Geo-Strategic Trend - 88. page

While the WHO expert mission’s conclusions on the origin of the new coronavirus are still waiting for the Chinese side’s endorsement, Robert Redfield, the recently departed director of the CDC, told CNN on Friday that he believes the new coronavirus was “leaked” from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), Chinese Academy of Sciences and began spreading in September through October 2019. There is no clear evidence that the new coronavirus was leaked from the WIV. Redfield emphasized that this is his “personal opinion.”

“I still think the most likely ideology of this pathogen in Wuhan was that it escaped from a laboratory. Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine,” Redfield told CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. “Science will eventually figure it out.

“It’s not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect a laboratory worker,” Redfield said. He did not think it makes “biological sense” that the virus would be able to spread so well between humans if it had just made the jump from animals to humans. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has been a focus of the theory that the virus escaped from a lab. “I do not believe this somehow came from a bat to a human.”

The WIV has a P4 virus research laboratory, which is the only scientific institution owned by China that can study the most virulent infectious disease viruses with the highest safety requirements. It is about 14 km from Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Market.

Some scientists have long said that the new coronavirus could have come from an incident at the WIV, but a joint WHO-China expert panel came to the preliminary conclusion a few weeks ago that the hypothesis that the new coronavirus came from an incident at the WIV was “highly unlikely.” The panel proposed that the most likely scenario was that it was transmitted to humans through an unknown animal as an intermediate host to humans.

However, the WHO’s preliminary conclusions were highly controversial. According to later statements that the WHO experts involved in the mission made, the most critical issue was that China refused to provide the WHO experts with original data on the first patients who appeared in Wuhan, . In response, the Biden administration said it had “deep concerns” about the circumstances of the WHO expert mission and demanded that Beijing be transparent and release all information. The U.S. also called for a truly independent international investigation.

A year after the Wuhan outbreak, China finally agreed to a joint investigation that Chinese and international experts would conduct.   The final investigation report has been postponed several times, except for a highly controversial press conference on February 9. On March 5, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced that the joint investigation report should be released on March 15. Then on March 16, a WHO spokesperson announced that “It is highly likely that the report will be published next week.” Three days later, China responded via Western social networks that Chinese experts received the report in English on March 17 and that its release next week would depend on discussions between Chinese and international experts.

It has been pointed out that the report of the WHO Joint Expert Group on New Coronary Traceability Research, which is about 300 pages long, must be approved by more than 10 experts from China and the international community before it can be made public. After the publication, WHO will study the report and propose the next step to member states.

On March 4, more than 30 scientists wrote in the Wall Street Journal and the French newspaper Le Monde requesting an independent scientific mission to visit China and trace the origin. WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic responded that the WHO could neither get China to accept a fully independent investigation nor a report that would not be in its interest.

When the outbreak of the new corona virus occurred in Hubei, China, Le Monde reported that the current dispute between international scientists involved in the investigation and the Chinese side may be over. Although Chinese authorities tried to get the outside world to accept that the outbreak occurred in December, additional information suggests that it was much earlier. The March 18 issue of the Science journal cites the latest research that points to human-to-human transmission of the new corona outbreak in Hubei in October 2019.

Source: Radio France International, March 26, 2021
https://rfi.my/7FlN.T

For the first time, on Friday, March 19, 2021, the Federal Council of the government of Switzerland adopted a public strategy for China. The Strategy sets out the objectives and measures for Swiss policy on China for the period from 2021 through 2024.

“The new China Strategy represents the Federal Council’s response to current geopolitical developments. Neither growing competition between major powers nor polarisation around China and the US is in Switzerland’s interests.”

The report says that its China policy is based on three principles: pursuing an independent policy on China, advocating the inclusion of China in the liberal international order, and a balanced, coherent and coordinated approach to China. It lists four thematic focus areas: peace and security including a human rights dialogue; prosperity such as trade, investment, education, and tourism; sustainability with a concentration on climate and the environment, health, a sustainable financial sector; digitalization, or “intact digital space that is governed by the principles of international law.”

According to Deutsche Welle, the Chinese Embassy in Switzerland responded to the Swiss “China Strategy” document on March 22, saying that although the document recognizes China’s great achievements in economic development and makes a positive assessment of Sino-Swiss relations, Beijing criticizes Switzerland for making unfounded accusations and attacks on China’s political system, minority policies and human rights development.

The Chinese embassy wrote in a statement: “Switzerland has attached some malicious labels on China and sent wrong signals to the outside world. These statements deviate from basic facts and are not conducive to the healthy development of Sino-Swiss relations. China expresses its firm opposition to this.”

Source: the official website of the Swiss Government
https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releases.msg-id-82757.html
Deutsche Welle, March 22, 2021
https://p.dw.com/p/3qwPc

Radio Free Asia (RFA) Chinese Edition recently reported that Vietnam has placed orders to acquire a large quantity of Covid-19 vaccines from the United States, Great Britain and Russia. The only missing source of supply is China. The Health Bureau of Ho Chi Minh City recently submitted a proposal to import five million doses of Moderna’s new Covid-19 vaccine from the United States. The Ministry of Health of Vietnam is also negotiating with other American manufacturers to obtain more vaccines. In February, Vietnam received 117,000 doses of the vaccine from the United Kingdom. At the end of February, Vietnam also approved Russia’s Satellite-V vaccine, possibly ordering a total of 150 million doses. However, Vietnam has never bought a single dose of vaccine from neighboring China. This is in sharp contrast with other ASEAN countries. Analysts have said that Vietnam remains very cautious about the Chinese vaccine since China never played any importance in international vaccine developments before. In the meantime, Vietnam’s attitude towards China is also more complicated. It doesn’t want to follow China too closely.

Source: RFA Chinese, March 14, 2021
https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/Xinwen/5-03142021125113.html

A new study revealed a trend that China is turning to more autocratic regimes in securing natural resource supplies and is buttressing its tactics to weaponize trade against geopolitical rivals.

“China’s resource security redrawing geopolitical map,” a section of the report Political Risk Outlook 2021 recently issued by Verisk Maplecroft, a U.S. based research group, describes how China diversifies its imports and achieves its resource security.

“Beijing prefers suppliers from stable autocratic regimes over democracies that involve frequent changes of governments and potential shifts in policy. Autocracy is a governance system it is comfortable operating with and can influence.”

“China is seeking to strengthen its control over global supply chains via overseas investments and partnerships with international majors. Beijing has been supporting Chinese SOEs (State Owned Enterprises) to ‘go global’ and establish control of resource bases overseas since the late 1990s. … The number of Chinese-owned base metals and gold companies in Oceania has grown from zero in 2000 to 59 in 2020.”

“Geopolitical instability in the Middle East and the South China Sea has induced China over the past decade to diversify its seaborne imports with overland imports, as reflected by its massive investment in energy pipelines with Russia and Central Asia. The Myanmar-China oil and gas pipelines are another example of China’s attempt to reduce its reliance on a sea lane that transits through strategic chokepoints, in particular the Strait of Malacca.”

BY diversifying its natural resource suppliers, Beijing is able to bring greater geopolitical leverage. Beijing can use trade as a coercive weapon. “This diplomatic tool is most effective when wielded against commodities in which China has a diversified import profile and the target state is dependent on the Chinese market.”

Beijing has also strengthened its relationship with Russia driven by their deteriorating relationships with the West. With increased Chinese investment in and trade with the “Belt and Road” countries, “these partnerships will reshape multilateralism with an economic order that is more China-centric.”

Source: Verisk Maplecroft, March 18, 2021
https://www.maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/chinas-resource-security-redrawing-the-geopolitical-map/

On Friday March 19, in a prominent position in a French newspaper, on the Le Monde website page, there was an article about a Chinese ambassador’s verbal attack against a French think tank researcher. The article said that China’s “wolf warrior diplomacy” reappeared. It cited that the Chinese Embassy in Paris posted on its twitter account calling Antoine Bondaz, a member of a French independent think tank Foundation for Strategic Research, “petite frappe.”

According to the article, in mid-February, after Chinese ambassador Lu Shaye learned that a group of French senators planned to visit Taiwan, Lu sent a warning letter to the chairman of the senator team. In return, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied that French parliamentarians are free to go where they want to go.

Bondaz wrote on his twitter account saying that Chinese ambassador’s behavior is not acceptable and that Beijing has no right to tell French elected officials what to do, let alone that a diplomat made the demand. Bondaz learned about Lu Shaye’s response through his friend because it has been over a year since Ambassador Lu blocked Bondaz on twitter. Bondaz then replied on his twitter account saying, “Insulting researchers instead of arguing with them is a sign of weakness.”

Le Monde’s article pointed out that after France started to talk about the mass detention of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, its relationship with Beijing became tense.

Bondaz received wide support for his remarks on twitter. European Parliament member Raphaël Glucksmann replied, “If our leaders have a little dignity and a sense of a nation, we should explain (to China): “if you keep pissing us off, you will go straight back to China.” François-Xavier Bellamy, another European Parliament member told Bondaz “Don’t let this go. Otherwise, it would mean (you are a) coward and (that is) dangerous.”

This is not the first time that Chinese ambassador Lu Shaye made similar insulting remarks. On April 14, 2020, French Foreign Minister Le Drian summoned the Chinese ambassador because Ambassador Lu Shaye made some comments to the medical staff in a French nursing home. He wrote on the Embassy website that the medical staff in the French nursing home “left their jobs overnight and left the elderly in the nursing home to die of starvation and disease.”

