| Falsehood 9: The CPC has imposed harsh anti-democratic measures in Hong Kong under the guise of national security. Beijing’s quashing of freedom in Hong Kong violates its handover commitments, enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Reality Check: By attacking and smearing the Law on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), what the US is really up to is to meddle in Hong Kong affairs and make Hong Kong a “bridgehead” for infiltration and interference against the mainland. Hong Kong is China’s Hong Kong. Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs that brook no interference from the US. ◆ For a long time, the US has colluded with the anti-China, destabilizing forces in Hong Kong, interfered in Hong Kong’s political agenda, stoked up social tensions, and even directly intervened in Hong Kong affairs. The US Consul-General in Hong Kong publicly criticized the Hong Kong SAR government for the proposed legislative amendments in 2019 and the One Country, Two Systems. Officials from the US Consulate-General in Hong Kong also met with the so-called leaders of the rioters. The rioters openly admitted that they had discussed with the US the legislative process of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 and urged the US to stop exporting tear gas and rubber bullets to the Hong Kong police. ◆ Funded and incited by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other US government’s “white gloves”, anti-China rioters in Hong Kong committed vandalizing, looting and arson in the name of the so-called fight for “democracy” and “freedom”, and violently stormed the building of the Legislative Council (LegCo) of Hong Kong. NED even appeared publicly on the street to direct relevant activities, attempting to stage a “color revolution” in Hong Kong. NED contacted opposition parties, groups and organizations in Hong Kong through its affiliating National Democratic Institute for International Affairs or the National Democratic Institute (NDI). NDI funded the “1 July marches” orchestrated by the opposition to obstruct legislation on Article 23, funded the participation of opposition parties and groups at workshops and seminars, and provided personal counseling on campaigning skills for their leaders, ran a so-called “young political leaders program” to support emerging political groups in confronting the government, plotted, together with opposition members of LegCo, a “five-district referendum”, and directed and funded the opposition and young radicals in orchestrating the illegal “Occupy Central” movement. According to the NED website, two million US dollars were spent on 11 Hong Kong-related projects in 2020, with a particular focus on disrupting LegCo elections. Key projects include: “Strengthening Citizen Election Observation”, which offered technical and financial assistance to newly formed destabilizing groups in Hong Kong, and encouraged them to obstruct LegCo elections by means of election monitoring, get-out-the-vote methods, etc.; “Amplifying Citizens’ Perspectives on Political Participation”, which collected and disseminated survey findings on democratic development, and induced young Hong Kongers to share their political participation experiences on the Internet; “Supporting Unity Among Student Activists”, which called for better coordination among Hong Kong student groups prior to LegCo elections, and instructed and trained them to build capacity for “democratic change” and international communication and to play a role in disrupting electoral order; and “Building Regional Solidarity and Empowering the Hong Kong Movement”, which sought to strengthen Hong Kong’s “democratic movement” through network building, cultivate next-generation “leading activists” in Hong Kong, and set up a network of “democratic movement” in Asia. ◆ US officials used “violence” and “shame” to describe the storming of the Capitol building by protesters, but labeled the violent, criminal activities in Hong Kong that assaulted residents and damaged public facilities as “a beautiful sight to behold”. The US police used armored vehicles to disperse demonstrators, abused their force to beat and drive away sit-in demonstrators, and arrested demonstrators after deliberately inducing them to walk on vehicle lanes which constitutes violation of the law, while discrediting the Hong Kong SAR government’s law-based actions to protect people’s rights and the public order as “violation” of human rights. This is another display of US-style hypocritical double standards and exposes its intention to undermine prosperity and stability of Hong Kong and contain China under the pretext of human rights and democracy. ◆ During the 150-plus years of British colonial rule, there was no democracy in Hong Kong whatsoever. None of the governors was democratically elected by Hong Kong residents. For most of the time, Legco members were directly appointed by the governor. In stark contrast, after the return of Hong Kong, pursuant to the Basic Law, Hong Kong has come to enjoy the executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. Its residents are masters of the SAR as provided by law who manage their own affairs within the scope of the high degree of autonomy. They enjoy a wide range of democratic rights and freedoms like never before. This is a fact that every fair-minded person would recognize. ◆ The purpose of enacting the National Security Law in Hong Kong is to close the legal loopholes in safeguarding national security in the SAR. It is a legitimate and necessary move to respond to violent terrorist activities and illegal external interference in Hong Kong. Constitutions of more than 100 countries have stipulations that the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms shall not endanger national security. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and public trial may be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety and order. The European Convention on Human Rights has similar provisions. The national security law specifically targets four categories of crimes: secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security. It seeks to punish a tiny number of criminals who seriously endanger national security and protect the vast majority of law-abiding Hong Kong citizens. It provides better protection for the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents and the high degree of autonomy of Hong Kong enshrined in law. It creates the conditions needed for addressing the deep-seated problems in the economy and concerning people’s livelihood. It also helps maintain the rule of law and business environment in Hong Kong, ease the concerns of the business community about social disorder, and offer better conditions for people from around the world who want to work, invest and live in Hong Kong. Over the past two years or so since the National Security Law was enacted, the rule of law in Hong Kong has been strengthened and better guaranteed. Hong Kong’s rule of law index continues to stay among the top in the world. Foreign investors have stronger confidence in the city. Hong Kong is seeing a bright prospect transitioning from chaos to order and to prosperity. According to the 2022 AmCham Hong Kong Business Sentiment Survey released early this year, the number of businesses in Hong Kong optimistic about Hong Kong’s business outlook increased by 18 percent from the previous year, while the number of businesses that are pessimistic was down by 17 percent. ◆ The legal basis for the Chinese government to govern Hong Kong is the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law of the HKSAR. The Sino-British Joint Declaration is not relevant in this regard. As China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, all provisions concerning the UK under the Joint Declaration had been fulfilled. The basic policies regarding Hong Kong stated by China in the Joint Declaration are China’s declaration of its policies, which have since been fully embodied in the Basic Law enacted by the National People’s Congress. These policies have not changed; they will continue to be upheld by China. The Joint Declaration does not assign the UK any responsibility over Hong Kong nor give it any right to intervene in Hong Kong affairs after the return of Hong Kong. The UK has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or “right of supervision” over Hong Kong after its return. The Joint Declaration is a bilateral instrument between China and the UK; it does not involve any other country or has anything to do with a third country. Sovereign equality and non-interference are enshrined in international law and are basic norms of international relations. Other countries and organizations have no right to meddle in Hong Kong affairs on the grounds of the Joint Declaration. The Central Government of China has unswervingly implemented the policy of One Country, Two Systems. Since Hong Kong’s return, the policy of One Country, Two Systems under which the people of Hong Kong administer Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy has been earnestly implemented with widely recognized achievements. Practice has fully proven that One Country, Two Systems is the best institutional arrangement for Hong Kong’s long-term prosperity and stability. The Central Government will continue to ensure that the policy of One Country, Two Systems remains unchanged, is unwaveringly upheld, and in practice is not bent or distorted. ◆ Turning a blind eye to the fact that Hong Kong’s democracy has improved in ways unseen before its return, the US has acted against Hong Kong’s mainstream public opinion for unity and progress and made irresponsible remarks on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, human rights and freedom as the “preacher” of democracy. This only exposes its hypocritical double standards and the agenda to destabilize Hong Kong and contain China. Falsehood 10: China purports to champion sovereignty and territorial integrity while standing with and defending the Russian government that brazenly violate them. Reality Check: On the Ukraine issue, China has always adhered to an objective and just position, a position shared by most countries. The Cold War mentality and power politics is the root cause of the Ukraine crisis. The US should earnestly shoulder its due responsibilities and take concrete actions to ease the situation and solve the problems. ◆ The US has betrayed its own promises and kept pushing for the eastward expansion of NATO，creating the Ukraine crisis. When meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, the then US Secretary of State James Baker gave clear assurances that “there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east”. However, the US has led five rounds of NATO eastward expansion since 1999, increasing its membership