Archives: Articles

By Francisco Dominguez

Francisco Dominguez writes: After a full year of racist and repressive horror perpetrated by a de facto government resulting from a coup, the people of Bolivia went to the polls on October 18, 2020 and stunned their own country and the world by giving Evo Morales’ MAS-IPSP party candidate, Luis Arce, a landslide. The coup d’état that installed a racist regime led by Jeanine Añez, was engineered by OAS secretary General, Luis Almagro, carried out by fascists in November 2019, and of course, supported by the US.1

The specifics of the landslide reveal the size of the defeat of the de facto extreme right wing regime: the MAS-IPSP won the presidency with a 55% of the votes cast, against 28% of right-wing Carlos Mesa, and 14% of extreme right-wing Luis Camacho. This was a much improved performance compared to the election in November 2019 when their candidate, Evo Morales won with 48% against right wing Carlos Mesa’s 36%.

Not only that, the MAS-IPSP won in 6 out of the country’s 9 departments (with 68% in La Paz; 65% in Cochabamba; 62% in Oruro; 57% in Potosí; 49% in Chuquisaca; and 46% in Pando), with the right wing winning in 2 (with 50% in Tarija, and 39% in Beni) and the extreme right wing being victorious only in Santa Cruz (by 45% with the MS-IPSP getting 36%). The 6 departments where Arce was victorious contain nearly 7 million of Bolivia’s total population of 11 million.

It gets better: MAS-IPSP candidates obtained 75 out of the 130 seats of the Plurinational Legislative Assembly, and 21 out of 36 in the Senate. The MAS-IPSP presidential candidate also won in 314 municipalities, the extreme right in 21, and the right wing in 18.

This was a very robust electoral victory indeed, all the more impressive given that it took place against the background of a year of systematic political and judicial persecution against the MAS-IPSP, its leaders and cadre (Morales himself was charged with terrorism that forced him to flee the country), including brutal repression against the social movements associated with it; the illegal imprisonment, harassment and exile of its leaderships and the spirited use of lawfare. All in a context of well-organised and very well-funded racist violence unleashed specially against indigenous women, by fascist paramilitary groups, the police, and the armed forces who perpetrated massacres against social movements defending their rights and fighting for democracy. To top it all, the mainstream media nationally and internationally was at best seeking to whitewash, and at worst supporting, the golpistas and Añez’ regime’s brutal violation of human rights.

Añez’ economic policies, in line with extreme right wing ideology and that of its foreign mentors, deliberately aimed at both demolishing what had been achieved for the nation in the 14 years of Evo Morales’ administration and brutally reversing all the social policies that had benefited the people. Not a small undertaking given the rather amazing progress and transformation that Bolivia and its people had undergone in that short period of time. Below we list some of the most important achievements of the MAS-IPSP government during the 2006-2019 period:

• Bolivia’s GDP went from US$9,574 bn in 2005 to US$40,000 bn in 2013 (an increase of over 400%), that is, an annual average of 4,6%, the highest in the region, thus from 2006

• Bolivia had a fiscal surplus in 2006 for the first time in its history; and by 2018 it had US$8,946 million in international reserves

• Extreme poverty was reduced from 38% in 2006 to 16% in 2018 (a historic low)

• Infant mortality declined by 56%

• Social bonuses (the elders, primary and secondary school pupils, pregnant women) benefited 5,5 million people (more than 50% of the population)

• Domestic savings in the period 2006-2018 increased from US$4,361 million to US$27,123 million

• External debt went down from 61% of GDP in 2004 to 23% in 2018

• Number of health centres went from 2,870 to 3902, and 49 new hospitals were built that were well equipped by the state with the latest medical technology (public health is free of charge)

• With the collaboration of Cuban doctors, Operation Miracle conducted over 3 million ophthalmological visits and 742,000 surgeries leading to many Bolivians having their eye sight restored (Añez expelled the Cuban doctors) – the budget for health went from 2,5 million Bolivianos (national currency) in 2005 to 18, 805 million in 2018

• Illiteracy, with the use of Cuba’s Yo Si Puedo method, was eradicated by 2014.

• Between 2014-18 the nine-lines metro-cable in La Paz (completed in 2014), had transported 174 million passengers

• Drinking water by 2020 reaches 9,7 million people out of total population of 11 million

• The end of the latifundia system led to the redistribution of about 1 million hectares of land to peasants and peasant families

• In 2005 only 18% of the parliamentarians were women, by 2018 they have increased to 51%

• Under decades of neoliberalism only 1,098 km of motorways were built but between 2006-18 new 4,796 km were added to existing motorways

• All of the above was financed by the renationalization of the energy industry (Bolivia is rich mainly in gas but also has oil; and it is extraordinarily rich in minerals, especially lithium)

• Bolivia placed in space the Tupac Katari satellite and renationalised ENTEL (telecommunications company) granting Internet access to millions of Bolivians free of charge, as a fundamental right

• With a world historic decision, 36 indigenous nations were recognised special cultural and ancestral land rights, for the first time in 500 years that are enshrined in the new Constitution of the Plurinational State

• No wonder, in 2018 the World Human Development Report, classified Bolivia for the first time a “high human development country”

• The MAS-IPSP under Morales affirmed national sovereignty by eliminating foreign (US) interference with the expulsion of the DEA, USAID, CIA and even the US ambassador

• And much, much, more.

The Añez regime adopted policies that sought to wreck all these advances, something she nearly achieved in less than one year. Nothing too surprising here, a popular refrain among activists in Latin America goes like this: ‘whereas Ecuador’s Lenin Moreno took 3 years to wreck both the achievements of the Left government and the country’s economy, Bolsonaro did it in Brazil in 2; but Añez did it in only 6 months’. Thus, one of Añez’ first measures was a wave a mass lay-offs of public employees, compounded by a total lack of state support to companies, business, and workers in trouble due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

With regard to the pandemic, instead of taking extra measures of support, just as contagions and deaths raged, the de facto government not only expelled hundreds of Cuban doctors who were in Bolivia as part of Cuba’s collaboration with Evo’s government –literally days after the coup d’état – it also refused point blank to allocate extra resources to health so as to strengthen the fight against Coronavirus, and, for good measure, it reduced expenditure on health. But, when, forced by the pressure of mass mobilization, to make available extra resources to purchase health inputs, the minister in charge engaged in gross corruption leading to his resignation but not to a serious investigation or trial. The new authorities of Arce’s government have already instigated investigations in ‘emblematic’ corruption cases such as the overcharging in the purchase of ventilators; the hiring of cronies to work in state companies with huge salaries or unjustified stipends; millionaire ‘emergency’ contracts in YPFB (state/gas oil company) without due process or public legal tender thus massively defrauding the company; millions paid in ‘ghost’ contracts for public housing; and so forth.

Worse, by the end of 2020, the de facto government did not yet have a list of the companies that had closed down business caused by the pandemic, nor a clear idea of how many jobs had been lost in the country’s economy, even though the information was available. According to the Centro de Desarrollo Laboral y Agrario (Labour and Agrarian Development Centre) not only had poverty massively increased but unemployment had jumped from 4,3% to 9,6% in a country where the informal sector of employment has reached 80%.2

The neoliberal response of the de facto government to poverty, unemployment and the biting economic crisis was not policies but repression, thus thousands literally went hungry. A report at the time (May 2020) informed that about 1,7 million Bolivians were unable to cover the costs even of a basic food basket. The total neglect and lack of measures by Añez and Co allowed the pandemic to wreak havoc among the poorest with hundreds of thousands being infected and thousands dying. Thus, as Añez’ ‘interim government’ added illegitimacy to illegality, brutality to incompetence, and neoliberalism to corruption, the consequences of such a terrifying ‘Bolsonaresque’ cocktail the situation had created nearly 2 million new poor. And invariably their explanation to any criticism of such messy governance was to blame everything on Evo Morales and the MAS-IPSP government. And, as night follows day, Añez’ neoliberal ‘urges’ led her to end up requesting unnecessary financial emergency assistance from the IMF, which immediately obliged by issuing a loan of US$327 million with the customary onerous conditionalities undermining Bolivia’s hard-won economic sovereignty.

By 2020, the economy had shrunk by about 10% causing further unemployment, hardship and hunger, leading to mass protests, and, of course, more repression. Añez’ by now infamous minister of interior, Arturo Murillo, in response to this mass political opposition, said, “firing bullets [on protestors]would be what is required politically”. This was not idle rhetoric; the repressive forces had already perpetrated two massacres in November 2019, in Senkata (La Paz) and Sacaba (Cochabamba), about which a human rights organization reported 36 people dead and over 500 injured, describing the situation with the eloquent title “They shot us like animals’3.

As Añez’s government was only temporary with no constitutional or legal authority to change anything since its only task was to organise national elections, the extreme right wing coalition holding the reins of power used the pandemic as an excuse – about which it was doing very little – to postpone the elections, which it did four times. Thankfully, through mass pressure, political discipline, intelligent unity in action of the MAS-led mass movement, and the use of a few positions in the existing political edifice, the people managed to persuade (actually force) Añez’s de facto government to accept a legal decision by Parliament to hold elections on 18 October 2020, with the extraordinary above-mentioned results.

When the newly elected president, Luis Arce, who had been Evo’s minister of economic policy and architect of Bolivia’s impressive economic performance in the 2006-2019 period, announced that as his first political decision he was restoring full diplomatic relations with Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, it sent shivers down the spine of right wingers from Patagonia all the way to the Klondike.

Arce’s first economic measures were as interesting. First, there is the Bonus Against Hunger of 1,000 Bolivianos (US$150 / £100) aimed at the most disadvantaged (disabled, pregnant women, the elderly, the poorest, etc.) that will benefit about 4 million people. Secondly, a reduction of the tax on credit card payments from 13% to 8% and returning the difference (5%) to the customer, the return of VAT to low income people, and a tax on large fortunes over their assets on real and non-real estate, and income. Thirdly, to enter into negotiations with multilateral bodies (World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank) to obtain credit without economic or political conditionalities attached, and including a moratorium and condoning the country’s debt and the interest on it. Fourthly, if at all possible, avoid devaluation of the national currency so as to encourage economic growth, and foment import substitution among other reactivating policies. Fifthly, strengthen domestic economic demand so as to help reactivate economic activity via subsidies to the poorest and other segments of society. Sixthly, professionalization of the judiciary through merit and qualifications not by political quotas determined by the relative strength of existing political forces, a method Arce characterised as “useless”. And seventh, in the medium and long term to continue with the industrialization of lithium and iron, coupled with a programme towards food sovereignty, promotion of domestic tourism, export of electricity and the industrialization of gas, all within the context of keeping all these activities broadly under state control and ownership.

