A pair of pugnacious nationalists are in charge of the two mightiest nations. Credit: Adam Berry/Getty
Who could argue with this statement on coronavirus made by Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, as pandemic rampages around the planet?
“This is a virus that has taken more than 200,000 lives across the world. It has shut down the global economy. The implications and impacts of this are extraordinary. Now it would seem entirely reasonable and sensible that the world would want to have an independent assessment of how all this occurred, so we can learn the lessons and prevent it from happening again.”
The answer is simple: China. For this sensible suggestion was enough to drive Beijing into fury. Admittedly, it was made amid a long-running feud between the two countries with strong words on both sides, threats of a consumer boycott from Beijing’s ambassador and a furore over leaked diplomatic conversations. “Australia is always there, making trouble,” blogged Hu Xijin, editor of Global Times, a brash tabloid that serves as Beijing’s attack dog. “It is a bit like chewing gum stuck on the sole of China’s shoes. Sometimes you have to find a stone to rub it off.”
Yet the Australian leader is correct. It makes perfect sense to determine how this disease broke out, then spread around the world so rapidly to cause such epic devastation — especially when it is still not clear precisely when, where or why it erupted in human beings. I have heard the same suggestion from Right-wing Tory MPs through to Left-wing human rights lawyers. Or listen to Winston Peters, New Zealand’s deputy prime minister: “It’s very hard to conceive of there not being a desire by every country in world, including the country of origin, for an investigation to find out how this happened,” he said.
But China opposes such an inquiry. A probe could expose the embarrassing truth about the source — whether a wild animal market in Wuhan, or one of two secretive laboratories working nearby with bats and coronaviruses. It might reveal more about the Communist Party’s crackdown on whistleblowing doctors, rejection of outside offers to investigate the emerging virus and cover-up of data. Officials have raised death numbers in Wuhan after global criticism. But it still seems strange that 13 flights with 2,990 passengers from Wuhan to Italy over the critical three-month period helped cause such contagion in Europe yet 7,530 flights containing 1,016,550 passengers to elsewhere in China sparked far fewer fatalities there.
China’s leaders are behaving like a big playground bully. They are throwing their weight around with threats to thwart an international investigation that might expose weaknesses inherent in a brutal dictatorship that does not permit dissent. Morrison deserves credit for standing firm — unlike our own political masters, who just mutter about the need for “hard questions“. He was the first leader of a major nation to raise valid issues over Huawei’s involvement in telecoms infrastructure. He has pushed hard for reform of the risible World Health Organisation. Yet China accounts for a big chunk of Australia’s trade as its biggest market for key sectors such as coal, beef, wine, tourism and education.
This is more than simply another diplomatic spat. Closer to home, it has emerged that China complained three times to the European Union in a bid to blunt a report on its disinformation efforts, warning that bilateral relations could suffer if Brussels dared accuse Beijing of exploiting the coronavirus crisis. Criticism was toned down as a result, according to reports, following some furious internal rows. Mention of a “global disinformation campaign” was dropped from public documents, although there were still softer allegations of covert operations on social media. Yet we know its officials tried to shift blame for the outbreak to both Italy and the United States.
Meanwhile, there have also been shenanigans in the South China Seas, where China has been making claims over vast areas of the ocean by building naval bases on coral reefs. The New York Times reported last week how it has been intimidating fishing boats from other nations, opening new ‘research stations’ equipped with military-grade runways and grabbing new chunks of contested reefs and rocks. Some are submerged, so would fail to confer rights under international law. “The Chinese want to create a new normal in the South China Sea, where they are in charge, and to do that they’ve become more and more aggressive,” said Alexander Vuving, a security expert in Honolulu.
There has also been a crackdown in Hong Kong, where brave protesters last year made clear their desperation to retain freedoms promised under the ‘one country, two systems’ deal negotiated during handover from Britain. Among the activists and politicians rounded up earlier this month was Martin Lee, the affable 81-year-old father of democracy who testified to British MPs how that agreement was designed to ensure “no Hong Kong resident would have to fear a midnight knock on the door”. Jimmy Lai, who founded an outspoken paper in the territory, was also arrested in tactics clearly designed to silence critics and deter further protests.
These moves demonstrate China’s assertiveness under Xi Jinping, who took power eight years ago. He has intensified domestic repression, seen most starkly with the hideous incarceration of Muslim minorities and ratcheting up of surveillance. He has stepped up pressure on other nations to have no truck with Taiwan, which helped lead to the world ignoring this small democratic nation’s early warnings on the virus. Now his army of diplomats even argue that “disregarding China’s huge sacrifice in the fight against Covid 19 is slander“, as one envoy told a British newspaper.
This is all part of his bullish strategy to “charge forward with a full tank” — as Xi put it to party acolytes two years ago when they backed his plan to retain control for life. “The Chinese people have understood since ancient times that there are no free things to enjoy,” said Xi, warning the National People’s Congress that the world might not accept their rise to supremacy. “To be happy, one must fight for it.”
Now he has unleashed ‘wolf warrior diplomacy’ that fires off fierce insults at governments that cross his country, while any corporation that fails to follow Beijing’s diktats on Taiwan or Hong Kong faces being frozen out of the world’s biggest market.
