As politicians squabble over who is to blame for a nationwide spike in COVID-19 infections since earlier this month, it is important not to forget where the virus originated and who is responsible for a manifestly containable epidemic mushrooming into a ruinous global pandemic.
Eighteen eminent scientists, including a Stanford University microbiologist and Harvard University epidemiologist, in an open letter published in Science on May 13 called into question the WHO’s conclusion that it is “extremely unlikely” that COVID-19 leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. In the letter, the scientists wrote that theories of accidental release remain “viable” and deserve “a proper investigation.”
Further evidence over the murky origins of the COVID-19 pandemic surfaced on Sunday last week when the Wall Street Journal reported that it had obtained passages of a US intelligence report, which found that three researchers at the laboratory sought treatment at a hospital as early as November 2019 — one month before China reported the first cases of COVID-19.
Beijing has categorically denied that the virus emanated from China’s first level 4 biosafety laboratory, and initially pushed the hypothesis that the virus had “jumped” from animals to humans at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, which is just 12km from the laboratory. Chinese officials later orchestrated a disinformation campaign, flooding the Internet with wild and unsubstantiated theories, including that the virus was “bioengineered” by the US military.
Far too many politicians, scientists, media and technology companies were too quick to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory, either swallowing Chinese propaganda hook, line and sinker, or cynically exploiting the issue for political purposes. As a result, more than a year into the pandemic, the international community is still no closer to discovering the origins of the virus.
Facebook — a tech company that has somehow become the arbiter of truth in the digital age — on Wednesday announced that it had lifted a ban on posts and news articles on the lab leak theory, having previously determined it to be false and misleading. However, Facebook was not the only entity guilty of stifling proper debate and investigation into the virus’ origins.
On entering office, US President Joe Biden’s administration shut down an investigation into the lab leak theory initiated by his predecessor. However, on Tuesday, US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci appeared to pave the way for a U-turn on the theory. During a testimony to a US Senate panel, Fauci acknowledged that US funding might have been used for controversial “gain-of-function” research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. Then, on Wednesday, prior to Facebook’s volte-face, Biden confirmed the U-turn by instructing US intelligence agencies to “redouble” their efforts into discovering the root cause of the virus and deliver findings within 90 days.
However, the most serious aspect to this affair is that US taxpayers might have inadvertently funded biowarfare research at the Wuhan laboratory. Given that it is official Chinese Communist Party policy to promote “military-civil fusion,” that no independent access to the laboratory is allowed and that US intelligence agencies previously said that they believe Beijing is conducting a covert biological weapons program, the possibility that COVID-19 leaked from the lab, and might be linked to military research, should be taken seriously.
COVID-19 could be the world’s first instance of “accidental biowarfare” — an involuntary leak that was capitalized on by Beijing to further its strategic interests and damage its archenemy, the US. Chinese generals have a term for this: They call it “unrestricted warfare.”
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the