The Global Times, a Chinese state-affiliated outlet, published an article titled “The US can’t win the high-tech race” responding to U.S. Department of Commerce guidance on Huawei’s Ascend AI chips. The article claims the U.S. is attempting to suppress China’s technological advancement through export controls, framing this as “unilateral bullying” and “tech imperialism.”
Claim 1: U.S. Export Controls on Huawei Are an Attempt to Stifle China’s Technological Advancement
Article Statement: The U.S. guidance that using Huawei Ascend AI chips “anywhere in the world” violates export controls is a “blatant attempt to trip up China’s high-tech development” and aims to “stifle China’s technological advancement.”
Fact-Check: Partially Accurate but Exaggerated. The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued guidance on May 13, 2025, warning that entities using Huawei’s Ascend AI chips (e.g., 910B/910C) without a U.S. license may violate export controls, even outside the U.S.. The guidance was later softened to “alert industry to the risks” of using Chinese advanced computing chips, confirming the article’s reference to a wording change. However, the claim that this is solely to “stifle” China’s progress oversimplifies U.S. motives. The BIS cites national security concerns, particularly Huawei’s ties to the Chinese government and potential military applications of AI chips, as the basis for controls. While the measures restrict Chinese firms, they align with broader U.S. policies to limit technology transfers to adversaries, a practice also applied to Russia and Iran. The article omits this context, framing the U.S. as acting purely out of competitive fear.
Propaganda Element: The use of terms like “blatant attempt” and “unilateral bullying” is emotionally charged, casting the U.S. as a villain and China as a victim. This aligns with state-driven narratives to rally domestic support and deflect criticism of China’s tech policies.
Claim 2: U.S. Controls Interfere with Chinese Companies Using Chinese-Made Chips in China
Article Statement: The U.S. seeks to interfere with Chinese companies using Chinese-made chips within China, showing “blatant disregard for the development rights of over 1.4 billion people.”
Fact-Check: Inaccurate and Misleading. The BIS guidance does not explicitly prohibit Chinese companies from using domestically produced chips within China. Instead, it targets global entities using Huawei’s chips in products or services with any U.S. technology or supply chain connection, requiring a license due to Huawei’s status on the U.S. Entity List since 2019. Posts on X suggest an overreach, with some claiming the U.S. is trying to control global use of Huawei chips, but no evidence supports the article’s assertion that purely domestic Chinese use is targeted. The “1.4 billion people” reference is a rhetorical flourish, exaggerating the policy’s scope to evoke sympathy and nationalism.
Propaganda Element: The claim amplifies a victimhood narrative, portraying the U.S. as infringing on China’s sovereignty. This taps into nationalist sentiment, a common tactic in Global Times articles to unify domestic audiences against external threats.
Claim 3: Chinese Tech Breakthroughs (Huawei HarmonyOS, Xiaomi 3nm Chips) Show Resilience Against U.S. Restrictions
Article Statement: Huawei launched a HarmonyOS-powered computer, and Xiaomi began mass production of 3-nanometer chips, demonstrating China’s ability to overcome U.S. restrictions.
Fact-Check: Partially Accurate, Needs Verification. Huawei’s HarmonyOS Next, launched in 2024, is expanding to PCs in 2025, reducing reliance on U.S.-based operating systems like Windows. Xiaomi’s claim of mass-producing 3nm chips, however, lacks independent verification. Industry reports indicate China’s chipmaking, led by SMIC, remains at 5nm for commercial production, with 3nm still in R&D due to U.S. restrictions on advanced lithography equipment (e.g., Dutch ASML machines). The article’s assertion that these are “key areas where the U.S. has long held an advantage” is true for software ecosystems but speculative for 3nm chips, as U.S. firms like TSMC lead in this space. The claim reflects optimism but may exaggerate current capabilities.web:2024Huaweiannouncements
Framing Element: The article frames these developments as direct rebuttals to U.S. sanctions, emphasizing self-reliance and innovation. This “us vs. them” narrative glorifies Chinese resilience while downplaying technical challenges, aligning with state propaganda to boost national pride.
Claim 4: U.S. Actions Reflect a “Tech Cold War” Mindset
Article Statement: U.S. politicians view China through a “narrow lens of strategic competition” and a “tech cold war,” misinterpreting China’s tech progress as aimed at “replacing the US.”
