Dealing with China After COVID-19

CHRIS PATTEN

Source Link

LONDON – With the coronavirus continuing its brutal global rampage, it takes a particular sort of malign genius to put the United States in the political dock as the death toll mounts and economic devastation spreads. Yet, that is what President Donald Trump is doing.

But first things first. In every country, medical workers and support staff have been on the front line fighting the pandemic on behalf of the rest of us. Beginning with the brave Chinese doctors and nurses who risked their lives and were muzzled by local political bosses when they tried to sound the alarm, we have seen similar examples of professional courage everywhere. And we should also salute those who try to keep normal life going by providing our food, operating our public transport, and cleaning our streets.

In the midst of a fire, it makes no sense to point fingers at the principal arsonist. The top priority must be getting the hoses to work and extinguishing the fire. But knowing how the COVID-19 pandemic started is central to learning how to prevent similar disasters in the future.1

First, the outbreak began (like SARS in 2002) in China, probably in a so-called wet market in Wuhan, although some have pointed to allegedly lax biosecurity at a nearby virology research center. (Although these suspicions have been widely debunked, they have been given greater credibility in some people’s eyes by the systematic destruction of the published outcomes of the research undertaken there and elsewhere in China.)

Second, the Communist Party of China (CPC) initially failed to disclose not only the outbreak, but also the ease with which the novel coronavirus could be transmitted between humans.

Third, some critics believe that the World Health Organization was hoodwinked about what exactly was going on in China. At the very least, they argue, the WHO was extraordinarily uncritical about the extent to which the CPC’s secretiveness appeared to limit China’s transparency and willingness to fulfill its reporting obligations.

Introducing the Project Syndicate referral program, a new way to earn credit, discounts, and more – and to support our mission – simply by sharing PS with your friends and colleagues.

Fourth, life in Wuhan appeared to go on as normal in the early stages of the outbreak. And during the Chinese New Year festivities, thousands left Hubei province (where Wuhan is the main city) to visit other parts of China or travel abroad.

Soon, some of these issues began to dominate the international agenda, with the CPC facing heavy criticism as a result of the fatal consequences of its secrecy. Chinese officials responded by attacking their critics and blaming the COVID-19 outbreak on the US military and even Italy.

All this is bound to affect other countries’ attitudes toward China – or rather, toward Chinese communism – and shape the lessons learned for preventing similar global catastrophes. But recent events cannot, and should not, wholly determine the outside world’s stance.

That is because China is for the time being the world’s most populous country and a major economic power, regardless of the immoral and dangerous nature of its regime. To recover from these horrors and their aftermath, we must try to persuade China to work with us, and we must strengthen the institutions that are essential for effective international cooperation.

Yet, Trump, long incensed by China’s economic and trade practices, opted for protectionism and China-bashing. At the same time, he has picked fights with most of America’s main trading partners, all of whom have similar criticisms of China. By preferring chest-thumping isolationism to building partnerships, Trump damaged America’s interests and encouraged nationalist prejudice in China.

And now he has done the same with COVID-19.

To be sure, Western liberal democracies should require honesty and openness from China in dealing with the pandemic and helping to prevent similar episodes. And under no circumstances should open societies surrender their values to try to curry favor with China. Nor should they fall for the self-seeking blandishments of Chinese leaders, whose agenda is hostile to what most of the world stands for.

Furthermore, liberal democrats must never fail to call out China when it is wrong – as it is, for example, in using the cover of the current health crisis to arrest some of Hong Kong’s leading democracy campaigners. And the West should continue to oppose the international isolation of Taiwan, a policy to which the WHO, to its shame, has been a party.

But Trump’s approach – attacking China at every opportunity and now announcing the suspension of US funding for the WHO – seems to put America in the wrong in the eyes of many who should be its friends. After all, we need a better and more effective WHO, not a bankrupt and toothless one.

For example, the WHO’s leadership role will be vital in preventing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) from causing up to ten million deaths annually by 2050, as a UK-government-commissioned review chaired by the distinguished economist Jim O’Neill warned in 2016. Moreover, because China is one of the world’s largest producers and heaviest users of antibiotics, addressing the AMR threat also requires us to work with President Xi Jinping as long as he is in power.

But cooperating with China does not mean subservience. Rather, it calls for good sense alongside determination.

For the time being, Chinese communism is a reality and a challenge, and the regime’s construction of a highly effective surveillance state would seem to entrench it further. But, like every other sort of authoritarian ideology in history, it will give way to something better, both for the Chinese people – who deserve a political system that embodies the best of China’s great civilization – and the rest of humanity.