OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier

International Relations and Social Networks

July 2021

THE EU AGAINST THE DISINFORMATION OF CHINA AND RUSSIA DURING THE

COVID-19. THE NEED FOR GREATER EUROPEAN NARRATIVE PROACTIVITY AT

THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

MIGUEL ANGEL BENEDICTO SOLSONA

miguel.benedictosolsona@gmail.com

PhD in International Relations from the Complutense University of Madrid. He holds a degree in

Law from the University of Zaragoza, a degree in Information Sciences from the UCM and a

degree in Political Science from the UNED. His areas of research are the European Union (foreign

policy, security and defence and communication policy) and public diplomacy. He is a member of

the research team of the project "Public diplomacy in Ibero-American megacities: communication

strategies and soft power to influence global environmental legislation". As a lecturer, he also

collaborates with the Universidad Europea de Madrid (Spain) and the Universidad Pontificia

Comillas.

Abstract

Disinformation has been used by third countries to weaken the EU and its institutions; erode

democracy and create social division. In the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, Russia and

China have been in the spotlight for their influence operations in Europe. In the article we will

analyse the concept of disinformation in the EU; external threats and the new role played by

China and its use of social networks to improve its image and impose its alternative model of

governance with sharp power techniques. Finally, the European strategy to defend itself

against fake news will be evaluated and the need for the EU to be more proactive in creating

frames that allow it to launch a narrative at international level and improve its public

diplomacy.

Keywords

Disinformation, China, Russia, European Union sharp power, Covid-19

How to cite this article

Solsona, Miguel Ángel Benedicto. The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during

the COVID-19. The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level.

Thematic dossier International Relations and Social Networks, July 2021. Consulted [online]

at dat of last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT21.6

Article received on January 5, 2021 and accepted for publication on March 2, 2021

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

THE EU AGAINST THE DISINFORMATION OF CHINA AND RUSSIA

DURING THE COVID-19. THE NEED FOR GREATER EUROPEAN

NARRATIVE PROACTIVITY AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

MIGUEL ÁNGEL BENEDICTO SOLSONA

Introduction

The European Union has been suffering from the phenomenon of disinformation since

2015. After the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia, Moscow has not stopped using

this type of tool to destabilize different European countries, especially during electoral

campaigns, causing social polarization and a decrease in trust in institutions and

democracy. 73% of European internet users were concerned about disinformation during

election periods; 85% of those surveyed perceive fake news online as a problem in their

country and 83% as a problem for democracy in general (Flash Eurobarometer 464,

2018).

To curb these threats, the EU put in place instruments to combat fake news with relative

success during the European Parliament elections in May 2019. However, the Covid-19

pandemic has shown that the measures were not enough. Technology and social

platforms change, attacks are increasingly sophisticated and aggressive. In addition,

countries like China, although with different objectives than the Russians, as we will see,

have also targeted the phenomenon of disinformation in Europe.

1. Methodology and fieldwork

This article examines as actors outside the EU, like Russia and China, have launched

interference and misinformation processes during the pandemic. We have analyzed the

reports of the EU External Action Service (EEAS) since March 2020 to see what the

interference of the Kremlin and Beijing-controlled media has been. Due to the importance

of social platforms, we have also reviewed the Hamilton 2.0 panel

, a project of Alliance

for Securing Democracy and the German Marshall Fund, which provides an analysis of

Article translated by Miguel Ángel Benedicto.

Hamilton Dashboard 2.0 https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/hamilton-dashboard/

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

the narratives and topics promoted by Russian, Chinese and Iranian officials on social

media and media funded by those countries.

The novelty of the Chinese case in the use of disinformation in the EU has also led us to

analyze the action of China's Foreign Ministry on twitter from February to April 2020, the

toughest months of the pandemic in the EU. For the fieldwork we have collected 266

tweets from the official account of the Chinese Foreign Ministry uploaded between

February and April 2020, which is when the pandemic hit hardest in Europe during the

first wave. We have analyzed how many tweets have been written in relation to Covid-

19 during those months, which countries have been most cited by that ministry within

and outside the EU, which institutions are the most named and the type of coronavirus

information that China has uploaded on twitter.

Likewise, the measures that the EU has put in place against disinformation, before and

after the pandemic, are analyzed.

2. Theoretical considerations about Soft power and Sharp power

During the coronavirus crisis, European institutions suffered attacks from Russia and

China. Moscow has been using disinformation campaigns for years in various EU countries

with the aim of weakening its institutions, creating social division and eroding democracy.

In contrast, Beijing had not used such actions until the emergence of Covid-19 with the

aim of presenting its own narrative on the origin of the pandemic, improving its image in

the EU through mask diplomacy

, or supporting countries related to the New Silk Road

(BRI).

Both countries have been equipped with instruments to implement coordinated actions

aimed at democratic states to violate their institutions through political, economic,

military, civil means or information related. Russia and China use soft power to attract

foreign audiences, but under that guise are disruptive operations that can be described

as sharp power; used by some countries to crack democratic systems such as the EU.

The concept of soft power is attributed to Joseph Nye (2004: 5) who defines it as a form

of non-coercive power that has the effect of "getting others to want the outcomes you

want" through the "ability of attraction, [which] leads to acquiescence."

The decline of the state monopoly for the benefit of shared sovereignty in economic and

communicative matters raises the need to rethink traditional diplomacy. It does not seem

possible to return to a closed international system monopolized by state activity, but

rather a more open diplomacy, more mediated by the media, in which civil society plays

an increasingly important role. Public diplomacy according to Nye (2008) “is an

indispensable tool for promoting the soft power of a country”. In this sense, Van Ham

(2005: 47) explains that it is "used by states to turn hard power into the soft power of

legitimacy, credibility, cultural superiority, and normative dominance. The wheels of hard

It is an attempt to improve China's image abroad as the country from which the virus had come through

medical assistance or the shipment of sanitary supplies or masks by Beijing, donations from companies or

Chinese communities abroad.

It is a geopolitical project that seeks to integrate Asia, Europe and Africa into a market with an

intercontinental transport network.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

power alone can work smoothly with the soft power lubricant, of which public diplomacy

is a key element."

However, when Russia or China use diplomacy to undermine the political system of

another country, Walker and Ludwig (2017a) do not speak of soft but of sharp power. A

concept that they coined in Foreign Affairs magazine as the use of manipulative

diplomatic policies by one country to influence and undermine the political system of

another country. According to Walker (2016) “authoritarian regimes exploit the

opportunities that globalization provides and create an undemocratic toolkit”. This

includes NGOs controlled by governments, the use of investment and foreign aid and

they use traditional and online media. They create an alternative model that reduces the

political space of civil society by building an infrastructure, working together in existing

or newly created international organizations, which allows them to challenge democracies

and their values.

Walker and Ludwig argue that Moscow and Beijing's efforts in public diplomacy are not

based on attraction or even persuasion, but on manipulation. Sharp power seeks to

"penetrate or pierce" the political information and environments of the selected countries.

It is a power that uses policies that help authoritarian regimes to coerce and manipulate

opinions abroad. The corrosive effects of sharp power are evident in the spheres of

culture, academia, the media and publications, sectors that are more vulnerable due to

their financial insecurity (Hala, 2020). Open and accessible democracies like the EU are

vulnerable to that sharp power.

China wants to play a more important role at the global level and to do this it promotes

its ideas, rules and models of government through censorship or manipulation to

undermine the integrity of independent institutions. According to Nye (2021) "China must

realize that most of a country's soft power comes from its civil society rather than from

its government." China's problem is that the actors involved in its public diplomacy

depend on the control of the communist party (Walker, 2018). The repressive system of

the Chinese government nullifies non-state actors and turns its soft power and public

diplomacy into a sharp power that seeks to manipulate or coerce opinions abroad

(Benedicto, 2020).

3. Activities of Russia and China during the first wave of Covid-19

COVID-19 has given rise to what the WHO calls an "infodemic

", which in the lockdown

was aggravated by the massive use of social networks to access information. During the

coronavirus crisis, the situation has become more complex with false information about

the virus, attacks on ethnic or religious groups as the origin of the pandemic, consumer

fraud, conspiracy theories, cybercrime and selective disinformation campaigns by of

foreign or national agents who seek to undermine democracy and the credibility of the

EU and national or regional authorities (European Commission, 2020a).

Excess information on a matter, but also disinformation or conspiracy theories that create confusion and

mistrust and prevent an effective response to the problem. https://www.who.int/docs/default-

source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200305-sitrep-45-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ed2ba78b_4

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

In this article we focus on the challenge that third countries, such as Russia and China,

have undertaken with disinformation campaigns about COVID-19 in the EU and its

neighboring countries, with which they seek to undermine the democratic debate and

exacerbate social polarization, thereby improving their own image in relation to the

pandemic. Moscow and Beijing took advantage of the fact that the EU's initial response

to the coronavirus was late and unsupportive. The ban on exporting medical supplies by

France or Germany to a needy Italy was a serious blow to the image of the EU. China

and Russia deployed a strategy of public diplomacy, with the shipment of medical

supplies. The EU, which does not have health competencies, saw how China with “mask

diplomacy” filled the gap in European leadership and coordination; and got Italy, Spain

or Serbia to thank and even ask Beijing for help.

The European Commission reacted later by opening transport corridors so that medical

supplies could reach any EU country that needed them. EU also offered assistance to

candidate countries in the Western Balkans, but the initial image of lack of solidarity had

already been set.

3.1. EEAS reports on Moscow and Beijing activity

In the first EEAS report (2020a) the attacks on Brussels were highlighted due to the low

support for its Member States; while countries like Italy were assisted by China or the

Schengen area was broken. Russia's objective was to generate mistrust in authorities

and national and European health systems, international institutions and scientific

experts.

For its part, China spread information about the great work done by Xi Jinping to contain

the coronavirus; while the West and the United States worked too slowly and are now in

total disarray from the virus.

In the second report of the EEAS (2020 b) of the end of April, it is concluded that both

Russia and China, to a lesser extent, have disseminated conspiracy and disinformation

theories directed both to the public of the European Union and of neighboring countries.

Russian state media carry out a coordinated campaign with the dual aim of undermining

the European Union and its response to the crisis, and of sowing confusion about the

origins and health consequences of COVID-19, even if it contradicts WHO official

guidelines and social media content policies.

From mid-February to the end of March 2020, Beijing was characterized by questioning

the origin of the virus, restricting references to Wuhan or sowing doubts by attributing

the start of the virus to the American military; and highlight the role of China as a world

leader in the response to coronavirus led by Xi Jinping (Recorded Future, 2020).

According to the Daily Telegraph (2020), some Chinese state media circumvented the

rules on political advertising on social media and launched campaigns praising China's

handling of the virus and attacking the United States.

China diverted any possible responsibility for the outbreak of the pandemic and did not

stop publicizing the bilateral assistance, which it provides to some European countries,

highlighting that Beijing has been more helpful than the European Union in the fight

against the pandemic. The strategy worked in Italy where 52% of respondents by polling

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

company SWG in March considered China a friendly country of Italy, a 42% increase from

January 2020. However, the percentage of respondents who trusted the European Union

fell to 27% in March 2020 from 42% in September 2019. As for China's strategic partners

outside Europe, 36% believe that China should be looked at compared to 30% that they

think they should look at the United States.

Figure 1. “International alliances: China recovers credit among Italians and is now preferred to the

United States”

Fuente: Magazine Formiche.

Formiche magazine (2020) detected a coordinated Twitter bot operation in Italy to

broaden the reach of messages from the Chinese embassy praising their country and to

attack the European Union. Also countries in the Eastern neighborhood of the EU, on the

southern shore of the Mediterranean and the Western Balkans, receive information

showing Europe divided or weak in dealing with the crisis effectively (EEAS, 2020 b).

In the third EEAS report (2020c) in May, “Russian controlled television channels

promoted disinformation narratives about the collapse of Western values and China has

tried to control the narrative about COVID-19 and deflect any criticism to be portrayed

as a responsible and transparent actor during the pandemic and a role model for other

countries."

According to Freedom House (2020), since March 2020, coordinated and covert attempts

have been detected by actors linked to China to manipulate information about Covid-19

in countries such as Italy or Serbia, among others, with content in local languages.

Beijing increasingly adopts the Russian style and no longer only censors the criticism it

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

receives, but also starts to sow doubts and use conspiracy theories with a strong

proactivity of officials on social networks called wolf warrior diplomacy.

In the fourth report of the EEAS (2020d) of December 2020, disinformation decreases

and focuses on vaccines. Russia praises Sputnik V with a triumphant speech and China

highlights its response to Covid-19 as a commitment to multilateralism and the rapid

reopening of its economy.

3.2. Chinese Foreign Ministry twitter analysis

The dissemination of messages on these platforms aims to ensure China's discursive

power in the world, which is one of the most important goals of increasing its soft power

(Zhao, 2020). According to the analysis, which we have carried out on the tweets in

English uploaded in the account of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, during the first three

months of the first wave of the pandemic in the EU, 78% had to do with Covid-19. The

first month was the one with the most intensity on the social network, especially to try

to hide the origin of the virus and divert attention with conspiracy theories and

accusations of racism. Beijing also appreciated the solidarity of countries such as

Pakistan, Serbia and ASEAN partners.

In February, the country most cited on the Twitter of the Foreign Ministry was Pakistan

and in Europe, Italy was the first and curiously, small countries like Serbia and

Montenegro ranked fourth and fifth. They all have something in common: their

membership in the Chinese geopolitical project of the New Silk Road. As for the most

cited institution, it is undoubtedly the WHO with which Beijing wants to demonstrate its

commitment to multilateralism. In the early stages of the outbreak, official Chinese

messages focused on solidarity, human interest stories and Beijing's efforts to respond

to the crisis such as the video of the construction of the Wuhan hospital.

But in March, as the virus spread rapidly to Europe and the United States, that focus

shifted, criticizing the Trump administration's handling of the virus and highlighting the

chaos of democratic systems. Beijing began to question the origin of the virus in Wuhan.

China began to designate the American military as the inoculators of Covid-19; and to

highlight the role of China as a world leader in the response to the coronavirus and

underline that the Chinese supply chain remains active. In addition, Beijing did not stop

propaganda about his assistance to European countries such as Italy and Serbia, while

highlighting the inaction of Brussels.

In April, the number of tweets rose and the most cited country was the United States,

which is accused of manufacturing the virus in a laboratory in the former USSR. This

conspiracy theory about American biological laboratories was tweeted on more than one

occasion by the official account of the Chinese Foreign Ministry and covered by its official

media.

It is characterized by the use of confrontational rhetoric by Chinese diplomats by denouncing criticism of

China and being combative in interviews and on social media.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

Table 1. China on twitter

Months

February 2020

March 2020

April 2020

Total tweets

MFA China

125

Tweets about

the Covid-19

103

Most cited

country

outside

Europe

Pakistan 11

USA 7

USA 8

Most cited

European

country

Italy 4

France 2

Germany 3

Serbia 2

Montenegro1

Italy 2

Serbia 2

France 2

Most cited

institution

WHO 10

WHO 7

WHO 8

ASEAN 2

Issues that

most concern

China related

to COVID

-Complaints about

information about

the origin of the virus

in a Chinese

laboratory, racism

and conspiracy

theories.

-Thank you for the

solidarity of Pakistan,

Serbia and ASEAN.

-Video of the

construction of

Wuhan Hospital

-Solidarity with

Japan and South

Korea.

-Don't call it

Wuhan virus

-Support for

countries such

as Italy or

Serbia

-Chinese supply

chain operates

despite Covid

-Laboratories of USA in the former

USSR as the source of the virus.

-Threat of not sending medical

equipment to Netherlands by changing

Taiwan's official name

-WHO experts rule out that the virus

comes from a Chinese laboratory.

-Criticism of the attempt to destabilize

the relationship between China and

Africa.

-Defense of the Director-General of

WHO for racist attacks.

-Tweets sending doctors, masks or

medical equipment to Pakistan, Serbia,

Nigeria Kazakhstan, USA, ASEAN;

Djibouti, Russia, Myanmar, Cambodia,

Bangladesh, and Taiwan.

Source: Own elaboration according to the official Twitter account of the Chinese Foreign Ministry

In addition, campaigns were launched praising China's management of the virus and

attacking the United States. Beijing diverted its responsibility for managing the virus at

the beginning of the pandemic and stressed that the WHO ruled out that it was created

in a Chinese laboratory. Likewise, he did not stop tweeting information about the

shipment of medical supplies, doctors and masks to different countries of the world,

giving rise to the so-called mask diplomacy and improving his image in Italy or Serbia.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

4. EU strategies against disinformation

4.1. Disinformation: a broader concept than fake news

The phenomenon of disinformation in the EU goes beyond the term 'fake news' as is

apparent from the report made for the European Commission by the High-Level Expert

Group (HLEG), which defines disinformation "like all forms of false information,

inaccurate or misleading designed, presented, edited or promoted to intentionally cause

public harm or to profit" (European Commission, 2018 to p.3). Trolls and hackers use big

data

and algorithms to identify each person's unique weaknesses and trends for

producing stories consistent with them and help bots spread

them. They use these

stories to reinforce the prejudices of those who believe in it to exacerbate the cracks in

society and pierce the democratic system from within. (Brahms, 2019).

4.2. How to combat disinformation

Russia has a budget of between 3 billion and 4 billion for disinformation measures

(McCauley, 2016) and as Roig explains (2018) uses instruments such as Russian

information agencies RT and Sputnik abroad. It controls almost all national televisions,

uses the Internet Research Agency (IRA) to flood social media, and generates

sophisticated and massive disinformation operations. Some 15,000 people work on these

disinformation tasks (McCauley, 2016) and Sputnik and RT, providing stories to be spread

through social media.

A study on information manipulation conducted by the French government (Vilmer et al.,

2018) states that 80% of the European authorities consulted attribute interference in

Europe to Russia but they also do so to other states (mainly China and Iran) and non-

state actors (jihadist groups, in particular ISIS). However, some academics have

questioned this percentage on the basis that such volume is barely measurable "because

there is no consensus on what exactly constitutes disinformation."

The cross-border dimension of disinformation has required a coordinated and long-term

approach among EU Member States to meet this challenge. In 2015, the European

institutions created the East Stratcom (Communication Strategy for the East) Group, a

pioneer against fake news to assist candidate countries and partners in the EU's

neighbourhood in their efforts to counter hostile propaganda and disinformation activities

(European Parliament, 2019). The Working Group disseminates thousands of examples

of Kremlin-friendly disinformation and studies the techniques and intentions of Russian-

origin campaigns on daily basis.

The EU adopted in 2016 a Common Framework for combating hybrid threats underlining

the threat posed by massive disinformation campaigns, which uses social media to

control political narrative or to radicalize, recruit and represent indirect actors. It is an

issue which falls within the scope of national security and defence and the main

Person who uses social media to distribute fake news or posts to destabilize and influence public opinion.

Computer programs that mimic human interaction and automatically disseminate disinformation campaigns

on social media.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

responsibility lies with the Member States. However, common threats can attack cross-

border networks or infrastructures and they are more effectively addressed with a

coordinated response at European level (EuropeanParliament, 2016).

As part of the planned measures, the Hybrid Threat Fusion Cell was established at the

EEAS in 2016 and one year after the European Centre for Combating Hybrid Threats was

opened in Helsinki with the participation of 10 EU Member States, Norway and the US.

The openness and collaboration between NATO and the EU were a sign that tensions with

Russia over its campaigns of influence in the West could no longer be ignored.

The HLEG (European Commission, 2018a) conclusion report describes the harmful effects

of disinformation due to increased institutional mistrust and increased social tensions,

and the implications it could have for internal security if combined with cyberattacks or

public policy making given its influence on public opinion. Disinformation could affect

policies, social debates and behaviors in areas such as climate change, migration, public

safety, health and finance; and can undermine confidence in science and empirical testing

(European Commission, 2018b). In this document, it was pointed out that the platforms

had barely taken measures against misinformation and it was doubted that they would

protect their users well against the unauthorized use of their personal data by third

parties.

In 2018, a Code of Practice against disinformation was launched, signed by platforms

such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, Mozilla and Microsoft, which pledged to take action

and the Commission to monitor its effectiveness on a regular basis. The European

Commission also approved an Action Plan against disinformation, created a Rapid Alert

System to have closer coordination between the EU and national authorities; and

increased international cooperation with the G7 and NATO.

Before the European elections, the European Parliament (2019) approved a Report to

sensitize the public opinion “about the disinformation campaigns of Russia, since they

constitute the main source of fake news in Europe”. The report's speaker (Fotyga, 2019)

noted that “the dissemination of disinformation has become more sophisticated due to

new tools (for example, private messaging applications, search engine optimization,

manipulated sound or images) and more aggressive”. The report condemned the actions

of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, which according to MEPs sought to undermine

European democracies and the sovereignty of all Eastern European Partnership countries,

as well as influence elections and support extremist movements. MEPs urged the EU to

strengthen the East StratCom anti-propaganda group to combat attacks from Russia.

The measures adopted during the European elections helped to combat disinformation

and preserve the integrity of the elections According to the European Commission Report

(2019) “the available evidence has not made it possible to determine the existence of a

clear cross-border campaign of disinformation from external sources and specifically

targeting the European elections.” However, they revealed ongoing and sustained

disinformation activity by Russian sources with the aim of discouraging electoral turnout

and influencing voters' preferences. Thus, democratic legitimacy of the Union was

questioned; controversial public debates were exploited on issues such as migration and

sovereignty. “This confirms that the disinformation campaigns deployed by state and

non-state actors pose a hybrid threat to the EU” (European Commission, 2019a).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

Cooperation with platforms improved, but not enough. “More than 600 Facebook groups

and pages operating in France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Poland and Spain

have spread disinformation and incitement to hatred or have used false profiles to

artificially promote the content of the parties or sites they support.” (Graham-Harrison,

2019). Complaints from researchers, fact-checkers and civil society also served to detect

other cases of large-scale attempts to manipulate voter behavior in at least nine Member

States (Avaaz, 2019).

However, the coronavirus crisis has once again put on the table that it is necessary to

continue working to avoid disinformation, especially in relation to third countries, such

as China and Russia that have launched influence operations, as is clear from the

communication of June 2020 from the European Commission (2020a). To avoid these

external interferences, the EU seeks international collaboration with the G7, NATO and

WHO and a more active role in communicating locally, especially in the use of social

networks.

In the public consultation carried out by the European Commission (2020b), 69% of those

surveyed were in favour of some type of regulation on disinformation and 57% supported

the option of following the Code of Practices on Disinformation and combining it with

some type of legal measure. After the consultation, the Action Plan for European

Democracy was presented with tougher measures to prevent foreign interference in EU

electoral processes and disinformation. The purpose of the European Commission Plan

(2020c), which will be implemented until the European elections of 2023, is to move from

self-regulation to “co-regulation” in line with the next Digital Services Act. According to

the document, it seeks to reduce the economic incentives to spread disinformation and

impose sanctions, although it is not explained how they will be, to the actors involved in

operations of influence and foreign interference”. In the proposal made by the

Commission on the new Digital Services Act, the mechanisms to eliminate illegal content

are improved and greater public supervision of platforms is introduced.

4.3. Creation of European frameworks

The EU has a public sphere under construction in which when it comes to fighting fake

news, it has opted for fact checking instead of creating alternative frameworks at the

European level (Tuñon, Oleart and Bouza, 2019). The commitment to fact checkers is

reactive because their strategy is to deny the falsehoods that circulate in the public

sphere, and in doing so the effect of disinformation is amplified by reproducing the frames

that are used to debate. If we apply the theory of framing, we realize the importance of

proactivity in communication, especially when establishing discursive frameworks.

Following Lakoff (2004), the repetition of the disinformation framework extends it into

the incipient European public sphere rather than defeating it.

During the coronavirus crisis, Russia and China have been active in setting frameworks

and have used sharp power to do so. However, the EU was unable to use its public

diplomacy or proactive narratives to create alternative frameworks at the geopolitical

level. The EU has provided more aid to its states than it has received from China,

however, the perception of European citizens at the beginning of the crisis was the

opposite. As French President Emmanuel Macron explained, the EU and its member states

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

have been unable to display such mutual assistance in their public narratives (Mallet and

Khalaf, 2020).

5. Conclusions

Russia continues with its disinformation campaigns in the EU with the aim of destabilizing,

polarizing and diminishing the confidence of Europeans in its institutions and in

democracy in order to avoid the enlargement of the EU and the Atlantic Alliance to its

area of influence. A strategy that China has joined, especially since the first wave of the

pandemic in Europe, to hide the origin of the virus and promote a positive image abroad

and its governance model as opposed to Western democracy.

China saw in Italy and Spain or in the request for help from Serbia, its opportunity to

turn around the global narrative on the coronavirus that placed Beijing as the origin,

cover-up and accelerator of the pandemic and Covid-19 as the “Chernobyl" Chinese.

Beijing turned the crisis into a geopolitical opportunity with a strong soft power campaign

to fill the gap left by the US and the EU. Chinese officials have increased their presence

on Western social media platforms. Thus, for example, the diplomatic corps uses Twitter

more and more as a platform to influence world public opinion, with the paradox that it

is blocked in China. Beijing has chosen to shape the global information environment

beyond its borders. The proactivity of Chinese officials in social networks and foreign

media points to a change in their foreign policy that is increasingly assertive as is their

communication and public diplomacy, although it is full of sharp power.

China has opted for an international narrative that no longer passes only by censoring

the criticism it receives, but by using disinformation and Russian-style conspiracy

theories. Mask diplomacy has worked in the EU and in its neighborhood. In Italy, China's

image improved at the beginning of the pandemic, and the inaction of Brussels served

as Serbian President Alexander Vucik to ask Beijing for help. These examples

demonstrate the need for the EU to strengthen and coordinate its strategic

communication within and outside its territory to neutralize misinformation and stories

such as its lack of solidarity during the pandemic. But it is not only necessary to

strengthen strategic communication, but also to improve the public diplomacy of the EU

delegations abroad in collaboration with the embassies of the 27 Member States.

Internally, the offices of the European Parliament and Commission representations should

also play a more active role in national debates at the media and social media level.

The EU should not only try to defend itself against third country operations, but it needs

to be able to create alternative narrative frameworks at the geopolitical level as a road

to combat disinformation in a weak and incipient European public sphere.

References

Avaaz (2019). Far right networks of deception. Avaaz investigation uncovers flood of

disinformation, triggering shutdown of Facebook pages with over 500 million views ahead

of EU elections. 22/05/2019. Avaaz Report.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

Benedicto, M. A. (2020). China y la Belt and Road Iniciative: un arma de doble filo (del

Soft power al Sharp power) para transformar el mundo. In P. González del Miño (Coord.).

El sistema internacional del siglo XXI (pp. 305-325). Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.

Brahms, Y. (2019). Philosophy of Post-Truth, Institute for National Security Studies. Tel

Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Dodds, I. (2020, April 5). China floods Facebook with undeclared coronavirus propaganda

ads blaming Trump. Daily Telegraph. Available at:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/04/05/china-floods-facebook-instagram-

undeclared-coronavirus-propaganda/

European Commission (2018a). A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation. Report

of the independent Highlevel Group on fake news and online disinformation. Luxembourg,

Publication’s office of the EU, March 2018.

European Commission (2018b). Communication on Tackling Online Disinformation.

Bruselas, 26 April. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0236

European Commission (2019). Informe sobre la aplicación del Plan de acción contra la

desinformación 2019/12 final, 14 Junio. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/ALL/?uri=comnat:JOIN_2019_0012_FIN

European Commission (2020a). La lucha contra la desinformación acerca de la COVID-

19: contrastando los datos. Bruselas, 10.6.2020. Available at: https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020JC0008&from=EN

European Commission (2020b). Report on the Public Consultation for the European

Democracy Action Plan (EDAP). Available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/report_edap_public_consultation_final.pdf

European Commission (2020c). Plan de Acción para la Democracia Europea. Bruselas,

3.12.2020 COM/2020/790 final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/ES/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A790%3AFIN&qid=1607079662423

European Parliament (2016). La comunicación estratégica de la Unión para contrarrestar

la propaganda de terceros en su contra (2016/2030(INI). Available at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0441_ES.pdf?redirect

European Parliament (2019). Balance del seguimiento realizado por el SEAE dos años

después del informe del PE sobre la comunicación estratégica de la Unión para

contrarrestar la propaganda en su contra por parte de terceros, 2018/2115(INI).

Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-

0187_ES.html

Flash Eurobarometer 464 (2018). Fake news and disinformation online. April 2018.

Fotyga, A. (2019). Las armas que usan contra nosotros están en continua evolución. 13

marzo 2019. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/es/headlines/eu-

affairs/20190130STO24604/anna-fotyga-las-armas-que-usan-contra-nosotros-estan-

en-continua-evolucion

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

Freedom House (2020). New disinformation tactics, coronavirus censorship, activist

arrests (China Media Bulletin No. 144) Mayo 2020. Available at:

https://freedomhouse.org/report/china-media-bulletin/2020/new-disinformation-

tactics-coronavirus-censorship-activist-arrests

Graham-Harrison, E. (2019). Far-right Facebook groups 'spreading hate to millions in

Europe. The Guardian, 22 May 2019.

Hala, M. (2020). A New Invisible Hand Authoritarian Corrosive Capital and the

Repurposing of Democracy. National Endowment for Democracy. Available

at:https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/New-Invisible-Hand-

Authoritarian-Corrosive-Capital-Repurposing-Democracy-Hala.pdf

Lakoff, G. (2017). No pienses en un elefante: Lenguaje y debate político. Editorial:

Ediciones Península.

Mallet, V. & Khalaf, R. (2020, 16 de abril). Interview: Emmanuel Macron says it is time

to think the unthinkable. Financial Times. Available at:

https://www.ft.com/content/3ea8d790-7fd1-11ea-8fdb-

7ec06edeef84?shareType=nongift

McCauley, K.N. (2016). Russian influence campaigns against the West. South Carolina.

Editor: CreateSpace. Independent Publishing Platform.

Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public

Affairs.

Nye, J. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy

of Political and Social Science, 616 (1), 94-109.

Nye, J. (2021). Soft power: the evolution of a concept. Journal of Political Power, 14 (1),

196-208.

Recorded Future (2020) Chinese State Media Seeks to Influence International

Perceptions of COVID-19 Pandemic. Inksit Group. March 30. Available

at:https://www.recordedfuture.com/covid-19-chinese-media-influence/

Roig, C. (2018, 7 de mayo). Las guerras de la era de la desinformación. La Vanguardia.

SEAE (2020a). Special report: disinformation on the coronavirus-short assessment of the

information environment. March 19, 2020

SEAE (2020b). Informe especial del SEAE: breve evaluación de las narrativas y la

desinformación sobre la pandemia de covid-19/coronavirus (actualizado del 2 al 22 de

abril).

SEAE (2020c). EEAAS special report update: short assessment of narratives and

disinformation around the covid-19 pandemic (update 23 april – 18 may)

SEAE (2020d). Actualización del informe especial del SEAE: breve evaluación de las

narrativas y la desinformación en torno a la pandemia de covid-19 (actualización de mayo

a noviembre).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Thematic dossier –International Relations and Social Networks (July 2021), pp. 78-92

The EU against the disinformation of China and Russia during the Covid-19.

The need for greater European narrative proactivity at the international level

Javier Ángel Benedicto Solsona

Tuñón Navarro, J., Oleart, Á., & Bouza García, L. (2019). Actores Europeos y

Desinformación: la disputa entre el factchecking, las agendas alternativas y la

geopolítica. Revista De Comunicación, 18(2), 245-260.

Van Ham, P. (2005). Power, Public Diplomacy, and the Pax Americana. In J. Melissen

(ed.). The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Vilmer J.; Escorcia, A.; Guillaume, M., & Herrera, J. (2018). Information Manipulation: A

Challenge for our Democracies. Resource Centre on Media Freedom in Europe. August

2018. Available at: https://www.rcmediafreedom.eu/Publications/Reports/Information-

Manipulation-A-Challenge-for-Our-Democracies

Walker, C. (2016). The Authoritarian Threat: The Hijacking of “Soft Power. Journal of

Democracy, 27 (1), 49-63.

Walker, C. & Ludwig, J. (2017). The Meaning of Sharp Power. Foreign Affairs. Available

at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2017-11-16/meaning-sharp-power

Walker, C. (2018). What Is "Sharp Power"? Journal of Democracy, (29) 3, 9-23.

Zhao, X. (2020). How China’s State Actors Create a “Us vs US” World during Covid-19

Pandemic on social media. Media and Communication, 8 (2), 452–457.