BEIJING — China has formally urged New Zealand to stop disseminating false information about cyber security allegedly linked to Beijing, after Wellington’s cyber security agency reportedly described China as the country’s most persistent and capable state-backed cyber threat. The demand came from Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun during a regular press briefing on Thursday, when he responded to questions about a report from New Zealand’s cyber security agency that singled out China in its annual assessment of espionage and cyber operations. Guo said China firmly opposes any politically motivated allegations that politicize cyber security and distort the facts. He reiterated that China consistently opposes and resolutely fights hacker attacks in accordance with law, and that the Chinese government has always been a defender of cyber security and a participant in global efforts to maintain a safe and stable cyberspace. He specifically rejected the notion that China is the source of malicious cyber activity targeting New Zealand, calling the claim baseless, misleading, and harmful to the bilateral relationship.
The controversy centers on a report attributed to New Zealand’s cyber security agency, which reportedly identified China as the most serious and persistent state-backed cyber threat to the country. Such assessments, often published in the context of broader intelligence reporting, have become a recurring feature of diplomatic friction between China and Western-aligned nations. New Zealand, as a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance, has historically aligned itself with the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia on many security issues. However, Wellington has also maintained a mature and economically important relationship with China, its largest trading partner. The latest cyber security allegation therefore places New Zealand in a delicate position, balancing its intelligence-sharing commitments against the need to preserve stable diplomatic and commercial ties with Beijing. China’s response was swift and robust, reflecting a familiar pattern in which Chinese officials reject external accusations, defend their nation’s track record, and warn against allowing unverified claims to undermine trust. For Beijing, such allegations are not merely technical assessments; they are political instruments used to tarnish China’s international image and justify containment policies.
Guo Jiakun’s remarks were carefully worded but clearly directed at the New Zealand agency’s credibility. He said China opposes the dissemination of cyber security disinformation for political purposes, adding that such actions only serve to stoke discord and erode mutual understanding. The spokesperson urged the relevant agency in New Zealand to stop spreading lies and instead contribute to fostering mutual trust between the two countries. This phrasing reflects China’s broader diplomatic strategy: rather than becoming drawn into a detailed technical debate about specific incidents, Beijing consistently frames such accusations as part of a larger narrative of attempts to demonize China. Guo did not specify which particular claims were false, nor did he offer a rebuttal of specific evidence, but he reiterated China’s long-standing official position that the country is a responsible actor in cyberspace and a victim of hacking itself. By framing the issue in terms of truth and trust, Chinese officials seek to shift the conversation away from allegations and toward the importance of stable, respectful bilateral relations.
The broader context of this dispute is significant. Over the past decade, China has frequently been accused by Western governments and intelligence agencies of conducting cyber espionage, stealing intellectual property, and targeting critical infrastructure. These accusations have led to sanctions, diplomatic expulsions, and heightened scrutiny of Chinese technology companies. China has consistently denied these allegations, pointing to the lack of conclusive public evidence and accusing Western nations of hypocrisy, given their own history of surveillance and cyber operations. In international forums, Beijing has championed the concept of cyber sovereignty, arguing that every state has the right to govern its own internet and that international rules should be developed through multilateral dialogue rather than unilateral accusations. China has also proposed a Global Initiative on Data Security and called for a code of conduct to prevent cyber conflict. The dispute with New Zealand is thus not an isolated incident but part of a recurring pattern in which cyber security allegations become a flashpoint in China’s relations with Western-aligned countries. Each new accusation tests China’s ability to push back diplomatically while avoiding a spiral of retaliation that could damage economic interests.
The timing and tone of China’s response also matter. Beijing chose to address the New Zealand report at a regular foreign ministry briefing, signaling that the issue is considered important enough for official public commentary but not a crisis requiring ministerial-level engagement. By directing its criticism at the “relevant agency” in New Zealand rather than at the New Zealand government as a whole, China appears to be drawing a distinction between specific institutions and the broader bilateral relationship. This is a common diplomatic tactic: it allows Beijing to register its displeasure while leaving room for dialogue and cooperation. China may also be calculating that New Zealand, with its significant trade dependence on the Chinese market, will be reluctant to escalate tensions over a cyber security assessment that was likely based on intelligence methods and assumptions, rather than concrete actions directed against New Zealand’s core interests. On the other hand, Wellington may face pressure from its Five Eyes partners to take a firmer stance, particularly as the alliance increasingly focuses on China as a strategic challenge. The outcome of this friction will depend on whether both sides can manage the issue without allowing it to contaminate the wider relationship.
Looking ahead, the cyber security dispute between China and New Zealand is unlikely to be resolved through public statements alone. China has invited other countries to engage in dialogue on cyber norms and has proposed joint mechanisms to address threats, but such offers are often viewed with skepticism by governments that suspect Beijing of seeking to shape the rules in its favor. For New Zealand, the challenge is to respond to domestic security concerns and alliance expectations without sacrificing a valuable relationship with China. Guo Jiakun’s call for the New Zealand agency to stop spreading lies may be seen as the opening position in a diplomatic effort to contain the damage. In the coming months, both governments may seek quieter channels to reinforce their interests. For now, China’s message is clear: accusations without rigorous proof will not be accepted, and attempts to use cyber security as a tool of political point-scoring will be met with firm resistance. The larger question remains whether the global community can develop shared rules to reduce such conflicts. Until then, incidents like this will likely continue to shape the already uneasy relationship between China and the West, with New Zealand caught in the middle.