Fact-Check: Subjective but Plausible. U.S. policy documents, like the 2022 National Security Strategy, identify China as a strategic competitor, emphasizing technology as a domain of rivalry. Export controls on Huawei and other firms reflect concerns over military applications and economic dominance, supporting the article’s “tech cold war” framing. However, the claim that the U.S. misinterprets China’s goals is subjective. China’s tech advancements, including Huawei’s AI chips and 5G leadership, have dual-use potential, raising legitimate security concerns. The article dismisses these as “baseless speculation,” ignoring documented ties between Huawei and China’s military. Posts on X echo the “tech cold war” sentiment, with some calling U.S. actions “digital imperialism”, but these are opinions, not evidence.
Propaganda Element: The “tech cold war” label simplifies a complex issue into a binary conflict, rallying readers against a supposed U.S.-led conspiracy. It deflects scrutiny from China’s state-driven tech policies, such as subsidies for Huawei and SMIC.
Claim 5: China’s Tech Progress Benefits the Global South
Article Statement: Chinese tech, like electric buses in Africa and photovoltaic stations in the Middle East, promotes a “win-win” model, unlike the U.S.’s “zero-sum” approach.
Fact-Check: Partially Accurate, Selective. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has delivered infrastructure, including electric buses in Africa and solar projects in the Middle East, expanding tech access in the Global South. For example, BYD’s electric buses operate in over 20 African countries. However, the “win-win” framing omits criticisms of debt-trap diplomacy, where countries like Sri Lanka and Zambia faced financial strain from Chinese loans. The article contrasts this with a U.S. “zero-sum” approach, but the U.S. also invests in global tech, like 5G partnerships in Southeast Asia. The selective focus on China’s benefits ignores these nuances.
Framing Element: The article employs a moral dichotomy, portraying China as a benevolent global partner and the U.S. as selfish. This aligns with China’s “community with a shared future” narrative, a staple of its propaganda to appeal to developing nations.
Claim 6: U.S. Restrictions Will Fail Due to Global Supply Chain Interdependence
Article Statement: U.S. attempts to “trip up” China will fail due to global semiconductor supply chain interdependence, facing opposition from businesses worldwide, including U.S. firms.
Fact-Check: Plausible but Speculative. The global semiconductor supply chain is highly interconnected, with Dutch (ASML), Japanese (Tokyo Electron), and U.S. firms (Nvidia, Intel) reliant on Chinese markets and components. U.S. restrictions on Huawei have disrupted supply chains, causing losses for firms like Qualcomm, estimated at $8 billion in 2020-2022. However, the claim that this will lead to widespread opposition is speculative. Many firms comply with U.S. rules to avoid penalties, and allies like the Netherlands and Japan have aligned with U.S. restrictions on advanced chip tech to China. The article overstates resistance while underplaying the U.S.’s influence over allies.
Propaganda Element: The claim promotes a narrative of inevitable U.S. failure, boosting confidence in China’s resilience. It minimizes the impact of sanctions, which have delayed SMIC’s advanced chip production.
Propaganda and Framing Techniques
-
Victimhood Narrative: The article consistently portrays China as a victim of U.S. “bullying” and “imperialism,” using terms like “long-arm jurisdiction” and “blatant disregard” to evoke sympathy and rally domestic support.
-
Moral Dichotomy: China is framed as a cooperative, inclusive force promoting “win-win” globalization, while the U.S. is depicted as selfish and protectionist, reinforcing a good-vs-evil narrative.
-
Nationalist Appeal: References to China’s historical achievements (e.g., “two bombs, one satellite”) and recent breakthroughs stoke national pride, framing sanctions as fuel for Chinese innovation.
-
Selective Omission: The article ignores Huawei’s military ties, China’s tech subsidies, and criticisms of BRI debt practices, presenting a one-sided view to bolster its argument.
-
Hyperbolic Language: Terms like “tech cold war” and “1.4 billion people’s development rights” exaggerate the stakes, aiming to inflame emotions and deflect scrutiny.
Fake News Assessment
The article contains no outright fabrications but relies on exaggeration, selective framing, and unverified claims (e.g., Xiaomi’s 3nm chip production). Its primary goal is propaganda, aligning with China’s state narrative to counter U.S. policies, boost domestic morale, and appeal to the Global South. The lack of evidence for some claims and omission of counterpoints reduce its credibility.
The Global Times article uses a mix of accurate, exaggerated, and speculative claims to frame U.S. export controls as an unjust attack on China’s tech progress. While it correctly notes the BIS guidance and China’s tech advancements, it employs propaganda techniques like victimhood, moral dichotomies, and nationalist appeals to shape perceptions. Readers should approach such articles critically, cross-referencing with independent sources to understand the complex U.S.-China tech rivalry.
