The Chinese state-linked article, “Economic Bullying Benefits No One,” presents a sharply critical narrative of the United States’ new reciprocal tariff plan. It frames the U.S. as a destructive global actor undermining multilateralism, pushing the world toward recession, and imposing economic coercion. While many of the economic claims are rooted in real concerns about tariff impacts, this article contains clear propaganda, strategic framing, and emotive rhetoric aimed at positioning China as a responsible global leader and the U.S. as a reckless hegemon.
Claim 1: The U.S. reciprocal tariff policy violates WTO principles
Fact-Check: Mostly True
The WTO’s Most Favored Nation (MFN) principle does prohibit discriminatory tariffs unless justified under specific exceptions like national security or retaliation. The “reciprocal tariff” plan challenges this principle by tailoring tariffs to individual countries, possibly violating WTO rules. However, WTO cases are legally complex, and rulings take years.
Sources: WTO (wto.org), Brookings Institution
Claim 2: Tariffs are based on trade deficits, not actual trade structures
Fact-Check: Likely True
Trump-era tariffs and the newly announced measures often cite trade deficits as justification, rather than actual tariff imbalances. This pattern continues under the new reciprocal tariff plan.
Source: Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), USTR data
Claim 3: Emerging markets like India and Argentina will suffer the most
Fact-Check: Partially True / Needs Context
Emerging markets are vulnerable due to supply chain dependencies, but the extent of damage depends on sectoral exposures. India’s large domestic market offers some insulation, and Argentina’s crisis pre-dates tariffs.
Sources: Bloomberg Economics, IMF 2024 Economic Outlook
Claim 4: U.S. consumers bear the cost of tariffs
Fact-Check: True
Multiple studies confirm that tariffs imposed on foreign goods are passed on to consumers via higher prices.
Source: Peterson Institute, Yale Budget Lab, U.S. Federal Reserve
Propaganda Analysis
Use of “Economic Bullying” and “Historical Chaos”
The term “economic bullying” is emotionally charged and used repeatedly to assign moral blame to the U.S., creating a clear “villain vs. victim” dichotomy. The historical reference to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 invokes a disastrous memory to intensify negative associations, despite differing global contexts.
Technique: Name-calling, historical analogy, moral framing
Intent: To portray U.S. policies as recklessly cyclical and harmful
Glorification of China’s Resilience
The article asserts that China has grown more “confident” despite U.S. pressure and implies that the U.S. failed to achieve its 2018 tariff goals.
Technique: Self-glorification, strategic reassurance
Intent: To position China as a stable and adaptive global leader
Selective Use of Western Data and Sources
Quotes from JP Morgan, Bloomberg, Peterson Institute, and Yale University are used selectively to reinforce China’s narrative. These sources are reputable, but their context is narrowed or generalized to support the “U.S. tariffs hurt everyone” message.
Technique: Cherry-picking
Intent: To legitimize the Chinese perspective using Western validation
Framing the U.S. as Isolated
Statements like “America will find itself increasingly distanced from the global mainstream” construct an image of the U.S. as diplomatically and economically alienated.
Technique: Bandwagon & isolationist framing
Intent: To suggest global unity against U.S. policies
“You are in me, and I am in you” Globalization Metaphor
This poetic language humanizes globalization while demonizing protectionism. It appeals to emotion rather than policy reasoning.
Technique: Emotional metaphor
Intent: To romanticize interdependence and vilify U.S. economic nationalism
Geopolitical Framing Strategy
This article is part of a broader Chinese narrative strategy that emphasizes:
-
China as a victim-turned-resilient actor
-
The U.S. as a destabilizing superpower
-
Global trade as a moral battlefield between unilateralism and multilateralism
By reinforcing these ideas through emotionally charged language, historical analogies, and selective statistics, the article aligns with Beijing’s global communication strategy—especially as it seeks support from the Global South amid geopolitical realignments.
Economic Risks of Trade Wars
-
Global Recession Risks: JP Morgan’s projection of a 40% recession chance in 2025 aligns with other economic outlooks amid trade uncertainty and supply chain fragmentation.
-
WTO Legal Actions: China has filed complaints, but enforcement is slow and often ineffective against great powers.
-
Europe’s Response: The EU has shown cautious resistance, with leaders like Macron urging restraint but signaling unity.
The Chinese article “Economic Bullying Benefits No One” blends real economic concerns with a strategic propaganda framework that blames the U.S. for global instability. While many claims are factually grounded, the framing is intentionally emotional and politically charged to support China’s international image and discredit U.S. economic policy.
