Highlights
- China implements export controls on seven rare earth elements, potentially disrupting U.S. military technology supply chains.
- Export controls positioned as strategic retaliation against U.S. tariffs, highlighting China’s dominance in rare earth material production.
- Global Times frames the move as a lawful national security measure while subtly emphasizing China’s geopolitical leverage.
A recent article from Global Times (opens in a new tab), a Chinese state-affiliated outlet, covers rising U.S. concerns about the future of its sixth-generation fighter jet, the F-47, in light of China’s newly implemented export controls on seven categories of medium and heavy rare earth elements. The report cites multiple U.S. media sources—including Newsweek, Bloomberg, and Reuters—which acknowledge the importance of these elements for advanced military applications such as stealth technology, radar, and high-temperature jet engine coatings. These controls come shortly after the U.S. announced Boeing would produce the F-47, intensifying fears that restricted access to key materials like dysprosium, terbium, and yttrium could impede defense production.
The report authored by Liu Xuanzun and Liang Rui heavily emphasizes the strategic vulnerability of the U.S. defense sector and positions China’s export controls as a direct and calculated response to the Trump administration’s tariffs. Chinese military analyst Song Zhongping is quoted stating that the move “strikes directly at a core spot of the US,” underscoring the tactical and economic leverage China holds through its near-monopoly on rare earth production and processing. U.S. dependence on Chinese supply chains for these critical elements—especially for sole-sourced materials—is highlighted as a weakness that affects not just military platforms like the F-47 but a broad range of civilian technologies as well.
However, the article is framed in a way that suggests China’s export controls are both strategic retaliation and righteous defense. While acknowledging the impact on U.S. military supply chains, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce is quoted as describing the move as a lawful measure to “safeguard national security and interests” and fulfill international obligations. This framing casts China not as an aggressor, but as a responsible global actor acting in accordance with “non-proliferation” goals—despite the apparent geopolitical motivations behind the controls.
Propaganda elements in the article include the use of language that subtly celebrates China’s ability to disrupt U.S. defense planning (“deal blow,” “strike directly”), and the portrayal of China as both powerful and principled. The inclusion of quotes from Chinese experts reinforces the narrative of deliberate, justified strategic action, while omitting or minimizing any mention of the potential global economic or diplomatic backlash these export controls might provoke. Furthermore, the report does not explore the risks of supply chain over-concentration within China, nor does it acknowledge the legitimacy of U.S. national security concerns related to overreliance on Chinese materials.
While the article incorporates factual reporting on the economic and defense implications of rare earth export controls, it is layered with subtle state-aligned messaging. These include emphasizing China’s strength, rationalizing its actions as peaceful and lawful, and framing the U.S. as dependent and vulnerable. Such messaging aligns with broader Chinese strategic communication goals, portraying China as a dominant but restrained power navigating a hostile and provocative American-led global order.
Leave a Reply