from 16 to 30, and advancing NATO more than 1,000 kilometers eastward to the Russian border, forming a C-shaped encirclement of the Black Sea. In 1997, former US diplomat and observer on the Soviet Union George Kennan wrote in his New York Times Op-Ed that “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.” In 2014, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post that if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it should not join NATO, and that it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them. At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2022 in Davos, Kissinger said that Ukraine should have been a bridge between Europe and Russia, but that opportunity does not now exist in the same manner. Russia has been for 400 years an essential part of Europe, and on a number of occasions as the guarantor by which the European balance could be re-established. Current policy should keep in mind the restoration of this role is important to develop. An American expert on international affairs points out in an article that the US government should bear considerable responsibility for the deterioration of relations with Russia caused by its major mistake of greenlighting the NATO expansion. Noting that “America and NATO aren’t innocent bystanders”, he also believed that it is “the height of folly” for some US officials to brag in public about leaks or even intelligence sharing between the US and Ukraine. He warned that such instigation on the US side could dangerously widen the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. According to Clare Daly, Member of the European Parliament, the US has been adding fuel to the fire on Ukraine because they want to weaken Russia and benefit from the crisis, for which Europe will pay a heavy price. These is still no hope of peace in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, mainly because the US does not want Russia and Ukraine to reach a peace agreement. Former US Senator Bill Bradley said that “the fundamental blunder that the United States made in the late 80s, early 90s was the expansion of NATO”. Former US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said in an interview if Joe Biden simply promised not to include Ukraine into NATO, the war would have been prevented. Over the years, the US has pursued interventionism and grossly violated the sovereignty of Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Syria and other countries. Alfred de Zayas, a senior UN expert, said in an exclusive interview that from the perspective of international law, Russia’s military actions in Ukraine violated the UN Charter, but the United States and NATO have broken international law so often over the years that “precedents of permissibility” have therefore been set for Russia’s current actions in terms of customary international law. ◆ The US has been fanning the flames on the Ukraine issue. Instead of promoting peace talks, the US continued to provide weapons to Ukraine, escalating tensions and expanding the conflict, making it more prolonged and complicated. This has sufficiently exposed the selfish nature of the US. On 25 April 2022, US Defense Secretary Austin said after a visit to Ukraine that the US wants to use the war to “see Russia weakened”. In late May 2022, on top of the original 13.6 billion dollars aid, the US Congress voted to approve another over 40 billion dollars in military and economic aid to Ukraine. The total assistance has exceeded 70 percent of the combined military expenditure of Russia and Ukraine in 2021. The ongoing crisis has cost Europe heavily in political, economic and social aspects, but the US is reaping dividends, with its arms dealers, food and energy companies gaining huge profits. For example, the market value of US military industrial giants has surged by hundreds of billions, and the price of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported to Europe is more than 10 times higher than a year ago. As the result of the conflict, more than 6.5 million Ukrainians have fled into neighboring European countries, posing an unprecedented refugee crisis. But the US admitted only 12 refugees from Ukraine in March 2022. Thousands of Ukrainian refugees remain stranded on the US-Mexico border, and many were in US custody. Even when the UN and the international community are calling for an early end to the conflict, some in the US are still claiming that they would “fight to the last Ukrainian”. ◆ The relationship between China and Russia features non-alliance, non-confrontation and non-targeting at any third party. It is essentially different from the practice of the US and a small number of other Western countries, where they still stick to the Cold War mentality and a friend-or-foe dichotomy to draw ideological lines, form so-called “alliances” and “cliques”, pursue bloc politics and create confrontation and division. In the joint statement issued on 4 February 2022, China and Russia call on all to champion humanity’s common values of peace, development, equity, justice, democracy and freedom, respect the rights of all peoples to independently determine the development paths of their countries, and the sovereignty, security and development interests of all countries, protect the UN-centered international system, and the international order based on international law, seek true multilateralism with the UN and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world. ◆ As a responsible major country, China’s decisions and judgments on the Ukraine issue are made independently based on the merits of the matter. China has made great efforts to safeguard international peace and security, and has been committed to promoting talks for peace and deescalating tensions. China maintains that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, that the purposes and principles of the UN Charter should be upheld, that legitimate security concerns of all countries should be taken seriously, and that all efforts conducive to a peaceful resolution of the crisis should be supported. China’s position is objective, fair and consistent with the aspirations of most countries. ◆ Of the 233 sovereign countries and regions in the world, 185 are not involved in sanctions on Russia. Among the more than 190 members of the UN, more than 140 countries, including NATO member state Turkey, have refused to impose sanctions on Russia. The combined population of countries and regions participating in sanctions against Russia and those not is 6.5 billion versus 1.1 billion. Among them, those openly oppose sanctions have a combined population of 4.8 billion. About two-thirds of the world’s population does not support Western positions on Ukraine, according to a report by the British Economist magazine. Falsehood 11: The US is setting up new coalitions in the Indo-Pacific for regional peace and stability, and has launched the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF), as it “shares the vision that the regional countries and people across the region hold: one of a free and open Indo-Pacific.” Reality Check: The so-called US vision of a “free and open Indo-Pacific” is essentially a strategy to divide others, incite confrontation and undermine peace. It runs counter to the trend of the times in the Asia-Pacific, i.e., the trend of peaceful development and win-win cooperation. ◆ The US administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy is self-contradictory: the US claims to promote the region’s “freedom and openness” as its goal, while in reality co-opting with allies to forge a “five-four-three-two-one” formation made up of the Five Eyes, the Quad, AUKUS, bilateral alliances and IPEF, forming exclusive “small circles” and forcing countries in the region to take sides. AUKUS helps Australia build nuclear-powered submarines and develops hypersonic weapons, pushing up the risk for a regional arms race. Under the pretext of fighting illegal fishing and keeping supply chains resilient, the Quad has vigorously pursued military cooperation and intelligence sharing. The US has also encouraged NATO’s involvement in the Asia-Pacific. These are all attempts to materialize an “Asia-Pacific version of NATO” and promote “integrated deterrence” against China. ◆ The Indo-Pacific strategy has raised increasing alarm and concern of many countries, especially those in the Asia-Pacific. As BBC reported, in April 2021, New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta expressed New Zealand’s discomfort with expanding the Five Eyes’ remit by putting pressure on China in this way, and New Zealand still prefers to pursue bilateral relations with China. At the US-ASEAN Special Summit, ASEAN countries stressed their aspiration for peace and cooperation, not for taking sides, division or confrontation. ◆ The US has made clear that IPEF is to enable it to win the contest in the 21st century. This means that the IPEF is designed to serve the US economy. The US has shelved the development of the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) for a long time, left the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and refused to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This exposes the self-serving nature of the US and its selective approach to international institutions. It is all about the US’ self-interests, nothing mutually beneficial. IPEF is a political instrument of the US in propping up its hegemony in the regional economy. The essence is to dominate the supply chains, value chains and new economic sectors, and marginalize specific countries. The US has chosen to weaponize economic issues as political and ideological ones, using economy to coerce regional countries into taking sides between China and the US. US Trade Representative Katherine Tai publicly stated that IPEF is a standalone arrangement independent from China. US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said IPEF marks the US’s restoration of economic leadership in the region and presents Indo-Pacific countries an alternative to China’s approach. Previously, she also expressed that IPEF may harmonize export controls and other “poison pills”, such as limiting sensitive products export to China. IPEF seeks to establish US-led trade rules, restructure the industrial chain system and economically and scientifically “decouple” regional countries from China. Many countries in the region get concerned, and believe that the cost of such “decoupling” will be huge. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad noted that any trade alliance that excludes the world’s second largest economy is not conducive to closer, multilateral trade cooperation in the Indo-Pacific. The US’s exclusion of China is not an economic issue but a political one. ◆ Hailed as “menu approach” cooperation, IPEF actually pays little regard to the development level and real needs of the regional countries. It barely gives concessions to developing countries on tariff reduction and market access, but forces participating countries to accept the so-called high standards of the US and its unilateral agenda. IPEF focuses solely on the US’s self-interests and cares little about the needs of other parties. There is no such thing as mutual benefit in IPEF. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) pointed out in its report “Regional Perspectives on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework” that IPEF has little more to offer than enlarging the US economic presence in the region. It fails to address the issues of the greater interests of regional countries. There is widespread concern that IPEF will only benefit the US, while saddling participating regional countries with a heavy burden. Falsehood 12: China has announced its ambition to create a sphere of influence in the Pacific region. It is advancing unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea, undermining peace and security, freedom of navigation and commerce. The US will continue to oppose Beijing’s aggressive and unlawful activities in the South and East China Seas. It will support the region’s coastal states in upholding their maritime rights, work with allies and partners to uphold freedom of navigation and overflight, and will continue to fly and sail wherever international law allows. Reality Check: China is committed to the path of peaceful development, the five principles of peaceful coexistence and opposes the practice of the big and strong bullying the small and weak. The US, by painting China as a threat and using “freedom of navigation” as a pretext to undermine China’s sovereignty, security and maritime rights and interests, is actually the real threat to regional peace and security. ◆ China stands for equality among all countries irrespective of their size, respects every country’s choice of development path suited to its national condition, and does not seek any sphere of influence. China pursues a defense policy that is defensive in nature and a military strategy of active defense. In developing its defense capabilities, China aims to safeguard its sovereignty, security and development interests, and does not target any other country. The growth of China’s defense capabilities amplifies the force for peace in the world. ◆ China is the first to have discovered, named, and explored and exploited Nanhai Zhudao and relevant waters, and the first to have exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over them continuously, peacefully and effectively. China’s sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao and its relevant rights and interests in the South China Sea have been established in the long course of history. They are solidly grounded in history and law, and have been upheld by successive Chinese governments and recognized by the international community. Pursuant to the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, China recovered territories illegally occupied by Japan including Xisha Qundao and Nansha Qundao after WWII, and has since affirmed sovereignty and strengthened jurisdiction by establishing official names, publishing maps, creating administrative units and stationing troops. China’s resuming its exercise of sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao is a legitimate and lawful act to inherit China’s rights established over the course of history. It is also part of the post-WWII international order, and has been recognized by countries around the world including the US. ◆ With the joint efforts of China and ASEAN countries, the overall situation in the South China Sea remains stable. With the full and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), the parties have increased dialogue, properly handled differences, deepened cooperation and enhanced mutual trust, and have made active progress in advancing consultations on the Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea, in an effort to jointly safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea and inject positive dynamics into regional and global security, stability and prosperity. Despite COVID-19, the parties have held offline Senior Officials’ Meetings on the implementation of the DOC and 10 joint working group meetings via video link to advance consultations on the COC text. Last month, the first face-to-face COC consultations since COVID-19 was held in Cambodia. Such positive progress speaks volumes about the resolve and commitment of regional countries to steadfastly advance consultations toward a COC. ◆ China respects and supports all countries’ freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea in accordance with international law, and actively safeguards the security of and unimpeded passage through international shipping lanes. In fact, the South China Sea is one of the world’s safest and freest sea lanes. Fifty percent of merchant vessels in the world and one-third of international maritime trade pass through it, and more than 100,000 merchant ships sail through it annually. Freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea has never been an issue. ◆ Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands are China’s inherent territory. China’s patrol and law enforcement missions in waters off the Diaoyu Dao are legitimate measures