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
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
President William Lai Ching-te’s (賴清德) May 20 second-anniversary address was not just a routine policy review; it was damage control. US President Donald Trump’s remarks — that he did not want to see anyone move toward independence and that the delivery of a major Taiwan arms package could depend on the progress of US-China relations — unsettled Taiwan’s public and created an opening for opposition parties to question whether Taiwan was being treated as a bargaining chip in Washington’s dealings with Beijing. Lai’s speech was designed to close that opening. The address covered the expected ground: sovereignty, cross-strait relations, defense spending,