THE so-called “China spy threat” has once again resurfaced in international headlines, reviving a familiar narrative thatrisks undermining the spirit of globalization and international cooperation.
In an increasingly interconnected world, countries pursue diverse economic, business and investment models, while the use of online platforms for commercial and professional activities has become a standard global practice. Rather than viewing China’s growing economic and technological presence through the lens of suspicion, Western nations should adopt a more pragmatic approach, recognizing that the 21st century is defined by economic competition and cooperation, not Cold War-style geopolitical rivalries.
The recent move by the US Department of Justice and the FBI to seize 13 internet domains, alleging they were operated by suspected Chinese agents targeting US security clearance holders, is a calculated maneuver that represents old wine in a new bottle. It exposes a persistent Western mentality aimed at tarnishing Chinese companies and their overseas investments, a course of action that amounts to nothing more than a fool’s errand.
These unsubstantiated claims are yet another chapter in a politically motivated propaganda campaign designed to disrupt China’s international cooperation in digitalization and artificial intelligence and curtail its companies’ global reach. The timing is particularly ironic, coming just days after the “Five Eyes” alliance issued a joint warning alleging that Chinese spies are exploiting online job platforms. In reality, recruitment through online platforms is a universal modern practice bearing no relation to clandestine activity. Rather than promoting baseless espionage claims, the path forward should be constructive cooperation and fair competition to advance economic globalization and create win-win outcomes for all.
For the world’s most powerful intelligence network to portray itself as a naive bystander caught in the crossfire of Chinese espionage is an absurd farce. Without concrete, verifiable evidence, such accusations should be rejected. Neither the US Department of Justice nor the “Five Eyes” alliance has provided convincing details, instead relying on speculative terms like “suspected” to justify claims under the banners of “national security risk” and “intelligence threat.” In an era of economic globalization, portraying ordinary consulting positions advertised on global platforms as espionage amounts to malicious defamation, as the Chinese side has argued.
Analytically, the Western narrative of a “China spy threat” is a classic case of a thief crying “stop thief.” The “Five Eyes” alliance, as the world’s largest intelligence-sharing network, has long conducted large-scale, systematic espionage operations across the globe. They are seasoned practitioners of using recruitment as a cover and exploiting online platforms for intelligence gathering. Their current accusations represent a brazen “role reversal,” projecting their own well-documented behavior onto China, weaponizing their extensive experience in espionage to smear others while hypocritically casting themselves as guardians of cybersecurity. As a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson once remarked, the irony is self-evident.
Comparative studies confirm that the “Five Eyes” alliance has a long and dubious record of intelligence activities, rendering its self-styled image as a cybersecurity protector untenable. The 2013 revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed the PRISM program, enabling the large-scale collection of global user data. From the surveillance of 122 foreign leaders, including former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to the exploitation of undersea cables in countries like Denmark, these activities represent a form of digital hegemony that violates the sovereignty and privacy rights of other nations.
The global surveillance reach of the “Five Eyes” alliance extends far beyond its allies, with operations targeting developing countries across the Global South. Under the banner of intelligence sharing, its networks have launched cyberattacks, spread disinformation and interfered in the internal affairs of sovereign states, disrupting services, banking, finance and military sectors. These activities have been repeatedly verified by international media. The real objective in accusing others, critics argue, is to divert international attention, contain China and justify its own long-standing intelligence operations.
Every country has the right to protect its sensitive information. However, to portray normal business consultations, academic exchanges and technological cooperation as “espionage” is as irrational as seeing enemies in every shadow. The legitimate overseas activities of Chinese companies, researchers, students and job seekers should never be casually branded as suspicious. History has repeatedly shown that many so-called “Chinese espionage cases” fabricated by the U.S. have ultimately collapsed due to a complete lack of evidence, but not before causing irreparable harm to the targeted individuals. Such unbridled suppression is a serious disruption to international talent mobility and global cooperation, poisoning the atmosphere for China-US economic, trade and people-to-people exchanges and ultimately damaging the interests of both sides.
In May 2026, the Chinese and US presidents agreed on a new vision to build a “constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability,” charting a course for bilateral ties. Washington must honor its word and demonstrate through concrete actions that its commitment is genuine. The persistent promotion of the “China spy threat” theory suggests that a confrontational Cold War mentality still dominates parts of their China policy.
In summary, the latest politically motivated media campaign surrounding the so-called “China Spy Threat” is baseless and should be abandoned in favor of purposeful engagement that promotes international development rather than fictional stereotypes. China’s economic rise has no hidden agenda beyond advancing economic globalization, international cooperation and reducing digital gaps. Its economy, industrial cooperation, investments and socio-economic connectivity have benefited BRI members, while Xi’s global initiatives have become a source of hope for global progress, prosperity and stability. These allegations are therefore futile and should give way to a rational and pragmatic approach toward China, free from obsolete Cold War thinking.
—The writer is President, the Centre for Knowledge and Public Policy, Regional Expert: China, CPEC, BRI & World Affairs.
