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
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS