中文
The guard of honor of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) attends a parade in Beijing, capital of China, September 3, 2025. China on Wednesday held a grand gathering to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. [Photo/Xinhua]
By Anthony Moretti
Imagine for a moment you and three other people enter an echo chamber and seal it closed. What do you think would happen once the four of you talked and quickly agreed with each other? Correct: You would hear only those four voices. Anything outside the echo chamber would be muted.
Western audiences who checked the news as they woke up on Wednesday morning were – figuratively speaking – stuck in an echo chamber. That is because the largest Western-based news agencies had all presented a similar narrative describing the large celebration that had taken place in Beijing hours earlier to mark China's recognition of the 80th anniversary of the defeat of fascism and Japanese aggression. Put bluntly, the West's media ridiculed it.
The centerpiece of the celebration was a large military parade that showed off some of the most modern weapons the Chinese have developed. The first message associated with the parade was obvious: China does not want to engage in anything like World War II, or even lesser conflicts, in the future, but it has the capability to fight for what it believes in. Closely related to this: Never again will an enemy nation enter China and inflict upon it the kind of physical disaster and humanitarian humiliation suffered at the hands of the Japanese from 1931 through 1945.
The nuclear missile formation attends the military parade in Beijing, capital of China, September 3, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
The Western media chose not to deliver such a message. Instead, they created different ones, and some that defied common sense. Consider just a few examples: The BBC suggested the event was "a defiant push" against the U.S.-led world order. (Left unstated was any critique of that Western world order.) Reuters examined the "unprecedented show of force," adding that China was eager to unveil a new world order with it playing the starring role. (If this narrative had carefully explained why China embraces a multipolar world, the report might have had a dash of credibility.)
Of course, different and competing narratives may be created, but they do need to be based in reality and not developed from rehashed ideas bouncing loudly inside the echo chamber.
Meanwhile, there was a second, and perhaps more important, message connected to what unfolded in China: At a time when unilateralism and protectionism are on the rise and geopolitical and economic patterns are becoming increasingly fragmented, all nations must uphold dialogue and mutual benefit. They must also reject confrontation and zero-sum thinking. Unless and until all nations appreciate and support the historical, cultural and other differences that make the world so interesting, they cannot live in harmony and fully ally with each other. Nor can they safeguard common security so that military aggression, whether it takes place in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, Africa or anywhere else across the globe, is significantly reduced.
Of course, the critics will howl that only the naivest of people believe such a message. Those critics insist that China is biding its time and building up its military might in preparation for using war to advance its aims whenever its diplomacy does not work.
Perhaps those critics do not realize that they are acknowledging how the U.S. became the world's hegemon over the past eight decades: Dictating to nations that lacked the economic and military power to stand up to it, Washington influenced elections, determined economic policy and sent off its military to places near and far. The scars associated with that legacy continue to be displayed in myriad nations. Yes, the U.S. also did much that should be applauded, but it cannot pretend that it always exercised restraint and showcased decorum.
As a result, and in 2025 when the developing world hears one message that speaks of working in partnership and another that demands unflinching acquiescence, which are they likely to accept? Those that choose the positive way can look at what took place in Beijing and think that a better future might exist with closer engagement with China.
As for those still in the echo chamber? "China is bad. China is a bully. China cannot be trusted." This is what happens when you refuse to think outside the echo chamber. You hear only one set of ideas, one set of messages, one set of values.
From Washington to London and from Ottawa to Tokyo, the political and media elite retain the authority required to establish and maintain an echo chamber. As open minds close, the diversity of opinions disappears.
Anthony Moretti, a special commentator for CGTN, is an associate professor at the Department of Communication and Organizational Leadership at Robert Morris University in the U.S. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of either CGTN or Robert Morris University.