With immense skill, China’s Communist leadership exploited the world’s desire for cheap goods in order to lift millions of its people from poverty while strengthening their own power. Now we can see clearly this ruthless regime’s determination to dominate the post-pandemic global order, speeding up its drive for ascendancy over the West. Xi clearly intends to grab maximum commercial and diplomatic advantage after emerging early from a catastrophe that exploded from within his own borders, while also capitalising on a gaping void left by the United States under its infantile president.
This is why the tussle over establishing the truth about this virus matters. I accept that some politicians are attacking China as a diversion from their own dismal failures over pandemic. But Beijing’s propaganda machine is running at full tilt to push the belief their response was best, since this promotes the idea that their autocratic style of government is most effective in crisis. It is worth noting, incidentally, that so fast does this virus spread, one study claimed two-thirds of cases might have been eliminated if Wuhan had been locked down one week earlier – and 95% averted if action had been taken three weeks earlier when Beijing alerted the WHO.
Yet this is also a battle to protect Xi at a time of potential weakness. There have been unusual ripples of dissent over his handling of the virus, along with hints that some party princelings harbour doubts over his leadership. There is also a looming recession that may stymie the scale of growth promised to the masses, hitting their promise to double the size of the economy in a decade and banish extreme poverty in time for next year’s centenary of the party’s birth on a boat in a Zhejiang lake.
These are insanely challenging times everywhere with pandemic raging. It has been made worse by the fact it strikes the planet at a moment when a pair of pugnacious nationalists are in charge of the two mightiest nations. The fuss over the WHO, botching a pandemic from the start due to its boss being a Beijing stooge, exposes how China has been seeking stealthily to influence multilateral bodies. Yet in truth it is only mimicking the West’s traditional tactics at a time when many key democratic nations — including our own — have lost confidence in their own values and look so confused about their beliefs. Only the wildest of optimists might dare hope that we will emerge from this sudden plunge into darkness with renewed strength.
We must accept China’s rise, not fight it nor fear it. We should see their concerns, work with their firms, learn from their culture, understand their politics. But at the same time we should follow the lead set by Australia and stand firm in the face of bullying — especially when it comes from Communist Party chiefs trying to escape blame for global pain. Yes, they are far from alone in making deadly mistakes over this disease, as we know to our cost in Britain. But their bungling is a consequence of autocracy, It almost certainly inflicted and most definitely intensified the suffering that has infected the whole world. We need to find the truth if possible. For as the great George Orwell wrote, whoever controls the past controls the future.
Ian Birrell is an award-winning foreign reporter and columnist. He is also the founder, with Damon Albarn, of Africa Express.
ianbirrell 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI did two years with Good Judgment Project. I was never good enough to be a Super forecaster. Those that were were very, very good at evaluating very thorny questions that had limited information.
I was going to ask what their track record looked like.
Indeed. It would be useful to know if the Super forecasters were accurate in their forecasts, or just very good and plausible in writing them up, but in the event highly inaccurate.
The point of GJP, when I was a part of it, was to get to the correct prediction, as early as possible, and come correct, if you recognized that you were probably wrong, as early as possible. The probability you placed on an event occurring diminished either your credit for being right, or your “punishment” for being wrong.
So why not go all-in with certainty? The scoring is tilted toward “Don’t be wrong” – your score gets hammered almost double for being wrong than the credit you get for being right. The idea was/is to get participants to hedge, because in the real world things change, and surprises happen (Trump happened. Boris happened. Brexit happened.)
While participants were generally open with their research and their thinking, there was no incentive to share. There were also several subgroups that formed as people got together to work on a problem and discuss it amongst themselves.
The reality here is that there is little prospect of Ukraine retaking their lost territory. Their slim hope for victory always lay in forcing the Russians to retreat by inflicting heavy casualties that caused political problems for Putin and led to him abandoning his goals. In the first days of the war, that’s exactly what happened. Russia attempted a blitzkrieg style all out offensive similar to what the US did to Iraq on two occasions. That failed, but wars are rarely won or lost by the success or failure of the initial engagements. Russia sensibly changed their strategy to focus on the East and changed tactics to saturation artillery and a slow and methodical destruction that levels entire towns and leaves few assets for either side, typical Russian scorched earth warfare, a brutal yet effective approach. Their casualties slowed while Ukraine’s casualties climbed. Ukraine is now facing unsustainable casualty levels, while Russia has weathered both the sanctions and their early setbacks. Having seized most of the territory they wanted, Russia only has to hold their gains and focus on a smaller front. Ultimately, the political realties will likely prevent a permanent peace treaty, because neither Ukraine nor NATO will want to cede territory and basically concede defeat, nor would Putin hand territory back when he has no reason to do so. What we’ll get is an open ended situation like Korea where there’s no peace treaty, just a cessation of open hostilities when both sides decide there’s not enough justification for continued military losses.
Nah it can’t settle as open ended for Russia, since even with China’s backing their economy and general development is screwed for as long as they’re subject to sanctions. So there has to be a settlement. The longer the war lasts, the more Russian development falls behind the rest of the world. They need to get a settlement in the next year I’d say.
