It is very difficult to understand the chaos unleashed by CoViD-19 without recalling how the SARS epidemic of 2002-03 had let loose fear, concern and death in a similar manner. Then, like now, China was slow to acknowledge the epidemic domestically and failed to inform the global community about its possible spread. But there is one crucial difference: The reaction of the world health organization. During the SARS epidemic of 2002-03, WHO was quick to recommend travel restrictions and criticize china for delaying the submission of vital information that would have limited the global spread of SARS.
In the previous article, I discussed about "EXACTLY HOW IS CHINA RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC?". If you haven't read it already, please have a look.
WAS IT ALREADY EXPECTING?
As China was celebrating the
successful eradication of SARS, WHO warned the world about other
novel forms of the coronavirus. The then Director-General of WHO, Dr. Gro
Harlem Brundtland, requested the international community to investigate possible
animal reservoirs that could be a source for future outbreaks and better study
the movement of the virus to humans. The wildlife markets of China were
specifically identified as a likely environment
for the virus to incubate, mutate and then jump from animals to humans.
A graphical representation of Corona Virus |
The mutable nature of the virus,
coupled with China’s rapid urbanization, proximity to exotic animals and
refusal to tackle illegal wildlife trade and commerce were together termed a ‘time bomb’ by a research paper in
2007. Even in December 2015, the coronavirus family of diseases was included in
a list of priorities requiring urgent research and development. It was earmarked
as a primary contender for emerging diseases likely to cause a major epidemic -
an assessment that was reiterated in WHO’s 2018
annual review.
It is surprising, then, that
when a pneumonia-like virus was detected in Wuhan in December 2019, the WHO,
armed with data and years of subsequent research about the SARS outbreak,
reacted as slowly as it possibly can. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the DG of
WHO, applauded China’s “commitment to
transparency” in the early days of the epidemic in January, despite mounting
evidence to the contrary. The WHO then denied evidence of human
to human transmission of the novel coronavirus, barely a day after the first
case was announced outside China. This is despite the fact that Taiwan,
had warned the body of this
as early as December.
EARLY MISTAKES COST US?
While Beijing informed the WHO
on December 31, there are expert estimates that the
virus had spread to humans as far back as October. Even after being told,
the WHO showed no urgency to send an investigative team, careful not to
displease the Chinese government. A joint WHO-Chinese team went to Wuhan only
in mid-February and wrote a report with decidedly Chinese
characteristics. Meanwhile, Covid19 continued to exhibit characteristics of a
pandemic, spreading rapidly around the world. Not only did Dr Tedros and his
team fail to declare a public health emergency, they urged member nations to
not spread fear by imposing travel restrictions. It even criticized early
travel restrictions by the US as being excessive and unnecessary. Following the
WHO’s advice, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) suggested that the
probability of virus infecting the EU was low, which resulted in a delay in
more robust border controls by European nations.
These early missteps by the global health body turned out to be fatal to thousands around the world and is adversely affecting the lives of millions who are now facing a prolonged tragedy and an economic slowdown.
These early missteps by the global health body turned out to be fatal to thousands around the world and is adversely affecting the lives of millions who are now facing a prolonged tragedy and an economic slowdown.
ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGE OR GEOPOLITICS AT PLAY?
Part of the problem can be
traced back to the WHO’s long-simmering organizational challenges. It was
chronically underfunded and has come under repeated scrutiny for its unwieldy
bureaucracy and opaque regional offices. Indeed, the WHO’s response to Ebola was
similarly criticized by the international community. But that is not the only
problem. It is equally clear that shaping the international health response to
the outbreak of the novel Coronavirus is one more front in the shifting sands
of global power. This is not a first in the WHO’s history. In the 1950s and
’60s, the WHO found itself oscillating between the Soviet-led
Communist bloc and the US. Later, through the 1990s and early-2000s, the WHO
was embroiled in a 'North-South' debate over pharmaceuticals, intellectual
property rights and access to medicine.
China’s growing clout in international organizations is creating new fault lines in global politics, and the WHO has been an early victim. WHO, in 2017, then led by Margret Chan, was one of the first international institutions to have signed an MoU with China to advance health priorities under the contested Belt and Road Initiative. Chan, a Chinese-Canadian, has strong links to the Mainland. Her successor, the Ethiopian politician Tedros, was also seen as a Chinese-backed candidate. Taking a peek into the relations between Dr. Tedros's homeland and China will help us understand this view better.
