China announces the US’s Spratly patrols to the massesPosted: October 27, 2015 | Author: Andrew Chubb | Filed under: China-US, State media, TV | Tags: CCTV, China-US relations, Chinese foreign policy, Chinese media, Chinese nationalism, Chinese public opinion, freedom of navigation, freedom of navigation patrols, nationalism, PRC foreign policy, public opinion, south china sea, US-China relations, Xinwen Lianbo, 新闻联播 |8 Comments Have been trying to avoid the temptation of blogging, but the US and China conspired to break my resistance…
The US early this morning (Beijing time) finally followed through with its plan to patrol within 12nm of at least one of the PRC’s artificial islands, and China has just announced the developments to the whole country via CCTV’s 7pm news broadcast.
The 7pm news program Xinwen Lianbo 新闻联播 is both the most-watched and most tightly-controlled news broadcast in the country. Whatever appears there can reliably be understood to be there for primarily political reasons, rather than due to professional media “news values” or sensationalism. What makes Xinwen Lianbo a unique source of insight compared with other media carrying authoritative content, such as the People’s Daily or Liberation Army Daily, is that while the official press’s readership is mostly limited to elites and the attentive public, Xinwen Lianbo is watched by perhaps 50 to 100 million or more ordinary people. In short, it carries the Party Line to the masses.
Although Xinwen Lianbo’s presentation style has evolved slightly in the 2000s, content-wise the bulletins are still dominated by detailed narrations of the top leaders’ meetings with international dignitaries and each other, updates on the ever-successful rollout of party policies and campaigns, paeans to model citizens and, last of all, a few general news reports, usually very brief. Foreign affairs controversies like the South China Sea dispute are rarely mentioned — when they are, it is usually in the context of leaders’ anodyne remarks about appropriately handling differences and jointly upholding stability in meetings with their counterparts from rival claimant states, most commonly Vietnam.
Mentions of specific developments in disputed areas are rarer still — even when they cast the party in a positive light from a hardline nationalist perspective. To take one topical example, China’s massive island-building activities began in early 2014 and were widely reported in foreign media from around June last year, but they only received their first mention on Xinwen Lianbo on June 16 this year. Evidently, the leadership normally prefers to handle these issues without encouraging scrutiny from the broad masses. This is why it is meaningful when contentious developments and confrontational rhetoric, such as that surrounding the US patrols, rate a mention.
At 1 minute 40 seconds, this Xinwen Lianbo report was quite lengthy compared with other South China Sea stories. Here it is in translation:
CCTV host: Today, the US warship Lassen, without permission from the Chinese government, illegally entered waters adjacent to China’s relevant islands and reefs in the Spratly archipelago. Regarding this, China expressed strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition, and urged the American side to immediately rectify its mistakes.
CCTV voiceover: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, when asked during the China-Japan-Korea symposium today, advised the US side to think thrice before acting, and not be rash or make trouble. In this afternoon’s daily press briefing, MFA spokesperson Lu Kang reiterated, China has indisputable sovereignty over the Spratly Islands and their nearby waters.
Lu Kang: If any countries have delusions of using small actions to interfere with or even obstruct the Chinese side’s reasonable, fair and legal activities on its own territory, then I must urge those countries to abandon those fantasies as soon as possible.
CCTV voiceover: Lu Kang said the Chinese side has always respected and defended the freedom of navigation and overflight enjoyed by every country in the South China Sea under international law, but firmly opposes any country harming China’s sovereignty and security interests in the name of [Freedom of Navigation].
Lu Kang: The Chinese side resolutely defends its own territorial sovereignty, security and its legitimate and reasonable maritime rights and interests. China will firmly respond to any country’s deliberate provocation. We will continue to closely monitor the situation in the air and on the water, and adopt all necessary measures as needed.
CCTV voiceover: Lu Kang said the Chinese side strongly urges the American side to earnestly take heed of the Chinese side’s solemn representations, immediately correct its mistakes, not engage in any dangerous and provocative behaviour that threatens China’s sovereignty and security interests, and strictly abide by its commitments not to take a position on sovereignty disputes, in order to avoid further damaging Sino-American relations and regional peace and stability.
A Xinwen Lianbo report like this not only directly announces the party line to a massive audience, it also legitimizes other media to focus on the issue. As far as i can tell, this must reflect the propaganda authorities’ understanding that the party leadership wants the issue near the top of the broad public’s agenda, at least in the short term. If this assumption is sound (and please let me know if you disagree), the next question is why.
I’ve been watching the Chinese media treatment of the issue over the past 2-3 weeks, and will try to put together something more comprehensive together when we see how this plays out, but for now i’ll just try to point out a few features of the CCTV report’s content.
1. The CCP has chosen to make this an issue of sovereignty. Graham Webster noted recently in the US-China Week newsletter, China has carefully maintained ambiguity regarding its claims around the Spratly Islands and reefs. In particular, it has not explicitly stated which reefs it considers to be surrounded by 12nm territorial seas 领海. That deliberate ambiguity is continuing, as reflected in the term “adjacent waters 邻近海域” in the PRC statements today (see above). Subi Reef, where the US Navy patrolled today, is almost certainly not entitled to a (sovereign) territorial sea under international law, and as i argued in East Asia Forum last month, this actually makes the patrols less provocative than they might otherwise be. But five mentions of “sovereignty” in CCTV’s 100-second report makes clear that the PRC wants domestic discussion of the issue to be on these terms. The MFA spokesman mentioned “security interests,” “maritime rights and interests,” “provocation” and “dangerous behaviour” — the CCTV report could have focused on any of these complaints, but instead repeatedly emphasized “sovereignty,” a choice that is likely to capture everyday people’s attention and potentially inspire nationalist mobilization.