taken by China to exercise its sovereignty in accordance with law and are necessary responses to Japanese provocations in violation of China’s sovereignty. No country or force should misjudge the strong resolve of the Chinese government to safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity. At the same time, China stays committed to properly handling and resolving issues through dialogue and consultation, and has made great efforts to maintain maritime stability. In 2014, a four-point principled consensus was reached between China and Japan to handle and improve China-Japan relations, which includes a clear understanding on managing the situation surrounding Diaoyu Dao and the East China Sea. ◆ Acting under the logic of the Monroe Doctrine, the US often uses power politics and hegemonic and bullying acts to flagrantly undermine the international maritime order, with a view to sustaining its maritime predominance. In the 240-plus-year history of the US, there were only 16 years when the country was not at war with others. The US operates over 800 military bases in 80 countries and regions. Its military expenditure, which has topped the world for many years in a row, accounts for one-fourth of the global total and is equivalent to the combined military spending of the next nine countries. Recently, the US has proposed a national defense budget request of about 813 billion US dollars for fiscal year 2023. Such massive military spending makes the US the real “pacing challenge” to the world. ◆ The US disregards the history and facts surrounding the South China Sea issue, deliberately stokes disputes on territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, and sows discord among regional countries. It has become the biggest force undermining stability and fueling militarization in the South China Sea. Data from relevant organizations show that the number of US close-in reconnaissance activities targeting China has more than doubled over the past decade and more. Right now, an average of five US naval vessels cruise near China’s shore every day. This year, US naval vessels have been sailing through the Taiwan Strait about once a month, and large US reconnaissance planes have flown over 800 times close to China and repeatedly violated China’s airspace. Eager to stir up trouble in the South China Sea, the US has also encouraged its allies and partners to sail their naval vessels into the South China Sea. On 2 October 2021, USS Connecticut, a nuclear submarine, had an underwater collision in the South China Sea. It was not until a week later that the US issued a vague statement, claiming that the submarine hit an unknown object. One month after, it said that the submarine “grounded on an uncharted seamount”. A final report on the accident was eventually released by the US Navy on 23 May 2022, yet no clear explanation has been offered in response to the grave concerns and questions raised by many, including the intent of the submarine, the specific location of the accident, whether the submarine had entered exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and even territorial sea of other countries, and whether the accident had caused a nuclear leak or damaged marine environment. ◆ The US began its Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program in 1979 ahead of the signing of the UNCLOS. Challenging the new maritime order, the move sought to maximize the freedom of the US military to rampage through the oceans. The FON Program is not consistent with the universally recognized international law, disregards the sovereignty, security and maritime rights and interests of the many littoral countries, and seriously jeopardizes regional peace and stability. Its goal is to advance American maritime supremacy under the pretext of “freedom of navigation”. The FON Program has been firmly opposed by many members of the international community, especially the developing countries. Falsehood 13: Chinese government officials spread disinformation. Reality Check: China is the top victim of disinformation, while the US is the biggest source of spreading disinformation. ◆ With sharp confrontation between the Republicans and Democrats, habitual lying, finger-pointing and blame-shifting among politicians have become part of the US political ecology. A poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Pearson Institute at the University of Chicago reveals that nearly half of the respondents blame the US government for the spread of misinformation. ◆ The US has used disinformation to launch multiple wars across the globe in pursuit of its hegemonic agenda. Colin Powell, the then US Secretary of State accused Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction with a test tube of “laundry powder”. The US blamed the Syrian government for using bio-chemical weapons against its own people with fake videos by the White Helmets. In 2019, the then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo publicly claimed that “we lied, we cheated, we stole … we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.” On 4 May 2022, Republican Senator Rand Paul spoke bluntly at a Senate hearing, “Do you know who the greatest propagator of disinformation in the history of the world is? The US government.” ◆ Manipulation by US politicians has seriously undercut the media’s credibility. A Gallup poll in 2020 shows that 60 percent of Americans remain largely