Is Beijing’s South China Sea Narrative Fake News?

In an article published on August 24, 2025, by China Daily (a state-owned English-language newspaper), titled “Joint efforts needed for stability, prosperity in South China Sea,” the piece promotes China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea while criticizing external powers and rival claimants like the Philippines.

Overview of the Article

The article, sourced from Xinhua (China’s state news agency), discusses reports from the Xinhua Institute affirming China’s “historical and legal basis” for sovereignty over the South China Sea islands. It accuses “non-regional forces” (implying the U.S.) of stirring tensions and “a few claimant countries” like the Philippines of provocations. China is depicted as a defender of post-World War II order, advocating for negotiation and cooperation via mechanisms like the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties (DOC) and Code of Conduct (COC) with ASEAN.

While the article calls for regional unity, it aligns closely with the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) official stance, often echoed in state media to justify expansive claims under the controversial “nine-dash line.”

Key Claims and Fact Checks

Below, we break down the article’s major claims, verifying them against independent sources such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), historical documents, and reports from think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI). Claims are rated as True, Mostly True, Misleading, False, or Exaggerated based on evidence.

Claim 1: China’s Sovereignty Over South China Sea Islands Has “Sufficient Historical and Legal Basis” From WWII Documents Like the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation

• Article’s Assertion: China resumed sovereignty post-WWII as a victorious nation, per these declarations, making it part of the post-war international order.
• Fact Check: Misleading/Exaggerated. The Cairo Declaration (1943) and Potsdam Proclamation (1945) called for Japan to return territories it seized, including those in the Pacific. However, these documents do not explicitly grant China sovereignty over the entire South China Sea or its islands (e.g., Spratly and Paracel chains). China’s “nine-dash line” claim, first drawn in 1947, encompasses about 90% of the sea but lacks precise boundaries and was ruled invalid in the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) case brought by the Philippines under UNCLOS. The tribunal found no legal basis for China’s historic rights beyond UNCLOS entitlements. Historians note China’s post-war patrols but emphasize competing claims from Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, and others predating WWII.
• Fake Element: Overstates the declarations’ scope; they address Japanese aggression, not blanket endorsement of Chinese claims.

Claim 2: China’s Claims Were “Widely Recognized by the International Community After the War”

• Article’s Assertion: Post-WWII recognition was broad, aligning with UN Charter principles.
• Fact Check: False. While some maps and diplomatic notes in the 1940s-1950s acknowledged Chinese administration of certain islands, no universal recognition existed. Today, most nations reject China’s expansive claims, favoring UNCLOS, which China ratified but selectively interprets. The U.S., EU, and Quad allies (U.S., Japan, India, Australia) have condemned China’s militarization of artificial islands. A 2023 Pew Research survey showed declining favorability toward China in the region due to these disputes.
• Fake Element: Ignores the 2016 PCA ruling, which China dismissed as “null and void,” highlighting non-compliance with international law.

Claim 3: External Forces (e.g., U.S.) Stir Tensions to “Bolster Hegemony,” and Philippines Provokes for “Selfish Gains”

• Article’s Assertion: Non-regional powers spread “false narratives” and flex military muscles; Philippines, backed externally, repeatedly provokes.
• Fact Check: Misleading/Partially True. The U.S. conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) to challenge excessive claims under UNCLOS, not just China’s but others’. Tensions escalated in 2023-2025 with incidents like Chinese coast guard water-cannoning Philippine vessels at Second Thomas Shoal (Ren’ai Reef in Chinese nomenclature). However, the Philippines acts under its 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the U.S. and won the 2016 arbitration, which China ignores. Both sides accuse each other of aggression, but satellite imagery from AMTI shows China’s island-building and militarization as key escalators.
• Fake Element: Omits China’s rejection of arbitration and actions like ramming vessels, framing provocations as one-sided.

Claim 4: China Is a “Firm Defender” of Post-War Order, Upholding Peace Via Negotiation and Cooperation

• Article’s Assertion: China resolves disputes through talks, manages differences with rules, and promotes win-win via DOC (2002) and COC consultations.
• Fact Check: Mostly True but Exaggerated. China signed the DOC with ASEAN in 2002 to promote restraint, and COC talks continue, with a 2023 draft showing progress. China provides tsunami warnings and maritime aid. However, it has blocked binding arbitration, expanded military presence (e.g., airstrips on Fiery Cross Reef), and used “gray zone” tactics like militia vessels to assert control, undermining peace. ASEAN members like Vietnam and Indonesia express frustration over slow COC progress and unilateral actions.
• Fake Element: Downplays China’s non-compliance with UNCLOS rulings, presenting selective cooperation as comprehensive.

Analysis:

As state-controlled media, China Daily often serves as a CCP mouthpiece, using this article to propagate nationalism and deflect criticism. Key propaganda techniques:

• Selective Omission: Ignores the 2016 Hague ruling and China’s island militarization (e.g., deploying missiles), focusing only on historical narratives favorable to Beijing.
• Victimhood Narrative: Portrays China as a WWII hero defending order, while labeling rivals as “selfish” or hegemonic—classic “whataboutism” to shift blame.
• Repetition of Official Slogans: Phrases like “win-win cooperation” and “community of shared future” echo Xi Jinping’s rhetoric, aimed at domestic audiences to rally support and internationally to soften China’s image.
• Emotional Appeals: Invokes “peace and development” post-WWII to guilt-trip readers, implying opposition to China equates to warmongering.

This aligns with broader CCP efforts to control the narrative, especially amid U.S.-China rivalry, as noted in Freedom House reports on Chinese media influence.

Analysis:

Framing shapes how issues are presented to influence perception:

• Hero vs. Villain Frame: China is framed as a “firm defender” of peace and order, while the U.S. and Philippines are aggressors “stirring tensions” for “hegemony” or “selfish gains.” This binary ignores mutual escalations.
• Historical Legitimacy Frame: Emphasizes WWII to legitimize claims, downplaying modern legal frameworks like UNCLOS, which prioritize equitable maritime zones over “historic rights.”
• Regional Unity Frame: Calls for “excluding external interference” to pit ASEAN against the West, but overlooks intra-ASEAN divisions and China’s bilateral “divide-and-conquer” tactics (e.g., pressuring Cambodia to block unified statements).
• Development-Oriented Frame: Links stability to economic growth, implying disputes hinder prosperity—true but used to pressure claimants into concessions without addressing core sovereignty issues.

This framing advances China’s “peaceful rise” image while eroding trust in international arbitration, a tactic seen in other state media pieces.

A Mix of Facts and Spin

The China Daily article contains kernels of truth, such as China’s WWII role and cooperation efforts, but is riddled with misleading claims, omissions, and propaganda to bolster Beijing’s position in South China Sea disputes. It exemplifies how state media frames narratives to favor the CCP, potentially misleading readers unfamiliar with the full context. For accurate insights, consult neutral sources like the UN, CFR, or AMTI. As tensions rise in 2025, joint efforts indeed matter—but based on international law, not unilateral assertions.