With a mass vaccination program inoculating millions around the globe, the world appears to be turning a corner in the battle to bring the COVID-19 pandemic under control, giving hope that sometime this year, societies might return to a semblance of normalcy.
As nations gradually transition from firefighting mode into an investigation phase, more questions will invariably be asked about the virus’ origins.
Earlier this month, a team of WHO experts finished a one-month probe into the origins of the pandemic. The team is in the process of compiling its report.
However, there are already many indications that, predictably, the investigation was stage-managed by Beijing, and that the report will be a whitewash.
Following months of painstaking negotiations with the Chinese authorities, the team finally touched down in Beijing on Jan. 14. After spending 14 days in a quarantine hotel, the team was left with a mere two weeks to carry out its investigation.
Needless to say, Chinese officials kept a tight leash on the investigators, controlling the itinerary, their movements and who they were allowed to interview.
On the second day after the team was let out of isolation, their Chinese minders took them to a new propaganda “museum,” which spins a Chinese Communist Party-friendly narrative of Wuhan’s struggle to control the virus, replete with giant portraits of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平).
Speaking to Reuters, Dominic Dwyer, an Australian infectious diseases expert and team member, disclosed that China refused to furnish investigators with crucial raw data from 174 cases during the early phase of the outbreak in Wuhan in December 2019.
“That’s standard practice for an outbreak investigation,” Dwyer said of receiving such data.
In lieu of the data, the team was simply provided with a “summary” by Chinese officials.
Dwyer said that gaining access to the raw data is particularly important, as only half of the 174 cases had exposure to the Huanan market in Wuhan, which is said to be where the virus was initially detected.
Dwyer said he did not wish to speculate why the Chinese authorities were not forthcoming with the data, but the question remains: What is China trying to hide?
Could it be that Beijing wanted to prevent the team from tracing the virus back to the now-infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance and a member of the WHO team, has nearly two decades of experience working with the institute, including controversial “gain of function” research using bat viruses. Some have suggested that his inclusion on the team presented a conflict of interests.
At a news conference to announce the team’s initial findings on Feb. 9, WHO investigators dismissed the theory that the virus could have leaked from the institute as “extremely unlikely” and said that they would not be recommending further investigation into the lab leak theory.
A number of international experts have since voiced concern over the team’s decision to rule out the lab leak hypothesis so quickly. In stark contrast, the team did leave the door open to a fringe theory being pushed by Chinese scientists that the virus might have been transmitted to humans through frozen food from abroad.
Chinese state media sprang into action, pronouncing Wuhan “cleared of guilt” and called for an investigation into US laboratories.
One does not need a doctorate in epidemiology to work out what is going on: The WHO has participated in a politicized “investigation,” choreographed from start to finish by Beijing. More than one year on from the start of the outbreak, the truth is no closer to being revealed.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs