Summary of the Article’s Claims
The Global Times article argues that:
-
U.S. criticism of Peru’s Chancay Port project is a deliberate “smear” and part of Washington’s geopolitical strategy to maintain dominance in Latin America.
-
A U.S. State Department post on X allegedly misrepresents a Peruvian court ruling as evidence that Peru might lose sovereignty over the port.
-
The article claims the U.S. aims to prevent independent cooperation between Latin American countries and China.
-
It frames the Chinese–Peruvian Chancay Port project as a “win-win” cooperation model that benefits Peru and Latin America.
Verifiable Facts vs. Spin
Accurate or Plausible Information
Existence and operation of Chancay Port
The Chancay Port in Peru is a major infrastructure project co-developed by China COSCO Shipping Co. and Peruvian partners, operational since November 14, 2024. It aims to reduce shipping time and costs between Asia and Latin America and has already handled significant cargo volumes.
Dispute over regulatory oversight
It is objectively true that there is a legal dispute over whether Peru’s transport regulator Ositran should oversee the Chancay Port. In Jan 2026 a Peruvian court ruled Ositran cannot apply standard port oversight, and Ositran has appealed this. The Associated Press reports that key Peruvian authorities (including police, customs, and environmental regulators) still have oversight functions at the port, and COSCO insists this does not endanger sovereignty.
Misleading or Omitted Context
Claim about U.S. “smearing” and Venezuelan oil, Panama Canal
The article leaps from a single U.S. critique to broad claims about U.S. geopolitical motives (“hegemonic anxiety”). Whether the U.S. message was ill-phrased, it’s not proven that Washington deliberately seeks exclusive control of all assets in Latin America—that is an interpretation, not a verified fact. The article omits context that Peru’s regulatory appeal and sovereignty safeguards remain active.
Overselling benefits, downplaying negatives
Global Times highlights benefits such as reduced shipping times and trade boosts, but fails to mention legitimate concerns raised by Peruvian authorities and independent analysts, such as:
-
Local regulatory debates on fairness and competition.
-
Potential environmental or social challenges of the port’s construction and operation. External reporting notes concerns over environmental disruption and community impacts during port building.
This selective reporting leans toward positive spin rather than balanced coverage.
Propaganda and Framing Analysis
Source Bias
The Global Times is owned by the Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Daily and is widely recognized for state-aligned reporting and nationalist framing rather than independent journalism. Independent evaluators rate the outlet as biased with limited reliability, with frequent omission of counterarguments and promotion of the government’s narrative.
Adversarial “Us vs. Them” Narrative
The article frames the U.S. as a hegemonic aggressor, implicitly portraying Chinese cooperation as benign and mutually beneficial. This binary framing simplifies complex geopolitical dynamics into “bad U.S.” vs. “good China” tropes—a classic propaganda technique.
National Pride and Victimization
By suggesting that the U.S. is unfairly smearing Peru’s sovereignty, the piece evokes a victim narrative that elevates Chinese cooperation as a force for regional autonomy, glossing over internal Peruvian debates and independent regulatory concerns.
Selective Quoting and Timing
The article quotes a China-based legal expert sympathetic to the Belt and Road Initiative but does not include Peruvian officials or neutral international perspectives beyond a single corporate manager. This selective sourcing limits critical viewpoints and reinforces the desired message.
Use of Language and Emotional Appeal
The article uses loaded language such as:
-
“Hegemonic anxiety”
-
“Smear campaigns”
-
“Cheap Chinese money costs sovereignty” (attributed to U.S. critics, then rebutted)
Such terms inject emotional judgment, steering readers toward a concrete ideological interpretation rather than presenting neutral facts. Propaganda often uses emotionally charged language to reinforce a narrative, and this piece contains multiple examples.
What the Article Omits or Twists
Regulatory Realities in Peru
While Global Times categorically dismisses U.S. concerns, it doesn’t fully acknowledge that:
-
Peru’s regulatory oversight debate exists and is contested within the country’s own legal and political frameworks.
-
Peru’s own authorities have contested the lack of oversight, with Ositran appealing the case to restore its jurisdiction.
Foreign Perspectives
No perspectives from independent analysts, Latin American civil society, or neutral trade authorities are included. Independent reports show a diversity of expert opinions on infrastructure control, sovereignty, economic benefit, and strategic risk.
