Here’s a concept you’ve probably never heard of: “viral sovereignty.” This dangerous idea comes to us courtesy of Indonesian Minister of Health Siti Fadilah Supari, who asserts that deadly viruses are the sovereign property of individual nations — even though they cross borders and could pose a pandemic threat to all the world’s peoples. Political leaders around the world should take note — and take very strong action.
The vast majority of avian flu outbreaks in the past four years, in both humans and poultry, have occurred in Indonesia. At least 53 types of H5N1 bird flu viruses have appeared in chickens and people there, the WHO said.
Yet, since 2005, Indonesia has shared with the WHO samples from only two of the more than 135 people known to have been infected with H5N1 (110 of whom have died). Worse, Indonesia is no longer providing the WHO with timely notification of bird flu outbreaks or human cases. Since last year, its government has openly defied international health regulations and a host of other WHO agreements to which Indonesia is a signatory.
Moreover, Indonesia’s government is threatening to close down US Naval Medical Research Unit Two (NAMRU-2), a public health laboratory staffed by Indonesians and US military scientists. NAMRU-2 is one of the world’s best disease surveillance facilities, providing health officials worldwide with vital, transparent information. Indonesia’s government has accused NAMRU-2 scientists of everything from profiting from its “sovereign” viruses to manufacturing the H5N1 bird flu as part of an alleged biological warfare scheme. There is no evidence to support these outlandish claims.
A year ago, Supari’s assertions about “viral sovereignty” seemed anomalous. Disturbingly, however, the notion has morphed into a global movement, fueled by self-destructive, anti-Western sentiments. In May, Indian Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss endorsed the concept in a dispute with Bangladesh, and the Non-Aligned Movement — a 112-nation organization that is a survivor of the Cold War era — has agreed to consider formally endorsing it at its November meeting.
Indonesia argues that a nation’s right to control all information on locally discovered viruses should be protected through the same mechanisms that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FOA) uses to guarantee poor countries’ rights of ownership and patents on the seeds of its indigenous plants.
Under the FAO seed accord, a nation can register plants, share their seeds and derive profits from resulting products. This useful policy reduces exploitative practices that sometimes enable multinational corporations and wealthy governments to obtain outrageous profits from indigenous agriculture.
It is dangerous folly, however, to extend this policy to viruses. If the concept of “viral sovereignty” had been applied to HIV 25 years ago, we would not have central repositories of thousands of varieties of HIV today; these allow scientists to test drugs and vaccines against all the different strains of the virus that causes AIDS. It is even more ludicrous to extend the sovereignty notion to viruses that, like flu, can be carried across international borders by migratory birds.
In this age of globalization, failure to make viral samples freely available risks allowing the emergence of a new strain of influenza that could go unnoticed until it is capable of exacting the sort of toll taken by the pandemic that killed tens of millions in 1918. As the world learned with the emergence of SARS — which first appeared in China in 2002 but was not reported by Chinese officials until it spread to four other nations — globally shared health risks demand absolute global transparency.
There is strong evidence from a variety of sources that forms of the bird flu virus circulating in Indonesia are more virulent than those elsewhere and that in a few cases they may have spread directly from one person to another. The WHO has tried for two years to accommodate Indonesia, without success. Under pressure from scientists worldwide, Indonesia agreed in June to share genetic data on some of its viral samples, but not the actual microbes. Without access to the viruses, it is impossible to verify the accuracy of such genetic information or to develop vaccines against the deadly microbes.
Outrageously, Supari has charged that the WHO would give any viruses — not just H5N1 — to drug companies, which in turn would make products designed to sicken poor people, in order “to prolong their profitable business by selling new vaccines” (a charge oddly reminiscent of the plot of John le Carre’s novel The Constant Gardener). The WHO elicited pledges from the world’s major drug companies not to exploit international repositories of genetic data for commercial benefit, but this has not satisfied Indonesia.
Indonesia’s claim that NAMRU-2 is a biological weapons facility must be confronted head-on. US Ambassador to Indonesia Cameron Hume is actively trying to prevent a catastrophe. So far, there has been insufficient support from senior US officials. They must get involved. And China must use its substantial influence with Indonesia on this issue — in its own self-interest.
Failure to share potentially pandemic viral strains with world health agencies is morally reprehensible. Allowing Indonesia and other countries to turn this issue into another rich-poor, Islamic-Western dispute would be tragic — and could lead to a devastating health crisis anywhere and at any time.
Richard Holbrooke, a former US ambassador to the UN, is president of the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Laurie Garrett is a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS