achievements. For example, the Quad countries have cooperated on vaccine distribution, climate action, and defense interoperability, demonstrating the alliance’s ability to deliver concrete results.
This framing is part of a dilution strategy—by emphasizing potential internal fractures, the article attempts to weaken the perceived cohesion and legitimacy of the Quad.
6. Rhetorical Devices: Language of Fear and Threat
The article uses loaded language such as “hyping the China threat,” “crude interference,” and “artificially creating tensions” to suggest that the Quad’s actions are provocative and destabilizing. These terms are part of fear-mongering rhetoric, aimed at framing the U.S. and its allies as irresponsible actors destabilizing the Indo-Pacific for their own interests.
By consistently referring to the Quad’s actions in negative terms, the article amplifies a sense of external threat to justify China’s own strategic posture. This serves the dual purpose of reinforcing nationalistic sentiments domestically while deflecting international criticism of China’s own regional policies.
Analyzing the Claims
- Claim 1: The Quad is aimed solely at containing China.
- Fact Check: False. The Quad’s stated mission is to promote a “free and open Indo-Pacific,” addressing various regional challenges like maritime security, climate change, and economic cooperation. China is not the sole focus, although concerns over Chinese military actions in the South China Sea are part of the broader agenda.
- Claim 2: The Quad is ineffective and facing an existential crisis.
- Fact Check: Misleading. While the Quad faces challenges in coordinating the diverse interests of its members, it has made strides in areas like maritime security, vaccine diplomacy, and supply chain resilience. The claim that it is in an existential crisis is an exaggeration based on selective analysis.
- Claim 3: China is the main contributor to peace and stability in the region.
- Fact Check: Partially true but lacks context. While China plays a significant economic role in the region, its aggressive actions in the South China Sea and its unilateral claims over disputed territories have contributed to rising tensions with its neighbors.
The article “Quad Taking China as a Target” employs a combination of propaganda techniques and framing strategies to cast the Quad alliance in a negative light. The use of selective facts, loaded language, and strategic ambiguity distorts the actual objectives of the Quad, reducing a complex geopolitical issue into a simple narrative of encirclement and hostility toward China.
By analyzing the claims and comparing them with factual data, it becomes evident that the article’s portrayal of the Quad is heavily influenced by nationalistic and propagandistic motives. While the Quad certainly considers China’s regional activities as part of its broader strategic concerns, its agenda is much more comprehensive than merely containing China. Moreover, the Quad’s cooperation has yielded concrete benefits for the Indo-Pacific region, despite the challenges it faces.
References:
- White House Quad Summit Statement, September 2024.
- “China’s South China Sea Activities: An Overview,” Council on Foreign Relations.
- “The Quad and Indo-Pacific Security,” Brookings Institution, 2023.
- “China and the Quad: Strategic Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific,” Nikkei Asia, 2024.
