Recently, in Western public opinion, the "China threat theory" and the "China collapse theory" have bred new variants worthy of attention in the economic field, such as "China's overcapacity theory", "China impact 2.0 theory", "China's economic peak theory" and "China's growing marginalization theory". When the "China threat theory" collapsed and the "China collapse theory" collapsed on its own, these new variants have become somewhat confusing. From January 1 to March 15, 2024, the Global Times Public Opinion Center searched, monitored and screened China-related economic reports published by 14 major media in the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other countries, and selected 72 typical China-related negative economic reports for key analysis, forming a preliminary report on "negative economic reports on China by foreign mainstream media". Through this report, it can be found that the essence of the new variant and those who sing the praises of China's economy has not changed much.
The new rhetoric is a variant of the "China threat theory" and the "China collapse theory".
For example, the "theory of China's overcapacity" that is currently in the dust. During her visit to China, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen repeatedly expressed concern to the Chinese side about the so-called "overcapacity" of China's new energy industry. Yellen and some other Western politicians and media have exaggerated this argument as pure speculation. They claim that under the effect of government subsidies, China's new energy sector has overcapacity, and this excess capacity is dumped overseas at low prices, affecting the economies of other countries. In fact, not only does the relevant data not support the claim that there is "overcapacity" in China's new energy sector, but also that the overseas prices of China's new energy vehicles and other products are generally higher than the domestic prices, and they have nothing to do with "low-price dumping".
There are also some Western media who try to concoct a new wave of "China impact theory" under the "China overcapacity theory", believing that the surge of China's new energy vehicles, lithium batteries, photovoltaic products, etc. in the international market may cause "China Impact 2.0". What they selectively ignore is that in recent years, China has continuously increased its scientific and technological innovation capabilities, promoted the deep transformation and upgrading of industries, and developed rapidly in the new energy industry, forming a competitive advantage in the global market. This was originally the result of the normal effect of the laws of the market economy, but now it has been slandered and targeted, just like a poor student who does not study well, but spends his energy on staring at good students and insisting that others cheat on exams.
If the "theory of China's overcapacity" and "the theory of China's impact 2.0" are variants of the "theory of the China threat", then in terms of the "theory of China's collapse", what has been spreading recently is the theory of China's economic peak" and the theory of China's increasing marginality. The so-called "China peaking theory" does not stand up to scrutiny in terms of data and analysis. Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd once reminded that "don't forget, the size of China's consumer market is unprecedented in the history of the global economy." In addition, with the "de-sinicization" of the production and supply chain forcibly promoted by the United States, the so-called "China's growing marginalization theory" has begun to appear on social platforms at home and abroad, that is, to exaggerate the "reverse decoupling" between China and the world.
These arguments have recently emerged in a concentrated manner, and they are a typical embodiment of the "encirclement and suppression" of China's economy by the United States and some other Western countries through cognitive warfare. In the current complex international environment, the traditional dichotomy between peace and war can no longer effectively describe and explain the actual state of the international environment. Some scholars have put forward the concept of a "gray zone", that is, "there is no conventional war, but there is political, economic, informational, and military competition that is more intense and intense than normal diplomacy between countries." With the spread of the "gray zone", cognitive warfare has become an important form of international game.
The development of social platforms has increased the possibility of influencing public cognition and behavior through traffic, flow direction and content, and the modern economy and financial market are largely driven by the psychology and emotions of investors, highly dependent on information, confidence and expectations, and market participants' expectations of future economic development and policy changes will also more or less affect the performance of the stock market, bond market, foreign exchange market, etc., so the economic field is more likely to become a battlefield for cognitive warfare.
The US-led cognitive warfare follows the "three-pronged" model
Cognitive warfare is a systematic project, including different participants, different forms of communication, different forms of text, different media behaviors, and different communication platforms. Take the United States, for example. In practice, the US-led cognitive warfare follows the "three-pronged" model, that is, the whole-of-government, the whole-of-society, and the world-wide model. The so-called whole-of-government model refers to the use of strategic competition as the top-level design of the government system, and the transformation of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments into "wartime coordination." For example, the United States has set up a number of so-called committees and concern groups in the White House and the Senate and House of Representatives to specialize in "China affairs" to promote China-related decrees and bills; the United States has at least 33 cognitive warfare units distributed in the State Department, the Department of Defense, and intelligence departments, with the government coordination mechanism as the center; and the intelligence departments are more able to directly undertake cognitive combat missions and be deeply involved in so-called "black propaganda."
The U.S. side's concentrated stance on the "theory of China's overcapacity" is an expression of this whole-of-government model. In addition to Yellen, U.S. Treasury Secretary Jean Chambaugh said that "China's overcapacity will eventually hit the world market." U.S. Ambassador to China Burns said that exporting "excess capacity" such as Chinese electric vehicles to other countries in the world would undermine the global trade system.
The so-called whole-society model refers to jumping out of the "government-society" dichotomy thinking, and combining all elements of society, including governments at all levels, private and non-profit organizations, individuals, etc., to achieve mutual cooperation, so that "political issues" show the characteristics of multilateral, multi-level, asymmetry and initiative. In recent years, the United States has continued to adopt a whole-of-society model on controversial issues such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Japan's discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, giving full play to the synergistic effect of heterogeneous and multiple actors.
