The Chinese propaganda machine is in full swing celebrating the appointment of Ms. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, former Nigerian Minister of Finance and member of the Global Academic Advisory Board of Tsinghua University’s School of Public Administration, as the new Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This Iweala is black, female, and definitely doubly politically correct in the midst of American progressive identity politics. But her election means another step for China in various important UN organizations, a replication of the relationship between the World health Organization (WHO) and China. An analysis of China’s relationship with the WHO can anticipate the future role of the WTO in China’s problems.
Two WHO expert groups went to China and the truth remains obscure
The world’s propaganda on the Epidemic is divided into two distinct narratives. One version is the WHO and China narrative, with the two working together to create and promote a narrative that China has taken timely and decisive measures to contain the epidemic for the benefit of all of China and the world. But the rest of the world has a different narrative: that the information blackout and misleading propaganda by the Chinese authorities led to a worldwide catastrophe. On the question of the origin of the catastrophe, the voices of recrimination never died. That’s what led to the second visit of the WHO panel of experts to Wuhan in mid-January 2021 to investigate.
But the Chinese authorities continued to play hide-and-seek with the WHO team, and after spending some Time there, on February 9, the WHO once again claimed that the Chinese Communist virus “could not have originated from the Wuhan virus institute. But China’s CCTV gave it away: Peter Ben Embarek, head of the WHO expert panel, said the international panel’s trip to China provided a better understanding of the situation at the time of the outbreak, including areas such as virus transmission, virus gene sequencing and wildlife traceability. Embarek emphasized that “the new coronavirus was not intentionally used by the laboratory” – the word “intentionally used” is evocative, at least as I understand it: the laboratory had the virus, but At least my understanding is that the lab had the virus, but not intentionally leaked it.
Despite not having the initial 1,700 sample data requested by the WHO panel, Dutch virologist Marianne Koopmans spoke at a press conference to refute the controversy over the origin of the virus that had circulated last year, arguing that the origin of the virus needed to be treated rationally and scientifically, and that it was “highly unlikely” that the new coronavirus had leaked from the Wuhan virus laboratory. “; then directed a direction to investigate in Southeast Asian countries, which has geopolitical implications.
The “highly improbable hypothesis that a laboratory accident caused the new coronavirus” was immediately criticized by former U.S. intelligence director John Ratcliffe as “very dishonest,” saying that WHO experts were used by the Chinese Communist Party to The WHO experts were used by the Chinese Communist Party to spread lies. According to an interview with the French weekly La Opinion, Jamie Metzl, a WHO consultant and American geneticist, said: “This press conference between the WHO mission and the Chinese authorities is shocking and hits the bottom line. And the lab leak was ruled out across the board. The reason for this situation, he argues, is that both the composition of the panel and the way the investigation was conducted in China were imposed by Beijing, and the experts were not given access to the data they needed, much less the freedom to conduct the investigation independently. The mistake of the WHO experts was to take a preliminary inference as a final finding.
How did the soft control mechanism come about?
The author has been observing the epidemic with great interest, and the biggest impression is that it does not matter what the facts are, what matters is who controls the WHO.
The WHO Director General Tan Desai, who was pushed by the AU and China, has been a strong supporter of China. I have written that the way China has “bought” Africa over the years has mainly benefited the powerful rather than the private sector. China funds international organizations and is not willing to take on more than the usual funding, but is willing to do so informally, including for the children of relatives of these powerful people (there are too many examples, including in the United States). The political investment in Tandusai, which has continued for many years, began well before the 2017 election for a new WHO director. Such ad hoc contributions, not included in the regulations, are far more controlling than the regular annual allocations in the US. Whereas regular allocations are taken for granted, temporary allocations are dependent on the “performance” of these organizations. China has reaped the fruits of such investments, such as the global pandemic of 2020, when China finally went from being the number one exporter of epidemics to the number one fighter of epidemics, with Tandusse making sacrifices for the world.
China does not rely on any soft power to influence the WHO, but rather sharp power marked by money. Without going into the previous ones, let’s take 2020 as an example, China’s donations to WHO total several: on March 8, China pledged to donate $20 million to support WHO; on April 24, China said it would donate an additional $30 million to the organization; on May 18, China simply pledged to aid $2 billion to WHO and to recognize it as leading the world’s fight against the epidemic.
When it comes to China’s monetary figures, the big numbers do not show their magnitude. Here is a frame of reference, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the world’s 193 countries in 2020, ranked 167th in Central Africa is 2.243 billion dollars, since it is below the annual gross output of African countries in descending order, 181st in St. Kitts and Nevis is only 1.011 billion dollars, ranked 193rd in Tuvalu is only 46 million dollars. In other words, the $2 billion given by China is more than the total GDP of 26 countries in the world in 2020.
China-US tug of war: China scores another goal at UN
Against the backdrop of intense trade frictions, it is difficult to move forward easily with personnel changes at the WTO, as major powers such as China and the United States want to pick someone at their disposal as director general, even if they will not run for election themselves. The jockeying between the two countries has been going on under the water since mid-2020. With European countries opposing WTO reform on the U.S. way and Japan disliking South Korean Yu Myung-Hee as WTO director general, it was China that won in the end.
Why was Okonjo-Iweala’s appointment as WTO Director General seen as a victory for China? It certainly has to do with Okonjo-Iweala’s Home country of Nigeria and her close relationship with China. As Africa Report noted on June 1, 2020, China will continue to dominate relations with Nigeria for a long time to come, stemming from three main factors: the trade imbalance, Nigeria’s dependence on China, and China’s growing importance in Africa. Nigeria’s trade with China has soared from about $1.8 billion in 2003 to $13.5 billion in 2018, and Nigeria’s trade deficit with China remains huge. With the plunge in Crude Oil prices and the global recession caused by the New Crown epidemic, Nigeria needs Chinese investment and loans more than ever, and China is a major financier of large-scale projects in Nigeria. Therefore, for a country so dependent on China, it is in the interest of the country to favor China in international affairs. Okonjo-Iweala has served as Nigeria’s foreign minister, among other important positions, and in the last decade, as Nigeria’s finance minister from 2011-2015, she has inevitably handled China’s economic aid to Nigeria; since 2019, she has been a member of the Global Academic Advisory Board of Tsinghua University’s School of Public Administration, which is of course an olive branch extended to her by China.
In addition to the 15 specialized agencies and subsidiary bodies of the United Nations, four of which are currently headed by Chinese representatives at the highest level, there are more than a dozen Under-Secretaries-General or Deputy Directors-General from China, and WHO’s Desai Tan is known worldwide for her close relationship with China, and now that China has taken another step forward, the world is afraid that it will not feel good.
Recent Comments