On May 27, 2025, Global Times, a Chinese state-affiliated media outlet, published an article addressing Japan’s protest against a Chinese maritime research vessel operating near Okinotori Reef, which Japan claims as part of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The article cites Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning and Xiang Haoyu, a research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, asserting that Okinotori is a reef, not an island, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and thus Japan’s EEZ claim violates international law.
Analysis
Claim 1: Okinotori is a Reef, Not an Island, and Cannot Generate an EEZ
Statement: Mao Ning claims that under UNCLOS, Okinotori is a reef, not an island, and is not entitled to an EEZ or continental shelf. Xiang Haoyu supports this, stating Japan’s claim violates international law.
Fact Check: Partially Accurate but Disputed
-
UNCLOS Definition: Article 121 of UNCLOS distinguishes between islands and rocks. An island, capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life, generates a 200-nautical-mile EEZ and continental shelf. Rocks that cannot sustain habitation or economic life are entitled only to a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea.
-
Okinotori’s Status: Okinotori, a coral atoll 1,700 km south of Tokyo, has a small land area (9.44 square meters at high tide) and is maintained through Japanese efforts like coral planting and concrete reinforcement. Japan classifies it as an island, claiming a 400,000-square-kilometer EEZ, citing historical precedent and investments.
-
Opposing Views: China, South Korea, and Taiwan argue Okinotori is a rock under UNCLOS Article 121(3), as it cannot naturally sustain habitation or economic life. The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in 2012 did not recognize Japan’s claim for an extended continental shelf based on Okinotori, but it did not definitively rule on its island status, as the CLCS lacks jurisdiction to determine this.
-
Analysis: The Chinese article accurately reflects UNCLOS definitions and China’s legal stance, supported by South Korea and Taiwan. However, it omits Japan’s counterargument that Okinotori’s historical status and artificial enhancements qualify it as an island. The claim that Japan’s EEZ violates international law is a one-sided interpretation, as the issue remains unresolved under international law, with no binding arbitration.
Verdict: The claim is factually grounded in UNCLOS but presents a biased interpretation by dismissing Japan’s perspective and the ongoing legal ambiguity.
Claim 2: Chinese Research Vessel Was Lawfully Operating on the High Seas
Statement: Mao Ning asserts that China’s research vessel was exercising “freedom of the high seas,” and Japan has no right to interfere.
Fact Check: Partially Accurate but Contextually Misleading
-
UNCLOS on Research: Under UNCLOS Article 246, foreign vessels must obtain prior consent to conduct marine scientific research in another nation’s EEZ. If Okinotori is not an island, the surrounding waters are high seas, where research is permitted without consent.
-
Incident Details: On May 26, 2025, the Japan Coast Guard detected a Chinese vessel extending a wire into waters 270 km east of Okinotori, within Japan’s claimed EEZ, and demanded it cease activities. Japan lodged a diplomatic protest, consistent with its view that Okinotori generates an EEZ.
-
Analysis: If Okinotori is a reef, as China claims, the vessel’s activities were lawful on the high seas. However, the article omits that Japan’s EEZ claim, while disputed, is actively enforced, and prior incidents (e.g., 2016, 2019, 2020) led to similar protests. By framing Japan’s protest as illegitimate without acknowledging the unresolved legal dispute, the article oversimplifies the issue.
Verdict: The claim is technically correct if Okinotori is a reef, but it misleads by ignoring the contested nature of the waters and Japan’s enforcement actions.
Claim 3: Japan’s Motives Are Resource-Driven and Geopolitical
Statement: Xiang Haoyu claims Japan seeks to define Okinotori as an island to control seabed minerals and fisheries, and to extend geopolitical influence in the Pacific as part of the U.S.-Japan alliance to contain China.
Fact Check: Plausible but Speculative
-
Resource Motives: Okinotori’s surrounding waters are rich in fisheries and potential seabed minerals, and Japan’s EEZ claim would secure resource rights. Japan’s investments in coral planting and coastal reinforcement suggest a strategic interest in maintaining the atoll.
