China, Covid-19, and Lies – USA Gov Policy

Most people agree a lie is an untruth. But who gets to decide what constitutes the truth? In the case of the China Covid-19 pandemic we hear competing “truths” coming from the country’s political leadership. Reports initially attributed the virus to a wet market in Wuhan that sold disease-ridden bats to unsuspecting consumers. When it was investigated further by foreign media working in the area, and the unbiased truth came out, those reporters were expelled from the country.

The reporters found it is not the custom of the local Wuhan population to eat bats. The specific bat blamed doesn’t live within 900 miles of the marketplace. And, there are two local virology laboratories in the province conducting research on very deadly corona-type viruses, of which Covid-19 is a new variety. A designated “Level 4” military-operated lab, that should have been able to handle the world’s most deadly bugs, lies only an hour away from the epicenter. Another lab experimenting on viruses is literally within a couple of miles of the suspected ground zero location.

The free flow of information, which often challenges the leadership in a democratic nation, is not permitted in China. It is outlawed. The belief of the leadership is that the truth reporters write about could potentially threaten the unity of the state and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). That is bad for the CCP, stability in the country, and the legacy of President Xi Jinping. This was the perceived threat with the Covid-19 virus outbreak reporting. Thus, the so-called truth needed to evolve, according to the Chinese leadership.

News stories quickly emerged from Xinhua, the Chinese state media organ, reporting that the US military was to blame for the global pandemic. This new truth was fabricated as the means to achieve the Party’s end goal. China went to war waging a battle of words in an attempt to reshape the narrative and place blame far from its shores.

If, you feel shy to face a doctor or feel embarrassed to discuss the stuff then you can discount viagra online even get the license to start your driving school. Taking bath levitra prescription in hot water and taking anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen may improve your health. It improves vitality and best tadalafil prices sexual health enormously. Side effects are generally commonly occurring inquiries throughout every medicine. see that pharmacy levitra on line

Extensive use of planted social media news, tainted broadcasts on Chinese TV and radio, and public announcements from the head of the World Health Organization enabled China to gain some traction. Don’t forget, the Chinese supported the leader of WHO, which enabled him to get his position. He owed them! The CCP leadership all were instantly on board with the new truth. The Chinese propaganda machine works fast, is extensive, acts aggressively, and serves as a tool of President Xi to achieve his end goals.

The CCP and its top leadership, including President Xi, are experts at misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda. Coverage of the Covid-19 virus reporting is no exception. When the global media began to question China’s initial handling of the outbreak they went to work with several objectives in mind. The CCP determined it needed to focus on securing the Party’s legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese population and ensure its future, singular hold over the country. President Xi also needed to protect his legacy and keep the reorganization and modernization programs on track.World leaders need to recognize the extent to which the CCP will stretch, or create, a “new truth” to fit its purposes. If the world is to prepare itself to handle this and future pandemics there must be transparency and the free flow of information. Over 2,500 years ago Sun Tzu wrote that warfare is the way (Dao) of deception. If China is willing to put the health of the world at risk then, perhaps, it is time to reconsider whether the west has been duped into believing falsely the government of China is benign and a lao pengyou, “old-friend,” we recently rediscovered.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Friday, she presents key updates on China.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.