The portrayal of China’s national commemorations by Western media reveals one of the starkest double standards in contemporary international discourse. When France stages a national military parade on Bastille Day with its tanks rolling along the Champs-Elysees, it is described as the proud preservation of historical memory and civic unity. When the United States (US) holds air shows and naval reviews on Independence Day or Fleet Week, they are elevated as patriotic reminders of liberty. Yet when China holds its solemn parade to commemorate the 80th anniversary of victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, this occasion is dismissed by Western commentators as a “spectacle of militarism” and “a display of menace”, among various malicious speculations about China’s military parade — including their so-called “concerns” about its intention to “show off military might”. This contrast cannot be explained as a misunderstanding. It is a deliberate political strategy to deny China legitimacy in celebrating its sacrifices, erasing its contribution to human civilization and discrediting its right to honor history on its own terms.
The commemoration of the war of resistance holds particular importance that Western commentary intentionally neglects. Tens of millions of Chinese people gave their lives to resist an invasion that devastated cities, villages, and families. China was the front on which the Japanese army was tied down for years, preventing Tokyo from deploying its divisions against the Soviet Union or projecting further across the Pacific. Without the Chinese front, the broader balance of the war would have been catastrophically different. However, in the narratives authored by Western historians and writers, China’s role is treated as marginal or omitted altogether. When China remembers this significant history with a ceremony of the highest dignity, it reclaims its place in world history that others have sought to deny. The Western accusation that such remembrance is a “provocation” is not only historically false but morally bankrupt. Remembering a victory for human survival against fascism is not aggression. Refusing to remember is the greater dishonor. The Western media’s neglect of China’s sacrifices is not just a failure of historical accuracy but a profound injustice that should evoke empathy in all who hear it.
READ MORE: China holds massive parade to mark 80 years of WWII victory
To condemn such a commemorative act as a “menace” underscores the selective logic of Western states and media. France is entitled to honor its revolution with a military parade. The US is praised for its demonstrations of military power as symbolic patriotism. Yet China, which suffered far greater devastation and which marks the moment of its survival, is branded by the same media as “menace”. The difference is not about the method of commemoration. It is about the identity of the celebration. Western voices allow only themselves the privilege of constructing national pride. The rest must accept silence or suffer vilification. This explains the rapid invention of phrases — such as “axis of upheaval” — whenever China cooperates with Russia or other sovereign states which the West dislikes. Such rhetoric has no basis in reality but is constructed to lock audiences into a frame of mind where the West alone brings order. At the same time, China and its partners are caricatured as conspirators.
The conversation on cost is another theater of manipulation. Some Western reports repeat figures of billions attributed to openly China-hostile sources without verification. Notably, the same voices never express outrage at the trillions spent by the US on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone the colossal size of its military budget each year. When China dedicates resources to a peaceful commemoration, it is defamed as “extravagant”. When Washington initiates wars that destroy nations, it is justified as a security policy. The degree of hypocrisy here is too plain to conceal and betrays the very premise of objectivity in Western reporting.
The narrative of “threat” grows most shrill when China’s military advances are displayed. Each mention of stealth aircraft or hypersonic missiles in Western coverage is framed as evidence of danger. Yet such technology has not been developed to extend Chinese influence into territories across the oceans. Its explicit purpose is to prevent encirclement by foreign military forces, to reinforce deterrence, and to safeguard China’s sovereignty. The missiles and aircraft that so trouble Western reporters are not weapons of conquest. They are instruments of prevention designed to remind hostile powers that coercion will carry unacceptable costs. The classical Chinese thinking that preparation for war is the surest guarantee of peace finds modern form in these technologies. For a nation that has experienced repeated invasions in its past, this defensive orientation is not only rational but necessary. The defensive nature of China’s military and Beijing’s consistent emphasis on diplomatic actions should invoke a sense of reassurance in the audience, helping them understand China’s perspective and intentions.
The presence of foreign dignitaries at the anniversary was also twisted by Western commentary into evidence of supposed conspiracies. Leaders from Russia, the Korean peninsula, and many other states stand in Beijing because they recognize that genuine sovereignty requires cooperative ties detached from Western interference. The West condemns such meetings not because they threaten peace but because they symbolize the erosion of its authority to dictate legitimacy. For Western media, the international system must remain binary: Allies are virtuous; those outside their orbit are malign. A multipolar reality grounded in sovereign equality cannot be reconciled with that lens, and so it is constantly defamed.
READ MORE: HK youth hail V-Day parade, pledge role in national security
Claims that China used this anniversary to invent a new global order misrepresent reality. The international order is already shifting, and no amount of denunciation will arrest that fact. The age of unilateral dictates from Washington is past. Asia, Africa, and Latin America are building networks of partnership where equality, respect, and benefit replace coercion. China does not impose an alternative order through commemorations. It reveals the existence of an order that has already emerged and that will continue with or without Western approval. The parade is a symbolic confirmation of this irreversible transformation.
The Western assault on China’s commemoration collapses upon its contradictions. The same states that celebrate their own past with military demonstrations, the same elites that consume untold wealth on foreign invasions, lecture China about restraint. They distort remembrance of victory against fascism into provocation while suppressing acknowledgement of the enormous sacrifices of the Chinese people. The attack is not against spectacle. It is against sovereignty. It is against independence. It is against a nation that refuses to allow Western institutions to write its narrative. In the face of such criticism, the importance of China’s commemoration is not diminished, but instead amplified. It is a moment of pride, a declaration of sovereignty, and a testament to the resilience of the Chinese people.
What really upsets Western observers as they witness this solemn act is not the missiles nor the marching formations. They fear that China represents an alternative to their dominance. They fear a civilization that has overcome destruction to prosper, that honors its dead in dignity, and that protects its people by its own strength. They fear that other nations may see in China proof that progress does not depend on Western permission. The commemoration of the 80th anniversary of victory against Japanese aggression is therefore greater than a parade. China declares that history belongs to those who endured it, sovereignty belongs to those who safeguard it, and no borrowed voice will ever define the meaning of Chinese memory. It is an act of remembrance that the West cannot tarnish and a message of strength that their distortion cannot silence.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