The process of constructing the issue of "China's economy peaking" is the result of multiple synergies. In 2022, two scholars, Brands and Beckley, published the book "Peak China". In May 2023, The Economist featured "Peak China" as its cover story. In October 2023, Reuters published an article "Peak China may pose peak danger" in response to the so-called "China peaking theory". This relay communication, which is participated by many media, politicians, foundations, capital investment groups, polling agencies, fact-checking agencies, well-known universities, think tanks, Internet influencers and social robots, not only increased the exposure of the so-called "China's economic peak" issue, but also made this issue snowball, creating a false opinion climate that has become a "group consensus", forming a certain information cocoon effect.
In recent years, the U.S. government-led cognitive warfare coordination and linkage has become more mature, focusing on "decentralization" and "flattening" as the core, trying to achieve multi-center and multi-level linkage, and then proposing the so-called "global model", that is, in global information and communication activities, actors use their influence to distort the perception of the target country by the audience of a third country. On China's economic issues, the U.S. side is not only trying to influence Chinese audiences to form a favorable understanding of key issues in favor of the U.S., such as China's economy and business environment, but also trying to influence audiences in other countries to form a consensus in favor of the U.S. on China-related issues. Judging from the relevant documents made public, the US cyberspace organization radiates the whole world from the creation of projects, the assignment of commands, command and dispatch, and coordinated operations. Judging from the occurrence and development trajectory of some typical public opinion events in the mainland in recent years, a relatively systematic and in-depth coordination network targeting the mainland has begun to take shape, including overseas headquarters, domestic bases, network influencers, and cyber trolls.
More importantly, the U.S. cognitive warfare against China not only focuses on short-term strategic goals and tactical actions, but also focuses on long-term changes in the cognitive structure and values of the target forces. In particular, they focus on the perception and behavior of social groups through the manipulation of public opinion and the use of social networks and organizational structures, and have a typical tendency of hybrid warfare. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the risks and harms of cognitive warfare from a longer time span and strategic perspective. For example, even after the implementation of the National Security Law and the completion of Article 23 of the Basic Law, the argument for deconstructing Hong Kong as an international financial center still exists, and the "risk perception" of global investors has become a key factor in shaping this process.
Fight a highly accurate and intelligent cognitive warfare
After the Cold War, international politics has become to a certain extent a "discourse politics", and once a certain discourse gains a dominant position of power, it can put on a "legitimate coat" of its value orientation through the suppression and construction function of discourse. In other words, the United States, relying on its own hegemony in discourse, can still disseminate and confuse a considerable number of people with all kinds of rhetoric about the structure of the continent, even if they cannot stand the test of facts. In particular, with the rise of multi-party interactive intelligent communication mode, information about the economy presents a fragmented and multimodal form, and the communication effect is dominated by algorithm push. This trend has led to a greater focus on "cognitive construction" and "risk guidance" in the economic field, rather than just the traditional "information dissemination" and "opinion dissemination". Therefore, in the face of cognitive warfare against China's economy, some audiences have not only become "information captives", but have even fallen into it and become propagators.
On the whole, the current economic cognitive warfare against China uses data and algorithm technology as a means and social media as the main implementation platform, and through accurate information feeding, it aims to undermine the public's trust in economic policies, interfere with economic development confidence, and affect economic development expectations, so as to become a new, hidden and effective force for influencing the economic situation and future development. In particular, individual countries have constantly instigated cognitive warfare activities in order to maintain and strengthen their hegemony, causing chaos in the economic field and turbulence in the international situation, which is actually harming the overall interests of the entire human society. In this regard, we not only need to have a clear understanding, but also to respond to it in a targeted manner.
Cracking the cognitive warfare against China in the economic field is a complex and systematic task, which requires the comprehensive use of political, economic, and public opinion means, as well as sustained efforts and coordinated cooperation in various fields, to further improve the national strategic communication system with its own characteristics. In particular, it is necessary to strengthen the cooperation and coordination between relevant institutions, break down the resource, data, and information barriers of the strategic communication system, standardize the implementation of the whole process of strategic communication, and make all subjects and links work together to achieve the integration of strategic goals, communication methods, and effect evaluation, and give full play to the advantages of the system. In addition, in terms of strategy, it is necessary to incorporate new technologies, new platforms, new channels, new issues, and new means into strategic communication, attach great importance to the application of "socialization", "grid" and "intelligence" of strategic topics, make full use of a variety of communication forms and media, establish a direct relationship between the grand concept and personal experience in the macro design of strategic communication, and disseminate a real, three-dimensional and comprehensive image of China's economy.
Source: Global Times Author: Tang Jingtai, Xingchen
The authors are professors at the School of Journalism at Fudan University and postdoctoral fellows at the School of Journalism at Fudan University
![Can I drive a Rolls-Royce to work in the system? The sharing of netizens subverted my cognition![fig]]()