State expenditure on health and education to be increased to 10 and 11 percent, respectively. A crucial factor will be public investment, which is to be increased so as to bring about a rate of economic growth of 4,8% for 2021 (Añez had destroyed or dismantled all the ongoing public works, which Arce intends to retake and bring to completion as another plank for the reactivation of the domestic economy). In this connection, prompted by Arce, the MAS-IPSP majority in parliament has already passed legislation to ensure the implementation of all these urgent measures. To be noted is Arce’s decision to return the IMF loan contracted by Añez in 2020.4

Furthermore, Arce has developed a comprehensive strategic plan to combat Covid-19 involving rigorous methods to stop contagion, biosecurity measures at the workplace, strengthening existing medical facilities and furnishing them with appropriate equipment and health inputs, the carrying out of mass tests so as to substantially improve detection, the mass use of ancestral herbs to aid prevention, and mass vaccination. For the latter, Arce has secured the mass supply of vaccines from Russia and China (Sputnik V and Sinopharm respectively), and mass vaccination has already begun.

However, the decision by Arce to decree a law of sanitary emergency, thoroughly justified in the lethal context of the Covid-19 pandemic, is being used by doctors in the private sector to launch a national strike which has very little to do with their ostensible objection to the law as being ‘punitive’. A racist ultra right plot seems to be rearing its ugly head on the back of this clearly orchestrated destabilisation ‘mass action’ by reactionary forces. In support of the doctors, extreme right wing leader, Luis Camacho, on 20 February 2021, totally opposed the law of sanitary emergency, and called on the government to respect the health professionals, in effect threatening a (another) coup d’état.5

We should expect Bolivia’s right and extreme right to cooperate in unleashing anti-government mobilisations of ‘middle class’ groups such as doctors, lawyers, non-indigenous elite women, university students, commerce, private enterprise and the like. In other Latin American countries these groups are likely to receive millionaire subsidies funded by the US taxpayer and distributed by the US interventionist machinery through USAID, NED, and such like, as they did in Chile under Allende, and have done also, for example, in Nicaragua and Venezuela. This means that in the coming period we should expect all sorts of provocations, fake news, false flags, international demonization campaigns, with the almost guaranteed fervent support of the national and international mainstream corporate media (including not corporate, BBC and ‘progressive’ The Guardian in the UK, which at the time ‘editorialised’ that the coup had been Evo’s fault).6 In other words, the robust electoral victory of 18 October 2020 has taken Bolivia on the way to recuperate their democracy, reactivate their economy, restore all people’s social, political, economic and cultural, but the MAS-SPSP Arce government is not yet out of the difficult terrain: the road ahead is likely to be a tortuous and uphill battle.

This brings our analysis to the crucial matter of solidarity with the people of Bolivia and with the progressive transformation of that nation that begun in 2006 under the presidency of Evo. The key principle of solidarity with the people of Bolivia must be the unconditional defence of their right to self-determination and national sovereignty, thus opposing, rejecting and condemning any external interference especially coming, as it has done for so long, from the United States and its allies. Secondly, the full recovery of the economy, despite the formidable economic base built by Evo’s government in 2006-2013, will not at all be easy. The additional difficulty stems from the fact that the Covid-19 pandemic has triggered a protracted world economic crisis of rather gigantic proportions thereby depressing demand for raw materials and minerals, the strength of Bolivia’s economy.

This means that Bolivia’s right wing will use any economic complications or difficulties the Arce government may face, by mobilising –especially middle class-– discontent to oppose it thus, as Wiphalas Across the World has correctly stated: international solidarity played a fundamental role in helping the people of Bolivia to fight for a full year against the racist and fascist regime of Jeanine Añez, but this solidarity must be maintained for at least the next five years of reconstruction. It must be borne in mind that the explicit aim of the racist right wing opposition to the current MAS-IPSP Arce government, as it was with Evo’s government, is not to be a loyal opposition that respect the rules of the game, but to inflict a political/electoral defeat, and use every opportunity to capitalise on any problems that may arise seeking the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government. Furthermore, the persistent golpista threats from Bolivia’s reactionary forces are driven by an intensely racist hatred of the country’s indigenous majority.

Given this context, the full recuperation of democracy will present similar complexities. Among the many tasks there is the unavoidable one of bringing to trial all those guilty of corruption, law breaking, unconstitutional acts, and human rights atrocities. The latter raises the delicate but unavoidable matter of reforming the armed forces and the police to ensure they do not participate in supporting coup d’état in the future as they did in November 2019. Thus the road ahead will be littered with traps, provocations and dangers. In this connection, the solidarity movement must not rush to draw ultimatist, purist or doctrinaire conclusions from any difficult decision or tactical move the Arce government may be obliged to take.

More importantly, given its gigantic geopolitical significance, it is vital to continue organising solidarity to defend and help preserve the electoral and political victory of October 2020. Furthermore, the heroic triumph of the Bolivian people has dramatically contributed to changing the continental relation of forces in favour of progressive politics. The victory obtained in October 2020 is immense and precious, but precarious. We must do everything in our power to preserve it, defend it, and protect it.

By Countercurrents Collective

The slander campaign in India was meant to vitiate the atmosphere and undermine efforts for peace and friendship, and to aid the imperialists’ trade war against china, with India as a junior partner.

The National Health Commission of China on March 15 released the full transcript of a joint China-WHO press conference on the WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2, which was held on February 9.