China’s growing clout in international organizations is creating new fault lines in global politics, and the WHO has been an early victim. WHO, in 2017, then led by Margret Chan, was one of the first international institutions to have signed an MoU with China to advance health priorities under the contested Belt and Road Initiative. Chan, a Chinese-Canadian, has strong links to the Mainland. Her successor, the Ethiopian politician Tedros, was also seen as a Chinese-backed candidate. Taking a peek into the relations between Dr. Tedros's homeland and China will help us understand this view better.
The policymakers in Ethiopia have understood that economic growth cannot be achieved without technological and industrial upgrading and structural transformation of the country’s economic activities. China has come to their rescue, being a continuous source of economic assistance and investments as well as inexpensive technologies. Besides, Ethiopia considers China a vast market for its agricultural commodities and thus a way for improving the lives of the nation's peasantry, which make up about 80 percent of the population. Hence, it regards China as a close partner that is directly involved in building its infrastructure and engaged in its development.
The convergence of interests between the two countries has resulted in optimism among Ethiopia's ruling elite and raised expectations among ordinary Ethiopians. Hence, it cannot afford to upset China, not even remotely.
CHINA IS CHANGING THE EQUATIONS
So, what happened in the past
with the WHO in similar situations in 2000 when three SARS outbreaks took
place. When the SARS outbreak took place, the WHO chief was Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland. She had been three times the prime minister of Norway, again a
solid person. She stood up to China. In fact, she was very critical of China. She
called out China for not acting fast enough and under her, the WHO called out China
for viruses emerging from wild animal trade. China then fired its health
minister and the Beijing mayor.
China's rise and America's fall! |
The power equation in the world
has changed today. China has risen and agencies do not want to upset it today.
The WHO has only praised China until now. Tedros traveled to China and found
nothing wrong. On 14 January, the WHO said there is no human-to-human
transmission of the coronavirus. A Chinese epidemiologist, Zhung Nanshan, had
on 20 January, said that human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus is possible.
After this, Tedros went to China, met Xi Jinping, and again made his statement
praising the Chinese that they had been remarkably fast in catching the virus. We have previously seen, why Dr. Tedros "had to" act the way he did.
Although Italy was the first G-7 nation to sign the BRI, the Chinese flagship infrastructure project, the Chinese did not even consider giving proper data to the Italian govt., even as the country became the epicenter to the outbreak and was witnessing hundreds of deaths each day. The "aid" it is now offering to this already devastated nation is nothing but a PR stunt. This instance should be a wake-up call to all the nations who are putting their sovereignty on the line, just for some temporary economic benefits-which are nothing but tools in the Chinese debt-trap diplomacy.
Although Italy was the first G-7 nation to sign the BRI, the Chinese flagship infrastructure project, the Chinese did not even consider giving proper data to the Italian govt., even as the country became the epicenter to the outbreak and was witnessing hundreds of deaths each day. The "aid" it is now offering to this already devastated nation is nothing but a PR stunt. This instance should be a wake-up call to all the nations who are putting their sovereignty on the line, just for some temporary economic benefits-which are nothing but tools in the Chinese debt-trap diplomacy.
FINAL THOUGHTS
The WHO’s open deference to
China’s national interests, despite its reckless behavior should be an
immediate warning sign to all functional democracies around the world. Over the
past decade, Beijing has steadily filled in the vacuum in international
institutions resulting from the Western democracies, especially the US. India
has lost battles to China as well - most recently withdrawing its nominee for
the Food and Agricultural Organization facing inevitable defeat at the hands of
China’s candidate. It is an irony of our times that the world’s most
potent authoritarian state heads over a quarter of
all specialized agencies in the UN, ostensibly the centerpiece of the
international liberal order.
Of late, the world has begun to
hit back. The recent victory of the Singaporean candidate in elections to the director-general
of the World Intellectual Property Organization was a setback to the Chinese
attempts to capture a prized regulatory and norm-setting institution. Will the
WHO be the next battleground? To prevent future outbreaks, it must.
JAI HIND!
JAI HIND!
P.S.: If you enjoyed the article, please do SUBSCRIBE to get e-mail notifications, each time I post a new article. Also, don't forget to share...
Thanks for sharing your valuable thoughts
ReplyDeletePlease stay tuned for more...😀😀
DeletePost a Comment