Source:
1. Radio France Internationale, March 19, 2021
https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%93%E6%A0%8F%E6%A3%80%E7%B4%A2/%E6%B3%95%E5%9B%BD%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E6%8A%A5/20210319-%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E9%A9%BB%E5%B7%B4%E9%BB%8E%E5%A4%A7%E4%BD%BF%E9%A6%86%E6%94%BB%E5%87%BB%E4%B8%80%E6%B3%95%E5%9B%BD%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E5%91

Norway will close its first and only Confucius Institute, the one in Bergen and affiliated with the University of Bergen and Western Norway University of Applied Sciences. This will be the second Nordic country, after Sweden, that will no longer have a single Confucius Institute.

In an interview with Radio Free Asia, Harald Bøckman, a researcher at the University of Oslo, said, “China has tried to establish a second Confucius Institute, but local authorities opposed it and thwarted their effort. The Confucius Institute in Bergen was challenged from the beginning. Other research institutes refused to set up Confucius Institutes because Beijing ran them.”

The initiative to establish the Confucius Institute in Bergen in 2007 came from the College of Western Norway, later renamed to Western Norway University of Applied Sciences. As the school’s focus is on martial arts, China’s Beijing Sport University became its partner. In addition to Chinese language teaching activities, the most unique feature of the Confucius Institute in Bergen is the teaching of martial arts. The Confucius Institute also quickly took root at the University of Bergen, working with Chinese language teaching as an academic discipline within its language department.

Sweden has had a total of four Confucius Institutes at its universities and by December 2019, all had been closed. The last Confucius classroom was closed in April 2020, making it the first country in Europe to close all Confucius Institutes and classrooms.

The Confucius Institute in Bergen has been criticized as being controlled by China’s Hanban and an extension of official Chinese propaganda. Bøckman pointed out, “It is certainly the same problem, because the Confucius Institute is a program and goal set by the Beijing government and runs counter to the standards used by Western academic institutions. The Confucius Institute remains a propaganda tool that is a soft power outlet for the Chinese authorities.”

In recent years, the Chinese government’s crackdown in Hong Kong and Xinjiang has indirectly affected the closure of the Confucius Institute in Bergen. However, the straw that broke the camel’s back was that, starting last year, the Chinese government decided to replace its cooperation partner from Beijing Sport University, which had been in place for many years, to China University of Political Science and Law. The China University of Political Science and Law is one of the main academic institutions for the training of Chinese elite in terms of ideology. Its relationship with the Chinese Communist Party and government has been very close. This was what finally prompted the University of Bergen to decide to close the Confucius Institute. The Confucius Institute in Norway will thus become history.

Source: Radio Free Asia, March 19, 2021
https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/junshiwaijiao/cl-03192021135434.html

On Thursday March 11, the newly re-elected International Olympics Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach announced on its official website that China has pledged to provide vaccines for athletes participating in the Tokyo Olympics this year and the Beijing Winter Olympics next year. The IOC will pay for the vaccines, and also affirmed that “any vaccination program must be conducted with full respect for national vaccination priorities.”

Chinese official media also announced “for every dose of vaccine that the International Olympic Committee purchases, China will also provide two additional doses of vaccine to delegations participating in the vaccination and they can provide them to the people of their own country.”

Wu’erkaixi, former student leader of the Tiananmen protests of 1989 and deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Legislative Yuan’s Inter-party International Human Rights Promotion Association, pointed out that Beijing has used the International Olympic Committee as a pawn in its “vaccine diplomacy.”

Wu’erkaixi said, “Obviously China is attempting with this ‘vaccine diplomacy’ to shed its responsibilities in the spread of the virus. China has been trying to buy international organizations and then have them speak for China itself. I call on the world to reject the Chinese government’s ‘vaccine diplomacy’ very clearly. The IOC should not be the pawn of the Chinese government, nor should it be the advocate of China’s foreign propaganda.”

Guan Yao, a member of U.S. based think tank “Dialogue China,” also criticized the IOC for endorsing China when the quality of the Chinese vaccine is in question.

Guan said, “China uses vaccines as a means of diplomacy and propaganda. Now it is using the International Olympic Committee to sell it to the world. As an authoritative international organization, the IOC has made this decision even when there are disputes about the efficiency and safety of the Chinese vaccine. I think the IOC has become a propaganda tool of the Chinese Communist Party.”

Japan’s Olympic Minister Tamayo Marukawa said on Friday March 12 that the IOC had not consulted with Japan about the Chinese vaccines and that Japanese athletes would not take them. She said the vaccines have not been approved for use in Japan.

The Tokyo Olympics was originally scheduled to be held in the summer of last year, but it was postponed for one year due to the epidemic. More than 10,000 athletes are reportedly participating in the games.

Beijing is accused of committing genocide against Uyghurs and suppressing democracy in Hong Kong. More than 180 organizations and parliamentarians from many countries are calling on the International Olympic Committee and the world to boycott the Beijing Winter Olympics.

Source: Radio Free Asia, March 12, 2021
https://www.rfa.org/cantonese/news/vaccine-03122021100604.html