Full transcript of a joint China-WHO press conference released to counter the slander is given at the end of this report. See Appendix.

It was meant to counter misrepresentations by the Big Media in the West, and in India which only relayed half-truths spread by the former. The Indian media carried on a tirade against China on the origins of the virus, accusing China of various things including not allowing full access to the team.

The tirade was conducted also in the context of an India- China agreement on de-escalation and disengagement of troops along LAC, and there was some thaw in Indo-Pak relations. It was meant to vitiate this atmosphere and undermine efforts for peace and friendship. Thus it is necessary to understand what is going on.

Nearly a year after first describing COVID-19 as a pandemic, the World Health Organization complained March 8 Monday that some failed to listen to its earlier urgent warnings. The WHO sounded its highest available level of alarm on January 30, 2020 by declaring a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

But it was not until it used the word “pandemic” — which does not feature in the official international health alert system — on 11 March that many countries jumped into action.

India was among them, busy in elections, a parliament session, and blaming a community and a conspiracy!

WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said some countries were slow to wake up to the risks of the novel coronavirus after the PHEIC declaration, when, outside China, there were fewer than 100 cases of COVID-19 and no deaths.

“One of the things we still need to understand is why some countries acted on those warnings, while others were slower to react,” he told a press conference.

Don’t squander progress

Nearly 2.67 million people are known to have been killed by COVID-19 since the outbreak emerged in China in December 2019, while more than 121 million cases have been registered, according to a tally from official sources.

Tedros said the WHO’s focus was on supporting countries to end the pandemic, including with vaccines being rolled out around the world.

“We have come so far, we have suffered so much, and we have lost so many. We cannot — we must not — squander the progress we have made,” he stressed.

During January 14 and February 10, a joint team of WHO conducted a 28-day investigation in Wuhan, China. The joint team is comprised of 17 Chinese experts and 17 international experts from 10 other countries.

The team visited nine institutes in the Wuhan city, including the Jinyintan Hospital, the Huanan seafood market and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They talked with medical workers, lab personnel, researchers, market managers, vendors, social community workers, recovered patients and families of medial workers.

The composition of the team given below shows China can not influence its report.

Members of the international team:

• Prof. Dr. Thea Fisher, MD, DMSc(PhD) (Nordsjællands Hospital, Denmark)
• Prof. John Watson (Public Health England, United Kingdom)
• Prof. Dr. Marion Koopmans, DVM PhD (Erasmus MC, Netherlands)
• Prof. Dr. Dominic Dwyer, MD (Westmead Hospital, Australia)
• Vladimir Dedkov, Ph.D (Institute Pasteur, Russia)
• Dr. Hung Nguyen-Viet, PhD (International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Vietnam)
• PD. Dr. med vet. Fabian Leendertz (Robert Koch-Institute, Germany)
• Dr. Peter Daszak, Ph.D (EcoHealth Alliance, USA)
• Dr. Farag El Moubasher, Ph.D (Ministry of Public Health, Qatar)
• Prof. Dr. Ken Maeda, PhD, DVM (National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan)

The international team also includes five WHO experts led by Dr Peter Ben Embarek; two Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) representatives,  and two World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) representatives.

In the light of US allegations that WHO was hand in glove with China, the following report of Feb 16, 2021 is important.

The World Health Organization (WHO) said Feb 15 that the international expert team on the COVID-19 origin-tracing mission in Wuhan was “independent” and had no affiliation.

“So many times I hear that this is a WHO study or investigation. It’s not,” WHO Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a virtual press conference from Geneva, stressing that it’s an independent study which is composed of independent individuals from ten institutions.

At Monday’s press conference, Dr. Peter Ben Embarek, head of the international expert team in Wuhan, said that their report would be a “consensus document.”

“The international teams and the Chinese counterparts have already agreed on the summary reports,” he said.

The expert team, composed of 17 international scientists and 17 Chinese counterparts, are working together to publish an interim joint report, in which they would “make recommendations for future studies,” said Embarek.

The WHO-China joint mission of 25 national and international experts was held from 16-24 February 2020. It was led by Dr Bruce Aylward of WHO and Dr Wannian Liang of the People’s Republic of China. Dr Aylward is currently a WHO Senior Advisor.

*** ***

Global experts’ team “conclusively ruled out” the Wuhan Lab linkage

The team deployed to trace the source of SARS-CoV-2 in China was unable to do so. But it conclusively ruled out the possibility that the virus could have escaped from a research lab in Wuhan in Hubei province, downtoearth.org.in had reported.

“No lab was working on this or a similar virus,” Peter Ben Embarek from the World Health Organization (WHO), who was part of the team, said at a press meeting in China on February 9, 2021.

“The labs maintain high standards and the lab leak hypothesis is very unlikely,” Liang Wannian, head of the expert panel on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) response at China’s National Health Commission, added.

The WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2 research team began the study on January 14 to understand the events at the beginning of the epidemic — how it happened and how the disease transferred to humans. While these are the results from China, similar studies would be carried out in other parts of the world too.

The team found no conclusive evidence to indicate that there were cases of the disease in the country before December 2019 in Wuhan or in other parts of the country. This puts to rest the theory that China knew about the outbreak much in advance and suppressed the facts.

The team tried to find if the spread of the disease could be linked to the direct zoonotic spillover into the human population or enter through an intermediary host that are closer to humans.

