The WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has been below par. Much has been written about WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ close links to China — he was Beijing’s preferred candidate for the post and his country, Ethiopia, is a recipient of substantial Chinese loans.
However, new information indicates that there might be more than the obvious to the WHO’s mishandling of the virus. Rather than underhand collusion with Beijing, an alternative narrative suggests that the WHO pursued a “love-bombing” strategy with Beijing, which ultimately came back to bite the organization in its derriere.
Leaked audio from WHO internal meetings published by The Associated Press (AP) on Wednesday last week paints a picture of an organization agonizing over how to coax more information from China during the vital early stages of the outbreak.
“We’re going on very minimal information,” WHO epidemiologist and technical lead for COVID-19 Maria Van Kerkhove said in one meeting, adding that “it’s clearly not enough for you to do proper planning.”
In another meeting, Gauden Galea, the WHO’s representative in Beijing, says: “We’re currently at the stage where ... they’re giving it to us 15 minutes before it appears on CCTV [state-owned China Central Television].”
Kept in the dark by Beijing and lacking enforcement powers to independently investigate the then-epidemic, the WHO relied on China’s cooperation. It appears that Tedros and his team launched a charm offensive, believing that if they lavished praise on China’s handling of the crisis and in particular on Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), Beijing might be flattered into sharing more information.
However, by the second week of January, some within the organization were expressing doubts over the strategy. According to the AP report, WHO Health Emergencies Programme executive director Michael Ryan told colleagues that it was time to “shift gears” and apply more pressure on China, fearing a repeat of the 2002 SARS outbreak.
“This is exactly the same scenario. [We are] endlessly trying to get updates from China about what was going on,” Ryan says in a meeting, adding in reference to SARS that the “WHO barely got out of that one with its neck intact, given the issues that arose around transparency in southern China.”
However, Tedros continued to praise China. On Jan. 31 the director-general wrote on Twitter: “In many ways, #China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response.”
The pandemic clearly reflects poorly on the Chinese Communist Party, which has failed to learn the lessons from its botched handling of SARS. However, the entire episode is also a damning indictment of the WHO’s top leadership, who also appear to have forgotten the lessons from SARS.
During the 2002 virus outbreak, the WHO did not wait for confirmation from China, but issued global health alerts according to information available at the time. In doing so, it eventually shamed Beijing into admitting the existence of the disease.
Why did Tedros and his team not pursue a similar strategy with COVID-19?
Tedros is the first non-physician to take on the role of WHO director-general. Before joining the WHO’s ranks, he was Ethiopian minister of health and minister of foreign affairs. Perhaps, if Tedros had a higher profile in the medical profession, he might have been less willing to gamble on high-stakes diplomacy and more to reveal the facts to the world.
“It’s definitely damaged WHO’s credibility,” said Adam Kamradt-Scott, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Sydney.
“Did he go too far? I think the evidence on that is clear … it has led to so many questions about the relationship between China and WHO. It is perhaps a cautionary tale,” he added.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS