BEIJING, April 18 (Xinhua) -- Recent Western media coverage on so-called "forced labor" in China's Xinjiang relies almost entirely on a series of "questionable studies" by a few Western think tanks, an independent U.S. news website said in a recent investigative article.

"A close look at the reports churned out by these bodies reveal serious biases and credibility gaps that Western media willfully ignores," said the piece published on The Grayzone.

The article, titled "'Forced labor' stories on China brought to you by U.S. gov, NATO, arms industry to drive Cold War PR blitz," pointed out that "the latest allegations against China appear to form part of a PR blitz" launched by the West.

Ajit Singh, the article's author and a journalist, said the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and Washington D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) are the main institutions responsible for such forced labor studies.

Citing a report by the Australian Financial Review, Singh said the ASPI has been "fomenting anti-China hysteria, to the alleged benefit of its benefactors."

He added that former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr has slammed the organization for pushing a "one-sided, pro-American view of the world," while former Australian Ambassador to China Geoff Raby has said the ASPI is "the architect of the China threat theory in Australia."

As to a recent report on so-called "forced labor" in China's Xinjiang by the ASPI, Singh said it relies "more on sensationalism and speculation than concrete evidence," presenting "no original evidence" from workers alleged to have been forced to work.

The author also said the coverage by the CSIS "offers little to no new information," relying instead on the report by the ASPI and the work of "undisclosed interviews with anonymous 'detainees who were forced to work."

In conclusion, Singh said the stories that the Western public reads on alleged "forced labor" are in fact "the direct product of an orchestrated PR program" backed by the United States, NATO, and arms manufacturers, all of which "stand to benefit handsomely from the intensification of a new Cold War."