distrustful of the media, among whom 33 percent have no trust at all, which is 5 percentage points higher than that of 2019. ◆ The US has on multiple occasions fabricated numerous lies and rumors on issues concerning origins-tracing, Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, democracy and human rights, including the so-called “lab-leak theory”, “genocide” and “forced labor”, which have all been defeated by facts. Since the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, the US has kept spreading disinformation on China and made unfounded accusations against it, in order to shirk its responsibilities for triggering the conflict with NATO’s eastward expansion. The New York Times quoted from anonymous US senior officials who claimed that China had prior knowledge of Russian military operation in Ukraine. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, US Representative to the UN, said at a Security Council meeting that China had been spreading disinformation in support of Russia. This is sheer fabrication and slandering. Meanwhile, as part of the fierce hunt of voices different from its own, the US has added special labels to Tweets sharing links of Chinese media reports, while turning a blind eye to the Western media that are actually telling the lies. ◆ The US has used disinformation as a political tool to attack and suppress China, and formed a supply chain of anti-China rhetoric combining dirty funding, fact-twisting stories and massive smear campaigns. On the surface, these anti-China rhetoric come from certain media outlets and politicians, but what lies underneath is a massive capital-driven supply chain — some institutions and organizations from the US and other Western countries provide dirty funding for political purposes to anti-China groups and individuals; some think-tanks and academic institutions make up fact-twisting stories to fuel anti-China rhetoric around the world through Western hegemony on public opinion; and politicians and media act as mouthpieces propagating lies and falsehoods about China in massive smear campaigns. Adrian Zenz and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), both fabricated numerous Xinjiang-related lies, are typical examples of such “lies manufacturers”. Adrian Zenz is a member of a far-right group founded by the US government and a key member of an anti-China research institute set up and manipulated by the US intelligence agency. His so-called reports on Xinjiang reflect no credibility, intellectual merit or academic integrity at all. As disclosed by the media, the US State Department and arms manufacturers are the primary foreign sponsors for the ASPI. Funding from the US State Department alone reached nearly 1.4 million Australian dollars a year, all directed to research projects attacking China. The ASPI disseminated a series of lies and disinformation on issues concerning origins-tracing, Xinjiang and data security. ◆ In addition to constantly spreading disinformation on China, the US has also rolled out measures to suppress and contain China based on such disinformation, including China-related bills and sanctions. In December 2021, under the pretext of its so-called concerns on “forced labor”, the US signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act into law, imposing a full ban on imports from Xinjiang. This is a malicious move to denigrate human rights situation in Xinjiang, and a serious violation of international law and basic norms of international relations. ◆ China has used facts and figures to tell the truth and refute the lies and rumors created and propagated by the US. It is aimed at making truth heard, not spreading disinformation. Instead of observing basic facts, the US has acted in its own interests and labeled all views different from its own as “disinformation”. This is, in essence, hegemony and bullying in the field of public opinion. Falsehood 14: China is circumventing or breaking trade rules and its economic manipulations have cost American workers millions of jobs, harming workers and companies in the United States but also around the world. The United States will push back on market-distorting policies and practices, like subsidies and market access barriers, which China’s government has used for years to gain competitive advantage. Reality Check: China has faithfully delivered on its commitments made upon accession to the WTO. China upholds, builds and contributes to the multilateral trading system. China-US economic and trade relations are mutually beneficial in nature. However, US’ wanton suppression of China in trade and investment areas has been the root cause of trade frictions between the two countries, which hurts others without benefiting oneself. ◆ Over the past 20-plus years since joining the WTO, China has earnestly fulfilled its commitments upon accession. It has rolled out nationwide the management system of pre-establishment national treatment plus a negative list, kept expanding market access, brought down overall tariff level from 15.3% to 7.4%, and opened up nearly 120 sectors in the service industry. In October 2021, the WTO conducted the eighth review of trade policies and practices of China. The report of the review fully recognized China’s efforts in upholding the multilateral trading system and its active role in the WTO. It spoke highly of China’s achievements in such areas as trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, greater