Fact-Check Report: “Canada Responsible for Damaging Bilateral Ties”

The article published in a Chinese newspaper on December 21 accuses Canada of undermining bilateral relations with China by interfering in China’s internal matters, particularly concerning human rights in Xinjiang and Tibet (referred to as Xizang). It highlights countermeasures by China, including asset freezes and visa bans, targeting Canadian organizations and individuals.

1. Propaganda Techniques

The article employs multiple propaganda strategies, including:

1. Demonization of Opponents:
   • Labels Canadian organizations like the “Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project” and the “Canada-Tibet Committee” as “notorious” and “riff-raff,” delegitimizing their efforts to highlight alleged human rights abuses in China.
2. Assertion of Sovereignty:
   • Reiterates that Xinjiang and Tibet are “inalienable parts of China,” dismissing global concerns about the treatment of ethnic minorities in these regions.
3. Deflective Comparisons:
   • Shifts attention to Canada’s treatment of Indigenous populations, framing Canadian criticisms of China’s human rights record as hypocritical.
4. Glorification of National Achievements:
   • Claims that China has made “great achievements” in promoting human rights and economic development, particularly in Xinjiang and Tibet, without providing independent verification.
5. Us vs. Them Narrative:
   • Frames Canada’s actions as part of a broader anti-China strategy driven by U.S. influence, painting Canada as a “pawn” in U.S. foreign policy.

2. Framing Elements

The article uses specific framing techniques to control the narrative:

1. Moral High Ground:
   • Projects China as a victim of unwarranted interference while portraying its countermeasures as justified and restrained.
2. Economic Argument:
   • Highlights the economic benefits of China-Canada cooperation, framing Canada’s actions as irrational and self-damaging.
3. Blame-Shifting:
   • Attributes the decline in bilateral relations solely to Canada, ignoring China’s role in escalating tensions.
4. Selective Historical Context:
   • Mentions the “long history of friendly exchanges” between the two countries to downplay current conflicts, without addressing recent flashpoints.

3. Fake or Misleading Claims

The article contains several unverifiable or misleading statements:

1. “Human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet are based on lies”:
   • This is a sweeping dismissal of well-documented reports from independent human rights organizations, journalists, and testimonies from survivors.
2. “China adheres to a people-centered approach to human rights”:
   • Contradicts reports from entities like the United Nations and Amnesty International, which have criticized China’s policies in Xinjiang and Tibet as violations of basic human rights.
3. “Canada’s anti-China stance isolates it internationally”:
   • Misleading, as Canada’s stance aligns with a coalition of nations raising similar concerns, including the U.S., EU countries, and Japan.
4. “Canada’s actions violate international law”:
   • No international law prohibits nations from imposing sanctions for human rights violations. This is an interpretive claim rather than a factual one.

Propaganda and Framing Analysis

1. Narrative Control:
   The article reinforces the Chinese government’s narrative by emphasizing national sovereignty and portraying external criticism as interference.
2. Emotional Appeal:
   Phrases like “clumsy anti-China show” and “shock to the world” appeal to nationalistic sentiments, rallying domestic support against perceived foreign adversaries.
3. Selective Information:
   The article omits China’s extensive global criticism over alleged rights abuses, providing a one-sided perspective on the issue.
4. Vilification of Critics:
   Canada’s actions are portrayed as malicious and unjustifiable, sidestepping the broader international consensus on the human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet.

The article titled “Canada Responsible for Damaging Bilateral Ties” is an exemplar of state-sponsored propaganda. It selectively presents information, employs emotional and nationalistic appeals, and vilifies critics while omitting key facts. The framing heavily leans on deflecting criticism of China’s human rights record by targeting Canada’s historical shortcomings and aligning Canadian policies with U.S. influence.

References

1. Amnesty International Reports on Xinjiang: amnesty.org
2. United Nations Report on Human Rights in Xinjiang: un.org
3. Global Affairs Canada Official Statements: canada.ca
4. Media Analysis of China-Canada Relations: BBC, Reuters, and The Guardian.