Other than this, they also looked at the role of frozen food acting as surface for transmission and the possibility of a laboratory-related incidence that could have released the virus in the environment.

The researchers were unable to identify the wild reservoir of the virus. While bats are the natural reservoirs of the virus, these were not present in Wuhan and the team suggests that an intermediate host theory is more plausible.

The Huanan Sea Food Market in Wuhan, that was in the spotlight at the beginning, dealt with domesticated wildlife that could have been the source. Frozen food from different parts of China and even from outside the country was sold in the market. The joint team has identified the traders and vendors and farms from where the products were coming from and will work further in this direction.

Wannian pointed out that these were the first findings of the major global study and the results from China will set ground for work in other parts of the world.

While the disease spread to people who visited the market, it was also evident in people who had not come to the market. It could have been introduced through an infected person who could be one of the traders or buyers. It could be through products such as farmed wildlife animals. All this is providing clues for the direction of future studies.

Marion Koopmans, head of the Erasmus MC department of Viroscience in the Netherlands, who was part of the team said figuring out the exact role of each of these in the spread of the disease was complex and only broad categories could be established. With new information, new understanding would emerge, she added.

The findings would help researchers prioritise future research in identifying the source of the disease. While the WHO-convened team suggested that researchers continue to look at the first three sources, they said the lab incidence hypothesis was extremely unlikely and there was no need to carry out future studies in this direction.

No evidence for the patient zero emerged from the studies. The pandemic first emerged in China’s Wuhan by the end of 2019. As of February 9, 2021, 106,008,943 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 2,316,389 deaths have been reported globally.

(https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/health/who-team-s-quest-to-trace-covid-19-s-origins-in-china-draws-a-blank-75466)

Lab leak from the Wuhan is “the least likely on the list of our hypotheses“: AFP

The above report was reiterated in March, by a Western agency.

The much-anticipated report from the international mission to Wuhan to investigate COVID-19 ‘s origins is set to be published this week, reported Agence France-Presse, March 15, 2021. Even as an anti-china spin is being attempted, and pressures are mounting on WHO, it said:

The idea of a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology – a hypothesis promoted by former US President Donald Trump’s administration – is “the least likely on the list of our hypotheses”, said Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans, also a member of the WHO team.

Trump had accused the WHO of being China’s puppet. Though his successor Joe Biden has changed the tone towards the UN health agency since becoming US president in January, Washington has continued to voice serious concerns about the WHO investigation, and has pushed Beijing to provide more information. The pressure is emanating not just from the United States.

Walter Stevens, the European Union’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, recently called for the report to be “completely transparent” and answer the questions “that we all have”.

The mission insists it got access to all the sites and people it wanted to, AFP added.

*** ***

WHO experts slam NYT for twisting, misquoting their words on virus origins probe

Can the US provide all the raw data of its COVID-19 cases? Can it conduct full scale collaboration with the WHO, and can it invite WHO experts to probe virus origins in the country?

These were questions asked by China’s FM spokesperson Hua Chunying in response to recent suspicions voiced by Western politicians and media, including the New York Times, over WHO experts’ work in China.

According to Liang Wannian, leader of the WHO-China joint study team, in July 2020, China had invited WHO experts to come to China to evaluate the country’s role in the global study on the origins of the novel coronavirus.

Since then, China and the WHO have built a joint study team based on the preliminary findings, making China the first country to conduct such study with the WHO, mentioned Liang.

In the context of misrepresentations, China’s media, Feb 14, 2021, published a report quoting experts of the global team exposing the NYT. The report is given below:

WHO experts who recently visited Wuhan slammed the New York Times for twisting their words and casting shadows over the efforts to uncover the origins of the virus, after the newspaper accused China of refusing to hand over sensitive data to WHO experts.

The report by New York Times titled “On WHO Trip, China Refused to Hand Over Important Data” accuses China of failing to share important data that may help in identifying the origins of the virus and prevent future outbreaks.

After the report was published, two WHO experts slammed New York Times for misquoting them in the report to fit its own narrative, with the report casting a shadow over the scientific work of seeking for virus origin.

Peter Daszak, British zoologist, (with EcoHealth Alliance, USA) and part of the WHO expert team, said on his personal Twitter that it’s shameful for New York Times to engage in selectively misquoting WHO experts to fit its own narrative.

“Hear! Hear! It’s disappointing to spend time w/ journalists explaining key findings of our exhausting month-long work in China, to see our colleagues selectively misquoted to fit a narrative that was prescribed before the work began. Shame on you @nytimes!” Daszak posted on Twitter.

In sharp contrast to the NYT report, that has accused China of refusing to hand over important data, Daszak wrote on his Twitter that “We DID get access to critical new data throughout. We DID increase our understanding of likely spillover pathways.”

Daszak said his experience is nothing like the New York Times depicted and said as the head of animal and environment working group, he found trust and openness when working with his China

Thea Kølsen Fischer, a Danish epidemiologist on the team echoed Daszak, who was quoted by the NYT in the report, wrote on Twitter that “This was NOT my experience either on the Epi-side. We DID build up a good relationship in the Chinese/Int Epi-team! Allowing for heated arguments reflects a deep level of engagement in the room.”

Fischer, (of Nordsjællands Hospital, Denmark) continued that “Our quotes are intendedly twisted, casting shadows over important scientific work.”

“Throughout the WHO expert team’s trip in Wuhan, Western media’s goal had been to push their theories that China is guilty of causing the COVID-19 pandemic and hiding information,” Peking University professor Zhang Yiwu told the Global Times on Sunday.