opening-up and progress under the Belt and Road Initiative. A leading official of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development pointed out that, over the past two decades, China has steadfastly supported the rules-based multilateral trading system, practiced true multilateralism, participated fully in WTO negotiations, steered negotiations in areas such as investment facilitation and e-commerce, and worked for WTO rules keeping pace with the times. ◆ Embracing the trend of regional and global economic integration, China has deepened economic and trade ties with countries around the world, signing free trade agreements and stepping up the building of free trade zones. As of now, China has signed 19 free trade agreements with 26 countries and regions. ◆ China has actively deepened supply-side structural reform. It has met the target of phasing out 150 million tons of overcapacity in the steel industry set out in the 13th Five-Year Plan two years ahead of schedule, 1.14 times of the global total in slashing overcapacity of steels. The process involved the reemployment of 280,000 Chinese steel workers, more than the total number of steel workers in the US, Europe and Japan. ◆ China and the US have highly complementary economies, deeply integrated interests, and mutually beneficial economic and trade ties. In 2021, bilateral trade topped record-breaking 750 billion US dollars. The US Export Report 2022 issued by the US-China Business Council showed that, in 2021, goods exports to China grew by 21 percent to 149 billion US dollars, supporting 858,000 jobs in the US. The 2020 Annual Business Survey Report on Chinese Enterprises in the United States released by the China General Chamber of Commerce-USA indicated that, as of 2019, CGCC’s Chinese member companies cumulatively invested over 123 billion US dollars, employed more than 220,000 people, and supported over one million jobs throughout the United States. Research of the US-China Business Council showed that Chinese exports have helped bring down US consumer price by 1 to 1.5 percent, saving each US household 850 US dollars per year. ◆ By blaming China for its own economic problems, the US started a trade war and tariff war against China, which only backfired for itself. US tariffs against China have cost American companies more than 1.7 trillion US dollars in market capitalization and increased average household expenditure by 1,300 US dollars per year. A 2021 report by the US-China Business Council pointed out that the trade war with China has resulted in a loss of 245,000 jobs in the US. A report from Moody’s Investor Service was cited as saying that American consumers bear 92.4 percent of the cost of imposing tariffs on Chinese goods. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize laureate in economics, incisively pointed out that US trade policy toward China has failed and tariffs harm the US more than their intended targets. On 18 May 2022, the National Retail Federation (NRF) wrote to President Biden, calling for eliminating tariffs, which, as pointed out in the letter, could reduce consumer prices by as much as 1.3 percent. Janet Yellen, the US Treasury Secretary, said that some tariffs on China hurt American consumers and businesses, and that cutting tariffs was worth considering in order to lower US inflation. The obstacles to China-US economic and trade cooperation are mainly from the US side. Over 1,000 Chinese companies have been put on its lists for unfair suppression or sanction. The US Congress has put forth more than 300 negative China-related bills. The proposed Bipartisan Innovation Act, which is still being developed, essentially aims to hold back China’s economic growth. ◆ The US arbitrarily accuses China of its industrial subsidy policies, but the country itself was among the first to develop such policies, including subsidies and so on. Successive US administrations have rolled out plans to support emerging industries. Through tax relief, government procurement and other means, the US administrations have interfered in the market to push forward cooperation between government and enterprises and advance technology transfers. In the 1950s and 1960s, the US undertook special programs to promote the development of its aerospace and military industries. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration supported the growth of hi-tech industries with the Information Superhighway plan. Such industrial policies are still being practiced in the US today. A report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that the US and its allies and partners in Europe and Asia have increased subsidies to industries such as semiconductors, electric-car batteries and pharmaceuticals to shore up support for domestic companies. ◆ The US poses the biggest challenge to the global trading system. Following “America First” policy, the US has refused to shoulder its due obligations under multilateral trading agreements, and withdrawn from international treaties and organizations, taking a heavy toll on the development and functioning of the global trading system. A WTO dispute settlement report has identified the US as the biggest rule-breaker, responsible for two-thirds of violations of WTO rules. The US also blocked the appointment of new judges in the WTO Appellate Body, leading to an impasse in the Appellate Body since December 2019. |