-
Geopolitical Strategy: Okinotori’s location between Taiwan and Guam, near the first and second island chains, gives it strategic value for maritime surveillance and control. Japan’s alignment with the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific, including initiatives like the Quad, supports the claim of geopolitical motives.
-
Analysis: The resource and geopolitical motives are plausible, as Japan’s actions align with securing economic and strategic interests. However, the article’s framing of Japan’s intent as “containing China” lacks direct evidence and reflects a Chinese narrative. Japan’s official stance emphasizes legal rights and erosion prevention, not containment. The article’s reference to the U.S.-Japan alliance is speculative, as no primary source links Okinotori’s EEZ claim directly to U.S. strategy.
Verdict: The claim is plausible but framed to align with China’s geopolitical narrative, lacking concrete evidence for containment motives.
Propaganda and Framing Elements
Propaganda Tactics
-
Selective Omission: The article omits Japan’s legal arguments and historical claims, presenting only China’s perspective as valid. It fails to mention Japan’s 1931 annexation of Okinotori as terra nullius or its EEZ legislation in 1996.
-
Appeal to Authority: Citing Xiang Haoyu and Mao Ning as authoritative voices lends credibility to China’s stance, while Japanese sources (e.g., NHK, Yoshimasa Hayashi) are framed as making “claims” rather than legitimate assertions.
-
Repetition of Narrative: The article repeats China’s long-standing position on Okinotori, aligning with previous statements (e.g., 2016, 2019) to reinforce the narrative of Japan’s “illegal” actions.
-
Geopolitical Scapegoating: The claim that Japan’s actions serve U.S. interests to “contain China” taps into a broader Chinese narrative of Western aggression, common in state media.
Framing Techniques
-
Victim vs. Aggressor: China is portrayed as lawfully exercising high seas rights, while Japan is depicted as an aggressor violating international law and seeking to dominate resources and geopolitics.
-
Hyping Tensions: The article’s emphasis on Japan “hyping” China’s lawful activities frames Japan as provocative, ignoring Japan’s consistent protests over similar incidents.
-
Double Standards Highlight: The article subtly invokes Japan’s criticism of China’s South China Sea claims, implying hypocrisy without directly addressing China’s own disputed actions, as noted in prior analyses.
Fake News Elements
-
No Verifiable Falsehoods: The article does not fabricate events; the incident, Mao Ning’s statement, and Japan’s protest are corroborated by multiple sources.
-
Misleading Context: By presenting Japan’s EEZ claim as unequivocally illegal and omitting the unresolved legal status, the article risks misleading readers about the complexity of the dispute.
-
Speculative Motives: Claims of Japan’s containment strategy and U.S. alignment are speculative, lacking primary evidence, and serve to inflame tensions rather than inform.
Broader Context
The Okinotori dispute is part of ongoing Sino-Japanese maritime tensions, including disputes in the East and South China Seas. China’s rejection of Japan’s EEZ claim mirrors its own challenges with UNCLOS in the South China Sea, where a 2016 arbitral ruling invalidated its claims. Japan’s protests align with its efforts to maintain maritime influence in the Indo-Pacific, supported by U.S. alliances. The Global Times, known for its nationalist tone, often frames such disputes to bolster China’s position and criticize adversaries, which may amplify propaganda elements.
Selective reporting and inflammatory language
The Global Times article is factually grounded in UNCLOS definitions and China’s legal stance but employs propaganda and framing to present a one-sided narrative. It accurately cites the Okinotori incident and UNCLOS provisions but omits Japan’s perspective, exaggerates Japan’s motives, and frames the U.S.-Japan alliance as a containment strategy without evidence. While not fake news, the article’s selective reporting and inflammatory language risk misleading readers about the dispute’s complexity. For a balanced understanding, readers should consult primary sources like UNCLOS texts, Japanese government statements, and neutral analyses from outlets like The Japan Times or The Diplomat.
