For decades, geopolitical competition in the Indo-Pacific has extended beyond naval deployments and military exercises. Today, another battlefield is becoming equally important—the battle of narratives.

A recent article published by China’s state-run Global Times promotes a report by the South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative (SCSPI), arguing that the United States is expanding military facilities in the Philippines to “contain China” and destabilize the region. The report portrays Washington as the primary source of regional insecurity while emphasizing that Beijing remains largely defensive.

Think Tanks or Strategic Messaging?

Around the world, think tanks contribute research that informs public debate and policymaking. However, analysts often distinguish between independent research institutions and organizations that operate within, or closely align with, state policy frameworks.

The SCSPI is frequently cited by Chinese state media in stories concerning the South China Sea and US military activities. In the Global Times article, the report’s conclusions are presented with little discussion of alternative strategic assessments or competing viewpoints.

This does not necessarily invalidate the report’s findings, but it illustrates how state-affiliated research can reinforce official policy narratives rather than foster adversarial debate.

America as the Aggressor

A defining feature of the article is its framing.

Instead of focusing on why the Philippines has expanded defence cooperation with the United States, the report frames nearly every development as evidence of an American strategy to “contain China.”

This framing omits important regional context.

In recent years, several Southeast Asian states—including the Philippines, Japan, Australia and others—have strengthened defence cooperation with the United States amid concerns over maritime disputes, military modernization and tensions in the South China Sea and around Taiwan. Their decisions stem from their own security calculations, not solely from US pressure.

By concentrating almost exclusively on Washington’s intentions, the article simplifies a far more complex regional security environment.

Selective Storytelling and Agenda Setting

One common feature of strategic messaging is agenda setting—highlighting some facts while minimizing others.

The article details:

• Expanded access to Philippine bases under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA).
• Increased US military exercises.
• Infrastructure spending.
• Deployment of new military systems.

These developments are factual and publicly documented.

However, the report gives limited attention to why Manila requested deeper security cooperation. It does not substantially address the Philippines’ own concerns about maritime incidents, sovereignty disputes, or its treaty obligations.

Presenting only one side of the strategic equation can shape readers’ perceptions without requiring any inaccurate factual claims.

The Narrative of ‘Containment’

The concept of US “containment” has become one of the most consistent themes in Chinese official messaging.

In Beijing’s narrative:

• US alliances are portrayed as destabilizing.
• Regional defence partnerships are presented as Cold War thinking.
• China’s actions are framed primarily as defensive responses.

Many Western and regional analysts, by contrast, argue that recent US deployments are intended to reassure allies, deter conflict and preserve freedom of navigation rather than prepare for offensive military action. Strategic assessments vary, underscoring that this is a contested geopolitical debate rather than a settled fact.

The Missing Perspective: Agency of Regional States

Perhaps the most significant omission is the limited discussion of the independent decision-making of countries such as the Philippines.

The article largely portrays Manila as an instrument of Washington’s strategy.

Yet the Philippines is a sovereign state that has publicly stated its defence cooperation is driven by its own national security interests. Successive governments have cited maritime tensions, disaster response, and alliance commitments as reasons for expanding cooperation with the United States.

Reducing regional governments to passive actors risks oversimplifying the dynamics of Indo-Pacific security.

How State Media Reinforces Official Narratives

The Global Times article demonstrates several communication techniques commonly identified in media analysis:

• Source concentration: Heavy reliance on experts associated with one strategic perspective.
• Selective framing: Highlighting evidence that supports a preferred narrative while giving less attention to alternative explanations.
• Agenda setting: Directing public attention toward US military activities rather than the broader regional security picture.
• Emotive language: Using phrases such as “contain China” and “destabilize the region” to shape interpretation.

These techniques do not necessarily make every factual claim incorrect. Rather, they influence how readers understand and prioritize events.

Why the Information Battle Matters

Modern geopolitical competition increasingly involves competing narratives alongside military capabilities.

Reports from state-affiliated think tanks can influence:

• Domestic public opinion.
• Diplomatic messaging.
• International media coverage.
• Perceptions among developing countries.
• Policy debates across the Indo-Pacific.

As a result, understanding how information is framed is becoming as important as understanding what information is presented.

Strategic communication

The Global Times report on US military expansion in the Philippines illustrates how strategic communication has become a central element of great-power competition.

The article highlights real developments in US-Philippine defence cooperation, but it presents them through a framework that strongly reflects Beijing’s official strategic narrative. By emphasizing American responsibility for regional tensions while giving limited attention to the motivations of regional states or alternative security assessments, the report encourages readers to interpret complex geopolitical developments through a single lens.

For policymakers, journalists and readers alike, the key challenge is not to accept or reject any one narrative outright, but to evaluate competing claims critically, consider multiple sources, and recognize the role that framing and agenda-setting play in shaping public understanding of international affairs.