29 May, NIICE Commentary 4909
Bhavna Singh
“We must gain strength and confidence from our great fight against the COVID-pandemic” stated Wang Yang, a top political advisor at the closing speech of the CPPCC calling it a strategic achievement. Xi Jinping was even more resonate when he stated that “China would protect its people’s life and health at all costs” at the closing address of the NPC. However, the response from the international community was certainly not that contented on how China handled the COVID-19 pandemic. While some countries disdained World Health Organisation’s (WHO) weak response to China’s mishandling of the COVID-19 outbreak, others criticized China’s outsized influence in the organization’s response. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of WHO, had actually commended China for “setting a new standard for outbreak control” and praised the country’s top leadership for its “openness to sharing information” with the WHO and other countries. The Chinese internal response was actually quite to the contrary – Chinese officials were busy arresting and punishing citizens for “spreading rumors” about the disease, while online censors controlled the flow of information. The delay in declaring COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and much of WHO’s criticism of other countries brings forth some very fundamental questions: how prepared are we generally for the outbreak of such a massive-scale pandemic in terms of health infrastructure and institutional gridlock? What role can/should intelligence play in bio-surveillance? Is there a role for clandestine reporting on public health issues? How can intelligence be utilized in public health without undermining privacy or international scientific cooperation? The COVID-19 pandemic demands that states study their involvement in these two very crucial sectors so as to evolve a comprehensive approach.
In a detailed investigation by Sam Cooper of Global news, it was discovered that before China informed the world of the potential lethality of the novel Coronavirus in late January, it told embassies and consulates around the world to secretly buy up all the personal protective equipment. Going by China’s clandestine behaviour in business operations this was anticipated but what exactly was the rationale behind this cover up is hardly explored. A conduit of diplomats, state-owned companies, and overseas Chinese bought up more than two billion face masks and other medical safety gear. In all about 100 tons of such kit were quietly spirited out of Toronto, Canada. For any criticism from the Western world China hit them back with canola, pork and beef imports and accusations of “egotism and White supremacy”. Despite repeated requests from Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia and the US, China declined to cooperate in an international inquiry into the state of health affairs in China claiming it could handle its domestic affairs without outside intervention. No doubt whistleblowers have surfaced and led secrets on pharma purchase out to missionaries and personnel working in the WHO creating an embarrassing situation for China, nevertheless, the way WHO has come around shows China’s increasing hold over such international organizations.
While China has seen a set back in terms of the jobs lost and contraction of economy in the first quarter of the year, a major setback has been dealt to the Belt and Road Initiative which was designed to gain access to raw materials through building massive infrastructure projects and to take control of key ports in Asia, eastern and southern Europe, Latin America and especially Africa. This is certainly temporary, yet, the scale of Xi Jinping’s ambition has largely been curbed from global to local. In fact China has evinced its own kind of racism as far as the African countries are concerned giving rise to a highly Sino-centric flavour. It tried to ward of criticisms that came in the garb of the West demanding to levy charges to the amount of Berlin USD 160 billion and the US USD 10 million (by Germany and the US respectively) for the havoc that the virus had created in their economies evoking funny images of how the west levied charges for opium trade during the 18the century and condescending into something equivalent to a 20th century Orwellian tragedy. It has suddenly dawned on some of these western countries that they had become over-reliant on China on products pertaining to national security and public health. An internal Chinese report by the Ministry of State Security to top Beijing leaders including President Xi Jinping, warned that anti-China sentiments were at the highest since the Tiananmen square incident and a rising wave of hostilities could tip China and the US into confrontation.
Despite these realizations, China went ahead with the National Security Law, passing it with absolute majority and did not yield to outside pressure. China’s actions in Hong Kong have been no less than unethical in terms of surveillance and intelligence. The takeaway from the two sessions is largely that China is likely to continue its strong hand on surveillance and use of biometric intelligence to rein in any kind of dissent emanating from this volatile region. Small school going children wearing masks have been seen to have been dragged into buses and cordoned off plummeting social liberties to the verge of intolerance. Given the increasing importance of public health to national security, a strong connection between public health and intelligence has become vital. China is not new to the use of intelligence, especially seen from the deployment of nationwide digital surveillance programs in Xinjiang, Tibet, other autonomous regions and special administrative regions. A highly canine aspect of their application of surveillance has been brought to fore in the programs used in confronting pandemic-related information or disinformation and scams online in an effort to combat COVID-19 as well as defend their own narrative of how and when things unfolded in Hong Kong leaving no-doubt on the authoritarian use of propaganda by the state. It can be said with relative ease that China hardly cares about ethical play when it comes to its national interests.
