Coronavirus: the Chinese Political Angle

[Double Edge]

Now NATO is calling China a global security challenge.

Challenge means just one step away from becoming a threat.

China refers to such statements as outdated cold war mentality.

I'm of the opinion the cold war never ended. It only ended for Europe.

People pretended that the only commies that counted were Russian.

What about Asia ? How can an entity like the CCP even exist if the cold war ended.

So the cold war went into hibernation for a couple of decades and then woke up.

[Double Edge]

China wants a world probe. That is the world needs to be probed for the origins of this virus because it sure as heck did not originate in China

The GT piece quoted is surreal

o_O

[Double Edge]

We're not going to let ourselves be bullied by the international community - XJP

XJP is under no illusion as to what is brewing

[Double Edge]

Translation of an open letter published in French daily Le Figaro on Jun 29

French scientists join group calling for inquiry into Covid origins

More than 30 international experts have written an open letter calling for a detailed inquiry and pleading for China to cooperate. They say without this a similar disaster could happen again

29 June 2021

By Hannah Thompson

A group of international scientists have written an open letter, published in France, calling for an inquiry into the origins of the virus that causes Covid-19, “so that we can avoid it happening again”.

The letter, signed by 31 scientists and published in Le Figaro, calls for a “complete inquiry...if possible, with the participation of the Chinese government”.

The letter is the fourth calling for an inquiry into the origins of the pandemic published this year.

Signatories include doctors, scientific researchers, and professors from across the world, including France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, New Zealand, India, Australia, the US, Canada, and Japan.

French signatories include:

Jacques van Helden, professor at Aix-Marseille Université; Francois Graner, biophysicist and CNRS research director at the Université de Paris; José Halloy, sustainability and physics professor, at the Université de Paris; and Virginie Courtier, evolutionary geneticist and research director at the Institut Jacques Monod at the CNRS in Paris.

In May this year, Ms Courtier told The Connexion: “We still have no idea whether SARS-CoV-2 has a totally natural origin or if the virus went into a laboratory and there was an accident.”

This new letter follows a declaration by WHO director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who said on June 12: “More than 174m people have been confirmed for Covid illness…3.75m people have died – this is very tragic.

“I think the respect people deserve is knowing what the origin of this virus is, so we can prevent it from happening again. We need cooperation from the Chinese side, we need transparency to understand and find the origin of this virus.”

Similarly, it comes after leaders of the G7 countries published a group declaration, on June 13, calling for a “phase 2 study on the origins of Covid-19, which is transparent, within a reasonable time frame, led by experts, founded on science, approved by the WHO and also done, as the expert report recommends, in China”.

The new letter reads: “We ask for a new scientific enquiry into all the plausible origin hypothesis, which has unlimited access to all the pertinent files, samples and staff in China, and elsewhere if necessary.

“All people and all nations, including China, have a direct interest in the origin of the pandemic being identified so that our biggest vulnerabilities are protected. It is therefore particularly regrettable that no exhaustive inquiry on all the plausible origins has been undertaken, and that none is planned.

“We believe that the joint study process that the WHO is currently calling for, in its current form, does not satisfy the conditions to be credible due to serious structural gaps.”

The letter goes on to explain these “gaps” in more detail in an appendix.

It continues: “The measures taken by the Chinese government to hide the origins, and stop Chinese experts from sharing certain essential information and detailed data clearly show that the current process, without significant changes, has no chance of putting a complete or credible inquiry in place for all possible scenarios.

“Failure to have an in-depth inquiry into the origins of a pandemic will cause us, and future generations, to run needless risks. That’s why we are calling on leaders across the world to adopt one of two options to guarantee an inquiry that is as comprehensive as possible into the origins of the pandemic.”
Two options suggested


The letter goes on to explain the two options.

The first involves full cooperation from China.

The investigation would be independent, data-based, and look into all plausible options for the origins, including from nature, a farm, a market or a laboratory accident.

This would be led by a multidisciplinary team of international experts, and would avoid conflicts of interest as much as possible. The experts would be given the means to conduct a complete scientific inquiry, including access to files, data, and samples.

There would be no surveillance by Chinese authorities and translators would be independent.

The letter reads: “We sincerely hope that, for the good of humanity, the Chinese government will join us in such a complete and scientific inquiry process, as an equal partner.”

The second option would be proposed should Chinese authorities decline to cooperate.

This would include a group of nations joining together to coordinate another inquiry, using the available science and data, to investigate as much as possible.

Such entities could include the nations of the G7, the OECD, or other institutions, the letter suggests.

It says: “This inquiry would suffer from a lack of files, and important data from China. [But] a great number of very pertinent details can be collected without the participation of the Chinese authorities.

“Many governmental and individual scientists across the world have already gathered, and started to analyse, significant quantities of pertinent data.

“A well-organised and concerted effort, free of interference, drawing on all available sources of information and involving a large number of experts, may well end up providing unambiguous evidence supporting one particular hypothesis regarding the origins of the pandemic.”

This study would include tests and analysis of samples, an in-depth analysis of animal trading in China and Southeast Asia, and an analysis of the history of the SARS-Cov-2 viruses to chart its evolution.

The inquiry would also see the cooperation of the US and EU, in terms of sharing documents and data.

The letter states: “We must offer the Chinese government every possibility to participate in this exhaustive enquiry on the origins of the pandemic, but not give it the right to veto whether or not the rest of the world holds as complete an enquiry as possible.

The letter concludes: “The two-option process suggested here encourages China to participate in a full, scientific, and data-driven investigation, if it so chooses, as other countries have already done for zoonotic disease outbreaks and laboratory accidents.

“However, in the unfortunate event that the Chinese government chooses not to join this process, a thorough investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 will still remain possible, have a realistic chance of success, and should be pursued for the common good.”