HIMARs?
In other words, the future will look like the present, just a little worse, with with more broken stuff and more dead people.
And there is American public opinion and the midterm elections on November 8 of this year. After all, who is paying the bills in Ukraine? The United States.
If the Biden administration were to press the Ukrainians to cut a deal, the Ukrainians would cut a deal.
The Administration had hoped that the war in Ukraine would induce the public would “rally around the President.” It is hard to discern a definitive rally effect in the polling data, but the Administration will do anything until the elections in November if it perceives that something might mitigate electoral losses.
Prediction: The Ukrainians will not move to cut a deal before the midterm elections. But, right after … If the Democrats get smashed in the election, then look for a deal.
Pray the midterms are a blood bath for Democrats and we can finally shed ourselves of the parasitic Ukrainians.
The real point is that we must keep sanctions in place far longer than any hostilities.
And that’s entirely achievable. As long as Russia refuses to give back Crimea, we can keep isolating Russia from the world economy. China is already having a major economic downturn, and may join Russia in the slough very soon. Ditto for authoritarian India.
This is a war very much like the Napoleonic Wars or WW2. It may take years. But in the end, for the last 500 years, when a single power tries to dominate Europe, it always ends up the loser.
Ask the Spanish. Ask the French. Ask the Germans.
And, finally, ask the Soviets.
Ukraine is Europe’s problem, let them handle it.
A cease-fire is only likely if someone finds an off ramp for our Western leaders. This war is lost by the West, for three reasons well known to all observers:
1. The economic sanctions failed. Russia is exporting even more oil than in January this year (3 million barrels a day back then, 3,7 million a day in June). It is still exporting oil even to the EU (somewhat less than a million barrels – forget about natural gas). The rouble did not collapse at all. Russia’s treasury is doing fine.
2. Miracle weapons from the West that would enable Ukrainians to reconquer their territory without a single NATO soldier and, magically, even without an escalation by Russia to WMD’s, is on the verge of superstition. This not a a soccer game guided by fairplay and under the rules of FIFA. Besides, weapons deliveries at scale are yet to be seen at the front.
3. Russia already controls more than 20 percent of the Ukrainian territory, and more importantly, controls most of the most valuable parts.
The West made a miscalculation as terrible as Putin in the opening stage of the war, by putting all their cards on winning a just war.
There will be a cease-fire somewhere before mid 2023, for no European country is willing to sustain tremendous energy prices with no outlook a something that could be called “Victory”.
They can’t even make a basic car. They’re screwed.
The war may have been over quickly if they’d killed or captured Zilinsky the first night like they’d hoped, nevertheless it was a long shot so on to plan B. Which will cost a lot more AFU and Ukrainian civilian lives. Weapons to Ukraine won’t solve it for NATO, not least because a third don’t get there. For example, a French Caesar howitzer sells for a Russian passport and an apartment there, to the French it’s €7 million wasted.
Anyway Zelinsky has now demanded €9 billion a month from the EU plus many more expensive weapons and ammo so since it’ll ultimately bankrupt them I’d expect they’d stop at nothing to get this stopped any way they can, so maybe we can expect to see some false flag attack from the EU especially since London will be Russias first target.
Just replace Zelensky with Churchill and read what you wrote.
Yes, maybe killing Churchill would allow Halifax faction to prevail.
And negotiate some sort of peace with Hitler.
Would it hold, would it be sensible long term?
If Ukraine wants to fight, 9 billions per month is not much for the West.
People like you would surrender to Stalin or Hitler at first opportunity.
9 billion a month isn’t much for the west? You’re kidding.
We are travelling at rocketspeed into a polycrisis the likes of which the world has never seen. Hundreds of millions of innocent people are going to starve and millions will die. There will be rioting in the streets, massive protests (Sri Lanka is just the start) and poverty that is off the scale.
And that is just for starters.
The 9 billion a month is just the down payment to keep this proxy war going. The true cost is already in the trillions.
€9 billion isn’t much! No wonder the the west is doomed.
I was commenting on what was the Russian plan, since the writers either assume Russia will use a nuclear weapon or somebody will, to make it look like Russia. I don’t know what you’re rabbiting on about about Halifax,,replacing Churchill,, etc,etc. I was in Iraq and that was a bloody disaster as well so i wouldn’t put too much faith in NATOs abilities.
My feelings on Zelinsky are he’s a criminal, surrounded by them and supported by them. The quicker that so called country is denazified and demilitarised the better.
The idiot globalists may very well push Putin to a corner where he has to use nukes, then like anyone who supports Ukraine, we all will seem stupid.
Shivering at home, unable to afford to turn on the heating – a price well worth paying for a spot of, Ukrainian, flag waving, virtue-signalling? Total clown world. Fortunately, actions have consequences, and those consequences will be felt by the ‘normies’ who mindlessly went along with this garbage: you reap what you sow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLhSp0XgWZU&t=197s
Ukraine is a corrupt country and we should not be supporting or assisting them. Zelensky is a puppet to the EU and American globalists.