2. The lines about some countries’ “delusions” about obstructing China’s Spratly construction projects will allow the CCP to depict itself as bravely defying foreign pressure as it moves forward. The line appears to be primarily domestically oriented, given that it is missing from the MFA’s account of Lu Kang’s remarks on the topic. It sets up a kind of straw-man idea that the patrols are aimed at forcing China to stop its construction work on the artificial islands. Pushing this line to domestic audiences makes good sense, because it will frame any future updates about new Chinese facilities in the Spratlys as shows of unwavering determination in the face of US pressure.
3. The high-handed demand that the American side “correct its mistakes” leaves the CCP well positioned to claim that its stern response forced an aggressive hegemon to back down. At least one US official has described the patrols as “routine“, suggesting there will be more to come. Even if the US patrols happen, say, once a month from now on, it will be up to the CCP to decide how often Chinese mass audiences hear about this. Having established a high level of domestic publicity on this occasion, the CCP might well be able to (implicitly or explicitly) encourage the perception that it forced the US to back down, simply by not affording the same level of publicity to future FoN patrols.
So there are three speculative domestic rationales for the CCP’s decision to publicize the issue. A more internationally-oriented answer with plenty of explanatory purchase is the “strategic logic” of nationalist protest Jessica Chen Weiss outlined in her book Powerful Patriots and elsewhere. The theory focuses on the state’s decisions to allow or disallow anti-foreign street demonstrations, and who knows, those might be just around the corner…
I’d love to hear readers’ thoughts on what China going public like this means, so please leave a comment or get in touch.
[…] Related: China announces the US’s Spratly patrols to the masses | southseaconversations 讨论南海 The US early this morning (Beijing time) finally followed through with its plan to patrol within 12nm of at least one of the PRC’s artificial islands, and China has just announced the developments to the whole country via CCTV’s 7pm news broadcast…At 1 minute 40 seconds, this Xinwen Lianbo report was quite lengthy compared with other South China Sea stories. Here it is in translation: // a very good post on how this is being played on some of the most important official media in China. […]
“The 7pm news program [media name here] is both the most-watched and most tightly-controlled news broadcast in the country. Whatever appears there can reliably be understood to be there for primarily political reasons, rather than due to professional media “news values” or sensationalism. ”
My question is this: out of our Western media, of which is that statement most true? The New York Times? WaPo? Fox? BBC?
There is real competition for the lead in releasing our governments’ propaganda, as there should be. Robust competition ensures that none of them will criticize a government decision because none wants to be cut off from future releases.
That’s Free Enterprise for you!
Sure, western govts have major influence over their respective national media’s coverage of foreign affairs, but China’s information environment is much less open, and has extensive institutionalized state control mechanisms that are lacking elsewhere. If a US govt wanted to prevent NYT etc from spreading dramatic news, they could potentially try to make that happen thru threats of info cutoff or legal action, but then what are they going to do about The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Fairfax etc? It would also be risky to try as there would be outrage when it was discovered. In China by contrast, not only do you have a far greater concentration of media “ownership” (CCTV has something like 30% market share, and practically all other TV is owned by provincial govts), it is also completely routine for various govt departments to tell media what not to report on, what to emphasize, what to keep off the front page, what to stick to Xinhua copy on, etc., and for the media to obey the instructions. Of course, some media hit “edge-balls” 擦边球 when they can, but they must be in basic compliance with the state’s orders, especially on foreign affairs controversies.
the issue here is the disputed islands, let claimants solve it among themselves, if they can’t that’s their problem U.S. should not join the messy situation.
The US isnt must concerned with who owns what islands. Our major concern ks China’s attempt to build man made islands, militarize them, claim them as sovereign soil in an attempt to prevent FON, which all countries in the world are subject to. China has a war ship docked in Florida this very minute, yet no one in the US is crying foul. The fact of the matter is China is trying to claim an entire ocean as their own, while no country owns any oceans. China will not be the exception. These man made islands are not sovereign soil, thus the 12 nm EEZ law does not apply. China signed the UNCLOS and now doesnt honor it.
I saw a CCTV “America” broadcast, very similar to the piece Mr. Chubb describes, and agree with his analysis. The best word to describe nationalism in mainland China is “loony.” It comes as as shock the first time you hear everyday Chinese tell you without blinking Vietnam,
Japan, the Philippines, and the South China Sea all belong to China. But, I’ve heard it more than once from taxi drivers to college-educated citizens. How far the regime goes in fanning the flames is the question. Stay tuned…
The Tribunal has accepted jurisdiction over the Philippines’ Submission on Subi Reef. When the Tribunal rules Subi is a LTE, US Freedom of Navigation exercises around Subi will have International Law’s stamp of approval. But, a lot could happen on the high seas between now and summer of next year.
P.S. “Godfrey Roberts” is a notorious PRC propagandist, active across media from the Manila Times to The Guardian, to Yahoo News. He or she gets around, always with the same distorted message like his comment here, for instance, falsely comparing western media with PRC state-controlled media. And like mainland Chinese, he has no problem stating his loony views with a straight face.
[…] message conveyed via CCTV on the day of the patrol labeled it “illegal” and a threat to “China’s […]
[…] US operations in 2015 and 2016 were “innocent passages” within 12nm of PRC outposts on features that are […]