Wuhan lab defence


The open letter follows comments from Shi Zhengli, director of the Wuhan Virology Institute (WIV) in China, who defended the institute against claims that the virus was released from her laboratory.

She told the New York Times: “How on earth can I show proof of something of which there is no proof?”

The WIV had previously remained silent on the allegations, but rising pressure saw the director comment for the first time on the claims.

Theories on the origins of the virus currently include a laboratory accident or accidental leak, and transmission from animal to human, although no studies have yet proven conclusive.

The process is going ahead whether China likes it or not.

[Double Edge]

Policy recommendation by David Asher

A Just Response to Beijing’s COVID-19 Abuses | Hudson | Jun 06 2021

David Asher was the lead investigator at State along with others who contributed to the policy memo. At State, he spearheaded a task force for the Office of the Secretary looking into the origins of COVID-19 and the role of the Chinese government in its development.

He has a history in this kind of work going back to the AQ Khan network.

Always interesting to get a first hand account from people in the trenches

He mentions China stopped declaring SARS work back in 2016 at the bioweapons meets. Why ? they declare everything else they do but this stopped and it coincides with when the French completed the lab.

The reason is GoF work makes it difficult to impossible to comply with the bioweapons convention. So in doing such research they are potentially contravening the treaty the signed.

The Americans do work on SARS and declare it. The difference is they aren't doing GoF work.

Parts of his memo i was interested in

Immediate steps by the Biden administration could include:

1. Cease funding for dangerous research

2. Enforce treaty compliance: The secretary of state should address China’s violations of the International Health Regulations, especially its failure to respond to consultations and to share data among treaty members—a fundamental requirement. Beijing’s military programs need to be verified as complying with the peaceful purposes clause of the Biological Weapons Convention.

3. Sanctions: The secretary of the treasury and the secretary of state should begin investigating formal sanctions against the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and their networks of commercial entities for engaging in undeclared, classified biological weapons research and development for the Chinese military, in possible violation of US Presidential Executive Order 13382 on WMD proliferation.

4. Responsible pandemic preparedness


While the Biden administration can take immediate, temporary measures to respond, the responsibility for creating a long-term response to the COVID-19 debacle lays with the Congress:

1. Independent bipartisan expert commission

2. Curb dual-use abuse: Examine revamping statutory and administrative nonproliferation sanctions regimes—from EO 13383 to the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act—to make them more effective in addressing and targeting the activities that support synthetic dual-use technologies that can be weaponized. Congress could also examine the criminal code, including the War Crimes Act, to enhance prohibitions on US persons engaging in such activities and protections for US citizens from being subject to the depredations of grey zone biowarfare.

3. Sanctions: Amend the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act to impose sanctions on individuals, entities, government entities, and parastatals that have engaged in gross or significant negligence with respect to the maintenance of their biological facilities and/or the deliberate withholding of information in response to a significant event, beginning with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Rather than utilizing the criteria in the legislation for specified use, a parallel system should be created for the application of sanctions in two phases, allowing remedial action to be taken by the state during a specified period after determination by the administration that a biological or chemical event has taken place. The chairmen of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, should retain the ability to mandate the initiation of an investigation to determine whether a significant event has taken place and whether it was the result of gross or significant negligence on the part of the foreign government or associated entity.

4. Civil litigation: Support civil claims against the PRC if that government does not provide substantive cooperation, including direct access to physical evidence, within a specified timeframe. Congress could empower civil litigants to seek compensatory damages against PRC individuals, agencies or instrumentalities whose conduct in connection with the development and spread of COVID-19 was grossly negligent or intentional. Congress would likely have to create or expand a statutory exception within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to ensure that US federal courts would have jurisdiction over both the substantive liability claims and any judgment enforcement proceedings against the assets in the US of PRC individuals, agencies or instrumentalities (and any person or entity owned or controlled by, or successors to them) that are directly or indirectly responsible.

There is an opportunity for a bipartisan, bicameral initiative to establish a 21st-century framework for defending the United States and international partners against the prospect of another devastating pandemic. We cannot afford further impunity by Beijing and passivity from Washington as we enter what may be a century of synthetic biological adventurism and potential biowarfare.

[Double Edge]

Here is Asher testifying at the GOP hearing on C19 origins..

[Double Edge]

Story is behind a paywall so have to go with the below summary

Chinese top official defected to US, gave Biden administration info about Wuhan lab, report suggests | TOI | Jun 17 2021

Chinese vice-minister of State Security, Dong Jingwei, reportedly defected to the United States and gave the information about the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is at the center of coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis.

According to a report in SpyTalk, Chinese-language anti-communist media and Twitter are abuzz with rumours that Dong fled to the US via Hong Kong with his daughter, Dong Yang mid-February.

SpyTalk is a newsletter covering US intelligence, defense, and foreign policy, on the Substack platform.

Dong supposedly gave Washington information about the Wuhan Institute of Virology that changed the stance of the Biden Administration concerning the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Spy Talk, if rumours are true, it would be the highest level-defection in the history of the People's Republic of China.

Dong is, or was, a longtime official in China's Ministry of State Security (MSS), also known as the Guoanbu.

Fits into the pattern of what is to come. Now they've got a whistleblower

[Double Edge]

Dr. Yan gives a speech at the first anniversary of the new Federal State of China. She's in her element.

[Double Edge]

Ex NDTV anchor interviews her and presses her some more on her bioweapon statements

She's sticking to her guns

Not an accident. Deliberate release.

Not a lab leak. Deliberate release.

Not bat woman but PLA scientists.

Not WIV but CCP military labs.

Don't think of this as a traditional bioweapon but an unrestricted bioweapon. 2% fatality is fine but less is preferable too.

Released on their people as a controlled experiment. They don't care about their people.