The coronavirus or COVID-19 has translated itself from a local virus in Wuhan to an international quagmire with severe implications for states, populations and governments across the globe. The severity of the crisis necessitates tougher, stricter and immediate measures, which go beyond closing borders or pressurizing states in taking evasive measures. The most recent casualty was Italy, which became the first country in Europe to have been infected with the virus and responded by imposing closures in the country’s northern regions as well as suspending carnivals and football matches. Similarly, Russia as a preemptive measure, decided to seal its borders with China to prevent any incursion and Singapore garnered praise for its ability to tackle the virus with due diligence.
As states across the world continue to take effective domestic measures, there continues to be a sea of criticism directed at Chinese authorities over its inability to curb the coronavirus epidemic with regular coverage of the official response being largely negative.
The narrative of ‘lacking transparency’ fails to appreciate or underline the measures taken by China to curb the epidemic which requires the tedious and cumbersome task of managing cities in the third largest country in the world by geographical area as well as enacting measures such as accommodating thousands of patients affected by the virus. China’s ability to deal with its internal disasters is based on the Communist Party of China taking the lead role in the policy making process. It is within this context, that Western criticism while not completely unfounded, could be viewed as targeting China politically.
The latest measure is Beijing imposing a blanket ban on all wild animal sales and consumption across the country which together, is a multibillion dollar industry alone. This ban not only ensures compliance by Chinese businessmen involved in the sale and trade of wild animals but also seeks to address the genesis of COVID-19 which is a long term, strategic measure aimed at tackling the consumer economy of wild animals which underpin the possibility of the virus spreading and ensuring rather than negating transparency by enforcing strict compliance. Since December 2019, China has reeled from nearly 78,000 cases in its mainland with many of its citizens being quarantined, being under surveillance and numerous cities being placed on lockdown. Such blanket measures are a testament to Beijing’s commitment to eradicating the source of the virus which has a detrimental impact on internal stability and a spill-over effect on neighboring states such as South Korea and Japan.
Notably however, positive coverage over measures taken by the Chinese government, has been absent in many Western media outlets.
There continues to be a sea of criticism directed at Chinese authorities over its inability to curb the coronavirus epidemic with regular coverage of the official response being largely negative
Just recently the Wall Street Journal Asia. ‘Despite the fact even the WHO claims that the coronavirus pandemic is still manageable. The use of the term‘ Sick Man.’, is similar to references made to the decline of the Ottoman Empire in Europe back in the 19th century and is used to refer to a state in a region which is in economic decline. Such a reference to China is unwarranted in a time when the entire state is battling with a national calamity and falls criminally short in appreciating the level of commitment shown by the Communist Party of China and various institutions in ensuring that further cases do not emanate from within its territory. The blanket bans and measures adopted from China have been appreciated by allies such as Pakistan of which the latter cites strong fraternal ties as equivalent to trusting Chinese authorities to deal with this disaster. Such trust is missing from those who continue to oppose China or the policies of its government.
Interestingly, however, Western criticism of China’s approach negates previous cases where American or British authorities struggled to curb the rise of various diseases and disasters which took place on European soil or elsewhere. A prime example is the Foot and Mouth disease in the United Kingdom back in 2001 which led to British authorities creating ‘ Exclusion Zones’, resulting in a decline in tourism. Despite the adoption of these measures, the epidemic continued unabated across the UK. Similarly, the response to Hurricane Katrina by George Bush administration was marred with allegations of mismanagement and delays on adopting emergency evacuation orders which wreaked havoc on the state of New Orleans, Louisiana Mississippi and Alabama. To criticize China at this point in time, for its inadequate or at times ineffective response, thus merits a great deal of introspection.
A state which suffers greatly from a nationwide crisis such as China from the coronavirus requires an international response which is based on empathy and humanitarian assistance with considerable acceptance of the measures being undertaken and the enormity of the task at hand. The least that states can do is to appreciate China’s efforts.
The writer is a freelancer