A recent article published in a prominent Chinese newspaper, discussing the U.S. report titled “Displays are the New Batteries” by Pamir Consulting, warrants close scrutiny for potential bias, propaganda, and framing strategies. This report highlights perceived national security threats linked to China’s display manufacturing industry, raising significant implications for U.S.-China relations. The Chinese article presents counterarguments that reflect consistent themes in state-sponsored media.
1. Identifying Propaganda Elements
Propaganda often relies on emotive language and broad generalizations to sway opinions. In the Chinese article, phrases such as “fragile sense of security”, “hidden agenda of trade protectionism”, and “smear Chinese companies” suggest intentional framing to cast the U.S. as an unreasonable aggressor and promote national solidarity. Such language is designed to evoke distrust towards the U.S. and portray China as an underdog unfairly targeted despite legitimate technological progress.
2. Analysing Framing Techniques
The article frames the U.S. as hypocritical by contrasting its stance on China’s rise with its historical indifference toward Japanese and Korean dominance in display technology. The selective comparison omits significant geopolitical contexts that differentiate China from Japan and Korea, such as China’s government structure and its state-owned enterprises, which influence global perceptions. This framing redirects focus from legitimate security concerns to accusations of bias and economic protectionism.
3. Examining Claims of U.S. Security Concerns
The core claim—that U.S. security concerns are exaggerated to suppress Chinese competition—is both a valid critique and an oversimplification. It is accurate that the U.S. employs security concerns as part of a strategic playbook for economic competition, but such concerns also stem from China’s unique blend of private and state-controlled enterprise, which could facilitate military applications of civilian technology. The newspaper’s assertion that the rise of China’s display industry owes solely to “self-driven innovation” is only partially accurate. China’s technology sector has historically benefited from substantial government subsidies and state-backed R&D investments. Ignoring these subsidies skews the narrative toward a portrayal of purely organic growth.
4. Fact-Checking Key Data Points
- Claim of Subsidy-Free Growth: The article states, “Chinese companies have grown step-by-step through self-driven innovation,” while rejecting subsidies as a driving force. This contradicts extensive documentation by global economists and policy analysts that China’s government provides significant financial support to strategic industries, including display manufacturing.
- Comparison of R&D Intensity: The article claims, “R&D intensity of top Chinese firms… has increased 646 percent over the past 10 years.” While this may be true, it lacks context regarding the scale of these investments compared to those made by U.S. or other countries’ firms. Reliable data supports a strong increase in China’s R&D spending, but the contribution of government backing is an influential factor.
5. Framing the U.S. as a Global Opponent
A significant framing element in the Chinese article is the portrayal of the U.S. as an aggressor blocking the “Global South” from developing. This approach appeals to developing nations that see themselves as similarly marginalized, aiming to build alliances and garner sympathy for China’s position. The notion of “Who will be next?” primes readers to view U.S. policies as potential threats to their development too, thus framing the U.S. as an obstacle to global prosperity.
6. The Reality of National Security Concerns
The report by Pamir Consulting aligns with a documented trend where national security is cited in technology and trade policies. There is some truth in the newspaper’s critique of U.S. securitization practices, which are often broad. The U.S. has indeed expanded its definition of national security to encompass diverse industries, driven by concerns over supply chain security and technological dependencies that could be weaponized in geopolitical conflicts. However, simplifying this as mere “trade protectionism” disregards genuine security risks identified by defense analysts.
The Chinese newspaper article on Pamir Consulting’s report incorporates elements of propaganda through loaded language, selective comparisons, and framing that highlights U.S. hypocrisy while omitting China’s complex economic strategies, including state support. Factually, while U.S. concerns about China’s display industry might include economic motivations, they are also rooted in legitimate worries about the dual-use potential of emerging technologies. Both sides engage in framing and selective reporting, underscoring the complexities of global trade and security narratives.
References
- U.S. Department of Defense reports on national security and technological threats.
- Pamir Consulting’s report “Displays are the New Batteries”.
- Data on China’s government subsidies for technology sectors from World Bank and policy research studies.
- Analysis from global economic policy think tanks on the geopolitical use of national security.
