Analysis of China’s recent response to the U.S. Department of Defense report on the Chinese Military

A Critical Thinking and Cognitive Bias View

Oct 26, 2023

(https://news.usni.org/2023/10/19/pentagons-2023-report-on-chinas-military-and-security-developments)

http://www.china.org.cn/world/2023-10/25/content_116774200.htm http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/NewsRelease/16260592.html

From the briefing by the official representative of the Ministry of Defense of the People's Republic of China Wu Qian

· The report ignores facts, misleads, distorts China's national defense and military strategy policies, and exaggerates the non-existent "Chinese military threat."

· China adheres to the path of peaceful development and pursues a defensive policy. Beijing never uses its power to bully the weak.

· For more than 70 years of its existence, China has never started a war or seized foreign territory.

· On the other hand, the United States is addicted to war. They did not fight for only 16 of the 240 years of their existence. America has built more than 800 foreign military bases in 80 countries.

· From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Syria to Libya - wherever the U.S. military machine went, local residents found themselves in deep crisis.

· The U.S. sent depleted uranium munitions and cluster bombs to Ukraine, an aircraft carrier strike group in the Mediterranean, weapons and ammunition to Israel . Is this the “good news” that so-called “human rights defenders” bring?

· The United States is increasing its deployment of military forces in the Asia-Pacific region , strengthening bilateral military alliances, forming trilateral security partnerships, promoting the “quadrilateral mechanism” and strengthening the “Five Eyes” - all of which have serious negative consequences for the international security system and global governance.

· Facts show that the United States is the “source of chaos” of the violation of international order and the “behind-the-scenes mastermind” in the world, the “chief destroyer” of regional peace and stability.

· In the face of a difficult international situation , China must build a strong army to protect the country's sovereignty, security and development interests.

· Beijing will not allow any force to invade and split the country.

· The development of the PLA is aimed at preventing the threat of war , protecting its own security and maintaining peace. It is not directed against specific countries and is legal and reasonable.

· China always maintains nuclear forces at the minimum level necessary for national security.

· On the contrary, in recent years the United States has withdrawn from arms control treaties, including the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems and the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.

· Washington is modernizing its nuclear triad and seeking to deploy ground-based medium-range weapons in Europe and the Pacific as part of what it calls “extended deterrence.”

· Cooperation between the U.S., U.K. and Australia on nuclear submarines poses a serious threat to nuclear proliferation and disrupts regional peace and stability.

· The United States is manipulating the “nuclear” issue and playing with “double nuclear standards” only in order to find an excuse for expanding its nuclear arsenal and maintaining military hegemony.

· The return of Taiwan to China is an integral part of the post-World War II international order .

· The refusal of the DPP authorities to recognize the “1992 consensus” and their attempts to “rely on the U.S. for independence”, the strengthening of U.S. exchanges with Taiwan, the constant military supplies to the island in an attempt to “use Taiwan to control China” are the root causes of the change in the status quo in Taiwan Strait.

· China's adoption of necessary measures to protect its national territory and sovereignty is legal, reasonable and legitimate.

· The U.S. must stop strengthening military ties with Taiwan, illegally arming the island, creating tension in the Taiwan Strait, and condoning support for separatist forces for “Taiwan independence.”

· The PLA is capable of stopping any external interference, the actions of the separatist forces of “Taiwan independence” and achieving the complete reunification of the homeland.

· The U.S. Armed Forces create problems for themselves and are responsible for ruined relations with the PLA.

Treadstone 71’s Analysis

Abstract

The passage from the Ministry of Defense of the People's Republic of China employs multiple rhetorical techniques, biases, and fallacies to craft a narrative that portrays China as a peaceful nation unjustly criticized by the United States. Fundamental fallacies include appeals to tradition, false dichotomies, ad hominem attacks, and red herrings. The text exhibits confirmation bias, framing bias, narrative bias, and ethnocentrism. Furthermore, it employs propaganda tactics like glittering generalities, scapegoating, and card stacking to manipulate public perception.

In terms of implicit assumptions, the passage assumes China's inherent goodwill and a zero-sum game between China and the U.S. Selective omission leaves out China's own potentially aggressive actions, while loaded language like "source of chaos" aims to demonize the U.S. Additionally, the passage employs nationalistic appeals to bolster domestic support. It uses political posturing to signal to third parties. By explicitly outlining its positions, it seeks to anchor the terms and focal points of any future debate. These elements collectively contribute to a sophisticated strategy to shape perceptions and advance China's geopolitical interests.

Techniques, Tactics, Assumptions, Biases, Fallacies

Introduction

The passage from the Ministry of Defense of the People's Republic of China offers a masterclass in rhetorical tactics to shape perceptions and advance geopolitical interests. Released in response to a Pentagon report on the development of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the passage employs a complex array of fallacies, biases, propaganda techniques, and strategic omissions to frame China as a peaceful, defensive actor facing unfair criticism from the United States. Essential rhetorical techniques such as loaded language and political posturing reinforce China's official narrative. Additionally, biases ranging from authority and patriotic bias to ethnocentrism and moral equivalence shape the presentation of facts. Many logical fallacies like appeal to tradition, false dichotomy, and ad hominem attacks cloud the objective analysis of the claims presented. Propaganda methods, including glittering generalities and scapegoating, further manipulate public perception. Implicit assumptions and selective omissions fill gaps where facts are lacking, while nationalistic appeals and anchoring tactics provide emotional and logical anchors for the audience. This paper aims to dissect these strategies, illuminating how the passage serves as a defensive rebuttal to U.S. criticisms and a proactive tool in China's global information warfare arsenal.

Figure 1 Paper Word cloud

The response employs deliberate tactics to manipulate public perception, using various rhetorical devices to undermine the United States and bolster China's position on the international stage. The text aims to discredit U.S. policies and actions, justify China's military strategies, and reinforce China's narrative concerning global security issues. By achieving these aims, the response serves as a standalone text and a potential part of more extensive, coordinated influence operations.

Using fallacies and biases reveals a strategy to build a narrative that favors China's military policies and delegitimizes the United States. These tactics narrow the scope of public discourse, skewing the information landscape toward a specific viewpoint and hampering a nuanced understanding of complex geopolitical relationships. Techniques such as selection bias, ad hominem attacks, and appeals to fear all contribute to an environment where critical discussion becomes increasingly tricky.

Want to learn more about Critical Thinking and Cognitive Bias?

Online

In-Person

Additional elements like propaganda techniques add further layers of complexity to the response. The text shapes perception and advances a predetermined narrative by employing methods like scapegoating, stereotyping, and card stacking. This multi-layered approach indicates a sophisticated understanding of information warfare tactics, amplifying the response's impact on public opinion and policy discussions.

The response also functions as a case study in modern information warfare and perception shaping, reflecting the intricate dance of geopolitical maneuvering in the digital age. It showcases how nations deploy an arsenal of logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and propaganda techniques to gain an advantage in the global narrative, which can, in turn, influence diplomatic relationships and international politics.

Even if the response doesn't constitute a direct cyber psychological operation (psyop), its language and thematic elements have applicability in broader psychological campaigns aimed at shaping perception. The response is a potential tool in information operations targeting domestic audiences in China and international communities, further emphasizing its strategic significance.

The response presents multiple instances of bias, rhetoric, cyber psyops, and propaganda aimed at framing the People's Republic of China (PRC) in a positive light and discrediting the United States. Below is a breakdown:

Share Treadstone 71

Bias:

The response consistently portrays China as a peaceful, defensive power while framing the United States as aggressive and destabilizing. China's rhetoric is an example of selection bias, where China only includes information supporting a specific viewpoint:

Confirmation Bias: The response selects information confirming its view of China as a peaceful nation and the U.S. as aggressive, ignoring or disputing information contradicting these views.
Framing Bias: China frames the issues in a way that favors the Chinese perspective, particularly with phrases like "protect its national territory and sovereignty is legal, reasonable, and legitimate."
Narrative Bias: The response constructs a narrative where China is the aggrieved and misunderstood party, which the United States continually provokes and destabilizes.
Simplification Bias: Complex issues like regional stability, arms treaties, and the Taiwan situation are simplified into straightforward matters, removing nuance and making it easier to assert a single viewpoint.
Ethnocentrism: The response implicitly suggests that China's approach to military strategy and national defense is superior to that of other countries, particularly the U.S.
Omission: The absence of specific details about China's military activities, alliances, and geopolitical maneuvers constitutes a bias by omission.
Moral Equivalence: By comparing U.S. military actions to China's stated policy of peaceful development, the response suggests that the actions of both countries are ethically or morally comparable, which is a form of bias.
Patriotic Bias: China crafts the language to evoke a sense of nationalistic pride and loyalty among Chinese citizens, reinforcing the government's narrative.
Authority Bias: The source of the information—the Ministry of Defense—leverages its institutional authority to lend credibility to its claims.
Setting the Terms of Debate: By explicitly outlining its positions, the response aims to "anchor" the terms and focal points of subsequent discussions on the topics at hand.

Propaganda:

The response engages in "whataboutism" by diverting attention from criticism of China to the actions of the United States.
It employs the "Straw Man" fallacy by misrepresenting the Pentagon report as exaggerating a "non-existent 'Chinese military threat'" without providing evidence or specific details from the report.
China's claim that it has "never started a war or seized foreign territory" is a historical revisionism that ignores events like the border conflict with India in 1962.
- Glittering Generalities: Phrases like "peaceful development," "defensive policy," and "protect the country's sovereignty" are vaguely favorable terms designed to evoke emotional responses without providing specific, substantiating details.
- Scapegoating: The U.S. is portrayed as the root cause of multiple global issues, from violations of international order to regional instability, effectively blaming it for complex and layered problems.
- Card Stacking: This involves presenting only the information that supports one side of an argument while repressing or downplaying information that might contradict that stance.
- Bandwagon: The response implies that its view is so self-evident that all rational parties should accept it, inviting the reader to "join the winning side" in this international debate.
- Stereotyping: The United States is consistently painted as a war-hungry, destabilizing force, promoting a one-dimensional, negative stereotype to shape public opinion.
- Transfer: By associating the United States with negative terms like "source of chaos" and "chief destroyer," the response attempts to transfer these negative qualities to any entities that might align with the U.S.

Fallacies:

Appeal to Tradition: The claim that China has "never started a war or seized foreign territory" in its 70 years of existence appeals to historical precedent as a justification for current policy.
False Dichotomy: The portrayal of China as peaceful and the U.S. as warlike creates a binary, suggesting that one must be good if the other is bad, without allowing for nuance or complexity.
Ad Hominem: The response attacks the United States rather than addressing the criticisms in the Pentagon report, which is an ad hominem approach to debate.
Appeal to Fear: Statements such as "Beijing will not allow any force to invade and split the country" are designed to stoke fears about foreign interference, thus legitimizing domestic policy and military actions.
Cherry-Picking: Selective use of facts or points that support the Chinese government's stance while ignoring those that might refute it.
Circular Reasoning: The argument that China must build a strong army to protect its interests assumes what it sets out to prove: that China faces threats justifying its military expansion.
Begging the Question: The response claims that China's actions are "legal, reasonable, and legitimate" without offering evidence, essentially stating that they are justified because they are just.
Red Herring: China introduces issues like U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq to distract from the main point: the evaluation of China's military development.

Rhetoric:

Phrases like "The United States is addicted to war" and "source of chaos" use emotional language to stoke negative perceptions about the U.S.
Using terms like "illegal" and "ruined" to describe U.S. actions also serves to vilify the United States.

Loaded Language:

Terms like "split the country," "source of chaos," and "behind-the-scenes mastermind" are loaded terms intended to imply malevolence or illicit action on the part of the United States.

Themes Specific to China:

Emphasis on China's need to build a "strong army" is a tactic to legitimize its military expansion.
The response asserts the "return of Taiwan to China" as a matter of international order, undermining Taiwan's political and social complexities.
It ends with a statement about the PLA (People's Liberation Army) being "capable of stopping any external interference," a veiled threat aimed at deterring foreign involvement, specifically from the U.S., in issues China considers internal, such as Taiwan.

Implicit Assumptions:

Unquestioned Goodwill: The response implicitly assumes that China's intentions are inherently good or benign without offering evidence or allowing for scrutiny.
Zero-Sum Game: There's an underlying assumption that global influence and security are zero-sum — if the U.S. is gaining, China must be losing, and vice versa.

Selective Omission:

Lack of Self-Scrutiny: The response omits any discussion of China's military expansion, cyber warfare capabilities, or geopolitical ambitions that might be aggressive or destabilizing.
Selective Time-Frame: Mentioning that China has not invaded another country in 70 years carefully omits pre-1949 actions and more recent assertive behaviors in regions like the South China Sea.

Nationalistic Appeal:

Promotion of Chinese Exceptionalism: The response suggests that China has a unique role or responsibility in maintaining global peace, which justifies its actions and policies.

Political Posturing:

Signaling to Third Parties: Beyond the U.S. and Chinese domestic audiences, this language sends signals to other nations about alliances, potential military actions, and ideological stances.
Deterrence Messaging: Phrases like "Beijing will not allow any force to invade and split the country" serve as veiled warnings to other nations not to interfere in matters China considers internal.

Assessment - Cyber Psyops?

The response deploys manipulative tactics to shape public opinion, undermine the United States, and elevate China's global standing. It serves as a standalone piece and as part of broader influence operations. It employs fallacies and biases to narrow public discourse, favoring China's viewpoint and obstructing a nuanced understanding of geopolitical dynamics. Methods like selection bias, ad hominem attacks, and appeals to fear create an environment inhospitable to critical discussion.

The text also incorporates various propaganda techniques, adding layers of complexity and indicating a sophisticated grasp of information warfare. It operates as a case study in modern information warfare, mirroring the complexities of geopolitical dynamics in the digital age. Though not a direct cyber psyop, the response's language and themes make it useful in more extensive psychological campaigns, targeting domestic and international audiences.

Regarding bias, the response paints China as a peaceful power and the U.S. as aggressive, using multiple forms of bias such as confirmation, framing, narrative, simplification, ethnocentrism, omission, moral equivalence, patriotism, and authority bias. These biases anchor the terms of debate and lend credibility to China's claims.

The propaganda techniques employed range from "whataboutism" and "straw man" fallacies to historical revisionism. Methods like glittering generalities, scapegoating, card stacking, bandwagon appeals, and stereotyping further shape public perception. China transfers Negative attributes to those aligning with the U.S. through techniques like the "transfer" fallacy.

The response engages in multiple logical fallacies, including appeals to tradition, false dichotomies, ad hominem attacks, appeals to fear, cherry-picking, circular reasoning, begging the question, and red herrings. China uses emotional and loaded language to vilify the United States further.

Themes specific to China, like the necessity of a "strong army" and the "return of Taiwan to China," legitimize its military expansion and downplay Taiwan's complexities. Statements like "capable of stopping any external interference" are veiled threats to deter foreign involvement in issues China deems internal.

Implicit assumptions of China's inherent goodwill and the zero-sum nature of global influence underpin the text. It omits self-scrutiny regarding China's military expansion and cyber capabilities, choosing a selective time frame to present its history. Appeals to nationalistic pride and Chinese exceptionalism pervade the text, which also includes political posturing to signal to third parties and deter potential interference.

The table below offers a detailed breakdown of the rhetorical elements used in the passage, focusing on categories such as rhetorical techniques, biases, fallacies, and propaganda tactics. It identifies specific techniques or elements within each category and provides examples from the text to illustrate how these strategies manifest. This analysis sheds light on the multi-layered approach to shaping public perception, influencing policy discussions, and advancing a particular narrative.

Rhetorical Elements in the Passage

By categorizing these rhetorical elements, we gain a clearer understanding of the complex strategies at play in crafting the message.

The subsequent table delineates the recurrence of various rhetorical elements identified within a specific text. It enumerates each element's presence, offering a quantitative perspective that complements the qualitative analysis. This enumeration aids in discerning which rhetorical strategies are most prevalent, illuminating the critical tools utilized to shape the narrative.

Frequency of Rhetorical Elements

The data provides insights into the passage's underlying structure, emphasizing the tactics employed to convey or manipulate a message.

The table below comprehensively analyses the various fallacies and biases identified within the passage and in our subsequent analysis. Not only does it detail the frequency of each fallacy or bias's use, but it also rates their effectiveness on a scale from 1 to 10. This combination of metrics offers a holistic view of these elements' strategic employment and potential impact on the audience.

The weighting of effectiveness and frequencies of use for each fallacy and bias identified in the passage and the analysis:

The table provides valuable insights into how China strategically uses rhetoric and cognitive biases to influence perception and opinion by assessing each element's prevalence and potential impact.

Overall tables assessment

The three tables provide an in-depth exploration of the rhetorical elements in a given passage, focusing on their frequency, specificity, and perceived effectiveness.

The first table categorizes the rhetorical elements found in the passage. It highlights specific techniques and elements used, from "Loaded Language" to "Anchoring," and provides examples from the text for context. Such varied elements suggest a complex rhetorical strategy designed to persuade or influence the reader.

Main Argument: Passage's portrayal of a specific stance or viewpoint on geopolitical issues.

|-- Rhetorical Techniques (2 instances)

| |-- Loaded Language: "Source of Chaos", "Behind-the-scenes mastermind"

| |-- Political Posturing: "Beijing will not allow...", "strengthening bilateral military alliances"

|-- Biases (4 instances)

| |-- Confirmation Bias: Portrayal of China as peaceful

| |-- Framing Bias: Omission of Chinese military actions

| |-- Narrative Bias: Focus on the last 70 years

| |-- Lack of Self-Scrutiny: Ignoring actions in the South China Sea

|-- Fallacies (5 instances)

| |-- Whataboutism (6 instances, Effectiveness: 9)

| |-- Cherry-picking (5 instances, Effectiveness: 8)

| |-- Emotional Appeals (4 instances, Effectiveness: 8)

| |-- Ad Hominem Attacks (4 instances, Effectiveness: 7)

| |-- Strawman Fallacy (3 instances, Effectiveness: 6)

|-- Propaganda Tactics (3 instances)

| |-- Glittering Generalities: "Peaceful development"

| |-- Scapegoating: "U.S. as source of chaos"

| |-- Anchoring: Outlining China's positions explicitly

|-- Counter-Arguments (Based on your data, this is inferred)

| |-- Rebuttal to Propaganda Tactics: Highlighting the fallacies within

| |-- Rebuttal to Biases: Showcasing the selectivity and omission in the portrayal

|-- Implicit Assumptions (2 instances)

| |-- Unquestioned Goodwill: China's defensive policy

| |-- Zero-Sum Game: U.S. as a disruptor of peace

|-- Loaded Language (3 instances): Words that carry significant emotional weight or connotations

| |-- "Source of Chaos"

| |-- "Behind-the-scenes mastermind"

|-- Nationalistic Appeals (1 instance)

| |-- Chinese Exceptionalism: "China adheres to the path of peaceful development"

|-- Political Posturing (2 instances): Intended to send a message to third parties or deter opponents

| |-- Signaling to Third Parties

| |-- Deterrence Messaging

The second table presents a quantitative summary, ranking these rhetorical elements based on frequency. "Fallacies" emerge as the most frequently used rhetorical element, with a count of five. This prominence indicates a heavy reliance on logical missteps, possibly to divert the audience's attention or challenge opposing viewpoints. Conversely, "Nationalistic Appeals" and "Anchoring" appear only once, suggesting they play a more niche or specific role in the passage's overall rhetoric.

The third table explains the specific fallacies and biases, offering a frequency count and an effectiveness rating of 1 to 10 on a scale. "Whataboutism" stands out as the most frequently used and one of the most effective fallacies, with a rating of 9 out of 10. Such high effectiveness implies that diverting attention by pointing to others' faults resonates strongly with the audience. In contrast, "Appeal to Authority" has a lower frequency and effectiveness, indicating its limited role or impact in this context.

These tables reveal a multifaceted rhetorical approach in the analyzed passage. While a wide range of techniques and elements are in play, the data shows a clear preference for specific strategies, notably fallacies, to engage and persuade the audience. The effectiveness ratings further underscore which tactics likely have the most significant impact on readers, highlighting the nuanced interplay between frequency and potency in rhetorical strategy.

Summary

The analyzed passage exemplifies cognitive warfare, information operations, and influence operations by strategically deploying various rhetorical techniques to shape perceptions and control narratives. It employs cherry-picking to selectively use information that supports China's position while ignoring inconvenient facts. By using ad hominem attacks against the United States, the passage aims to discredit the opposing side rather than engage with the substance of the arguments. Whataboutism features prominently, diverting attention from China's actions by highlighting those of the United States, thus confusing the issue and stalling constructive debate.

False dilemmas limit the scope of possible interpretations, steering the reader towards a specific, preferred conclusion. Emotional appeals exploit the reader's fears or prejudices to garner support for the narrative presented. The passage also includes hasty generalizations, where isolated incidents are the basis for sweeping claims about entire countries or policies.

Through these tactics, the passage seeks to inform and influence, aiming to change behaviors, opinions, and policies to align with its objectives. It forms part of a larger, coordinated campaign that integrates cognitive warfare and influence operations to achieve geopolitical goals, such as asserting territorial claims in the South China Sea or challenging U.S. foreign policy. This multipronged approach blends disinformation, manipulation, and propaganda to impact individual cognition and broader public discourse, achieving its strategic objectives.