As the results WHO experts released at the press conference were opposite to what the Western media were looking forward to, some Western media become so desperate that they made such false report, twisting experts’ words, to continue hyping their conspiracy theories about China, Zhang noted.

Countries that accused China of trying to hide information or prevent WHO experts from investigating would not even allow a WHO expert team to enter their countries to investigate, Zhang said, slamming their double standards.

On Twitter, Fischer also said it’s “important to stay true to facts if building up trust, calling to stop this negative spin about “no access to raw data.”

In the EU, the access of person-identifiable data is either not possible if without official permission under General Data Protection Regulations (EU GDPR), Fischer said.

Wang Guangfa, a respiratory expert at Peking University First Hospital, told the Global Times on Feb 14 Sunday that “Truth will tell everything.”

“Virus traceability investigation is a scientific issue. It should not become a tool for political attacks and brings no good for the identification of the virus origins,” Wang stressed.

Since Wuhan is not a city where the environment is close to bat environment, therefore we tried other animals. Other animals could also contribute to the spread of the virus, said Peter Ben Embarek, a Swiss food safety scientist leading the WHO team.

After the WHO stated that all hypotheses relating to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic remained open following the visit to Wuhan, Chinese experts and netizens called on the WHO to launch a broader probe mission on the origins of virus in other potential source countries.

Chinese observers said they are not surprised by the New York Times’ baseless report given those in the Western media have insisted on politicizing the virus origins investigation.

(https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202102/1215614.shtml)

*** ***

Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

The WHO itself posted a report on its official website, 28 February 2020. Planning on next steps, rather than blaming China was its thrust. It said:
Overview : The overall goal of the Joint Mission was to rapidly inform national (China) and international planning on next steps in the response to the ongoing outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and on next steps in readiness and preparedness for geographic areas not yet affected.

The findings in this report are based on the Joint Mission’s review of national and local governmental reports, discussions on control and prevention measures with national and local experts and response teams, and observations made and insights gained during site visits. The figures have been produced using information and data collected during site visits and with the agreement of the relevant groups. References are available for any information in this report that has already been published in journals.

The WHO-China joint mission of 25 national and international experts was held from 16-24 February 2020. It was led by Dr Bruce Aylward of WHO and Dr Wannian Liang of the People’s Republic of China. Dr Aylward is currently a WHO Senior Advisor.

(https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/report-of-the-who-china-joint-mission-on-coronavirus-disease-2019-(covid-19)
*** ***

“Earlier cases were reported by US media, and not fabricated by China”

Speaking at a Feb 18 conference, China FM spokesperson Hua Chunying earlier said that she noticed relevant reports from Western media that cast doubts on the WHO experts’ investigations into the coronavirus origins in China, citing China’s refusal to share raw data of the coronavirus origin with them as an example.

Those reports are totally inconsistent with WHO experts’ experiences in China, said Hua, noting that the experts are disappointed about the reports, and ashamed about those media outlets.

Her comments came after Western media, including Sky News Australia, claimed that three of the WHO experts had links to Chinese institutions, and UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab criticized the level of access given to the WHO experts.

Hua pointed out that the “independence” those Western politicians always talk about does not equate to listening to the West and assuming guilt on China.

The independent report will only be produced on the basis of respecting science and facts.

Experts from China and other countries overcame COVID-19 barriers and sat together, held friendly and in-depth communication with honest and scientific attitudes, said Hua, noting that WHO experts gave high-level credit to China’s cooperation, and were granted access to wherever they wanted to go and met whoever they wanted.

This is what Hua called a scientific and professional attitude, while the interference of certain politicians (in the West) is another example of politics disturbing science.

Hua cited several international reports of COVID-19 cases being found in many places in late 2019, pointing out that the US media has begun to expose Fort Detrick, where unknown respiratory diseases were detected in nearby places.

The spokesperson pointed out that these cases were reported by US media, and not fabricated by China.

“We are still curious about whether the US can provide all raw data (of its COVID-19 cases). Can the US conduct full scale cooperation with the WHO and can the US invite WHO experts to trace virus origins in the country and come out with independent results?” Hua asked.

Hua said that China has had deep, professional and scientific cooperation with the WHO experts, and hopes other countries can do the same, in order to fulfill their obligations in battling the pandemic.
*** ***

WHO mission suggests “wider global search for COVID-19 origins, and deeper research” on cold chain role in virus transmission

Contrary to misleading reports blaming China, the WHO mission suggested a wider and deeper research, a report mentioned on Mar 15, 2021.

Experts on tracing the novel coronavirus origins should continue to search for possible early cases of the outbreak more widely around the world and further understand the role of cold chain logistics and frozen products played in virus transmission, the Chinese leader of the WHO mission revealed March 14 Sunday.

Liang Wannian, leader of the WHO China joint study team, made the remarks at a briefing on March 12 Friday. More than 40 envoys and diplomats from 29 European countries and the EU attended the briefing, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Sunday.

The scientific assessment of the WHO mission concluded that the novel coronavirus is very likely to be transmitted from human to human via an intermediate host, likely to be transmitted directly or through cold-chain food to human, and very unlikely to be transmitted from lab to human, Liang said.

Four recommendations for the next steps of the research

The joint expert group made four recommendations for the next steps of the research.

First, it is necessary to expand the global unified database to include molecular and gene sequence, clinical, epidemiological and animal surveillance, and environmental monitoring data.

Second, continue to look for possible early cases of the outbreak more widely around the world.

Third, scientists from around the world should look for potential hosts of the virus in different countries, not only bats.

Fourth, further understand the role of cold chain logistics and frozen food in the process of virus transmission.

Chinese and WHO experts also held discussions and gradually agreed on the virus origin issue. The two sides established a friendly working relationship through sincere communication.

Thanks to the joint efforts, the research found that bats and pangolins have a coronavirus whose gene sequences is highly similar to novel coronavirus. However, this is not enough to prove that they are the reservoir of the original novel coronavirus. Other species may also be a potential natural host for the virus, Liang said.

The earliest report of a case in Wuhan was on December 8, 2019, and Liang added that “the Huanan seafood market may be an outbreak point of the virus, acting as an amplifier for the COVID-19 outbreak.”

Environmental samples taken after the closure of the Huanan seafood market showed widespread contamination by novel coronavirus in the environment, especially in market stalls with aquatic products, suggesting the possibility of the introduction of the virus through infected persons, contaminated cold chain products, animals and animal products in the market, Liang said.

(https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202103/1218349.shtml)

The discovery of the viral sequence of coronavirus suggests the virus originated from zoonotic transmission, but the host is yet to be identified. Sequence diversity appeared in the early Wuhan outbreak, suggesting that there are transmission chains beyond the Huanan seafood market, according to a report jointly published by experts from China and World Health Organization (WHO) on Feb 9 Tuesday.

There is no indication of the transmission of the novel coronavirus before December 2019 in Wuhan, Liang Wannian, a member of the WHO-China joint study team said at a press conference, noting that China and WHO joint investigation laid groundwork for coronavirus origins tracing elsewhere, and global tracing will not be limited to any location.

Huanan seafood market may not have been the first place for the COVID19 outbreak, as the first case that was registered on December 8, 2019 was not linked to Huanan seafood market, Liang said.

COVID-19 virus survives a long time at low temperatures and can be carried long distances; there are several stores at Huanan seafood market selling cold-chain products, but it’s unknown how first case linking the market to stores sold these products, the official said.

Identifications of viral sequence showed bats and pangolin are not sufficiently similar to serve as the direct progenitor of the coronavirus. Bats and pangolin sample in Wuhan failed to indentify evidence of coronavirus and other samples from Chinese wild animals also failed to find related evidence, Liang said.

Since Wuhan is not a city where the environment is close to bat environment, therefore we tried other animals. Other animals could also contribute to the spread of the virus, said Peter Ben Embarek, a Swiss food safety scientist leading the WHO team, at the press conference.

*** ***

“Too many countries were slow to wake up” to the risks of COVID-19: WHO chief Tedros Ghebreyesus

WHO emergencies director Michael Ryan said too many countries thought the problem would simply pass them by, and didn’t jolt into action, Agence France-Presse reported March 09, 2021.

“We have to ask ourselves, yes, maybe we need to shout louder — but maybe some people need hearing aids.”

Thus he was setting at rest the blame game against China, which is sought to be isolated by the West and India.

“We continued to warn that the world had a narrow window of opportunity to prepare for and prevent a potential pandemic,” he insisted, adding that the description was finally deployed on 11 March 11 after the number of affected countries and cases soared. “But we must be clear that that was not the moment at which we sounded the highest level of alarm.”

Ryan said people living in a valley when a dam bursts know their level of risk and take action while those further up the hillside do not feel the urgency until the waters rise.

“Many people did hear, many countries did hear and took action,” he told the briefing.

However, he added: “I fear too many countries thought they were on a mountain top watching the waters rise to consume and overwhelm others. But what everyone didn’t realise was that the waters rose to consume them.”

Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 , said the organisation had done all it could to work with governments after the virus was detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan.

“We were doing our best to inform every day on the situation,” she said, on what was known about the virus and its dangers in the weeks before terming it a pandemic.

“We followed that up with a full preparedness and response plan that was published four days after the alarm,” she said.

*** ***

Appendix

Full text: China-WHO press release of global study on COVID-19 origins

The National Health Commission of China on March 15 Monday released the full transcript of a joint China-WHO press conference on the WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2, which was held on February 9.

Below is the full text:

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, good afternoon. Welcome to the joint China-WHO press conference of WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China part. This is Mi Feng, the spokesperson of China National Health Commission.

Since COVID-19 became a global pandemic, WHO has been actively promoting the international cooperation in terms of the COVID-19 response. China has always been showing firm support to WHO in terms of unleashing the role of WHO in the leadership of the global COVID-19 response.

With the consensus based on negotiation between two sides, China and WHO have conducted joint research of the SARS-CoV-2 global origin tracing: China part. Since the arrival of international expert teams in Wuhan on January 14th, 2021, the joint expert team has been working as three groups, respectively the group of epidemiology, molecular epidemiology and bioinformatics, animal and environment. The experts have been working in the forms of video conferences, on-site interviews and visits and data analysis, as well as discussions. They have conducted systematic and full-fledged research. The joint expert team have already concluded the China part of scientific research related to origin tracing in Wuhan according to the original plan.

During this period, Mr. Ma Xiaowei, the Minister of National Health Commission has been discussing and having extensive communication with Doctor Tedros, the Director General of WHO through telephone. They thoroughly exchanged ideas in terms of the scientific cooperation on the origin tracing.

For today’s conference, we have guest participants on the podium with us from the joint expert team and they are Mr. Peter Ben Embarek, from WHO, food safety expert and also Madam Marion Koopmans, the member of the joint expert team and also the team leader of the molecular epidemiology group. And also professor Liang Wannian from Tsinghua University. He is the team leader of the Chinese side of the joint expert team.

They will present the work that the joint expert team has done and introduce to the public and to the press of the updates and highlights of SARS-CoV-2 origin tracing of this joint study and also they are going to answer your questions. Consecutive interpretation will be offered in today’s press conference. So journalists can ask question either in Chinese or in English.

First I would like to invite professor Liang Wannian, the team leader from the Chinese side to introduce relevant information of this joint study of origin tracing in Wuhan.

Dear friends from the press, good afternoon. On behalf of the team leader from the Chinese side of the China-WHO joint expert team of the SARS-CoV-2 origin tracing research. I would like to give you a brief introduction of the major research process and also the key findings of our endeavor in our recent joint study. With regards to the conclusions and future recommendations, these two parts will be introduced by the team leader from the WHO expert team, Doctor Peter Ben Embarek.

This joint research is the China part of the WHO-convened Global Study of Orgins of SARS-CoV-2. The joint research report is based on the relevant research, a crystallization from the Chinese and international scientists in the past. And also the literature review of the previous research and also the analysis will be also included in this joint report.

In May 2020, the 73rd World Health Assembly requested the Director General of the World Health Organization to work with the partners to identify zoonotic source of the causative virus of COVID-19, and the route of its introduction to the human population, including the possible role of the intermediate hosts. The aim was to prevent reinfection with the virus in animals and humans and prevent the establishment of a new zoonotic reservoir, as well as to reduce further risk of emergence and transmission of zoonotic diseases.

In July 2020, WHO and China began the ground work for the studies to identify the virus origins. The agreed terms of references or ToR defined the scope of the studies, the main guiding principles and the main expected deliverables. These ToRs define an initial phase of short-term studies to better understand how the virus might have been introduced and started to circulate in Wuhan. The WHO Secretariat and the Chinese Government have jointly set up an international multidisciplinary team to design, support and conduct these studies to contribute to the tracing of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and the route of its transmission to human beings. The work of the joint international team was set it as the ground for origin tracing work in other parts of the world.

Therefore, the global origin tracing work will not be bound to any location and may evolve geographically as increasing amount of evidence is generated and science-based hypotheses keep evolving . The overall results and findings will help to improve global preparedness and effective response to SARS-CoV-2, and emerging zoonotic diseases of similar origins.

The joint international team comprises 17 Chinese experts and 17 international experts from ten other countries. And they represent WHO, World Organization of Animal Health, partners in the global outbreak alert and response network (GOARN). The joint study team carries out a research over a 28-day period from January 14th to February 10th 2021 in Wuhan.

The joint expert team through its three working groups, reviewed and discussed together the progress made by Chinese experts in phase one studies in the following three areas: epidemiology, animals and environment, molecular epidemiology and bioinformatics.

In addition to the three working groups, the joint international team received detailed presentations on relevant topics to help inform its work and undertook a series of site visits and interviews with key informants.

Now I would like to give you a brief introduction of the key findings of our joint study. The first part of my introduction will be the result of the molecular epidemiology study.

As most of the emerging viruses have their origins in animals, in order to gather more insights of the process of virus spill-over and global spread, it is necessary to understand the diversity and evolution of viruses in an animal reservoir, the interactions between animals, environment and humans and relevant factors contributing to the efficient human-to-human transmission.

Generally speaking, a virus causing global pandemic must be highly adaptive to human environment. Such adaptation may occur unexpectedly or may have evolved through multiple steps with each step driven by natural selection.

Consequently, the research for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 therefore needs to focus on two phases. The first phase involves viral circulation in animal hosts prior to zoonotic transfer. During this evolutionary process, various animal species may serve as reservoir hosts.

Progenitor strain of SARS-CoV-2 may have acquired an enhanced ability to infect humans during their circulation. The discovery of viral sequences with high homology to SARS-CoV-2 suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated from zoonotic transmission, but the reservoir hosts remain to be identified.

The second phase involves evolution of SARS-CoV-2 during its spread in human populations, following zoonotic transmission. The likelihood of animal-human spill-over increases with increased frequency, intensity of animal and human contact. Spill-overs may be occurring repeatedly, if the genomic of the virus in the reservoir require further adaptation to efficient onward transmission. Such early spill-overs may go undetected. Once viruses with pandemic potential evolve or spill over, which would enable their spread, resulting in substantial clusters of viruses with adaptive mutation in different geographical human populations, and hence causing the pandemic of COVID-19.

Evidence from surveys and targeted studies so far have shown that coronavirus most highly related to SARS-CoV-2 are found in bats and pangolins, suggesting these mammals may be the reservoir of the virus that causes COVID-19, due to high similarity in genetic sequences between the sample virus and SARS-CoV-2. However, the viruses identified so far from neither of these two species are sufficiently similar to SARS-CoV-2 to serve as direct progenitor of the SARS-CoV-2.

Apart from these findings, the high susceptibility of minks and cats to SARS-CoV-2 suggest that there may be additional species of animals, for example, those belonging to mustelidae or felidae family as well as other species as potential reservoir. Comparison of the data from sequence databases with those from surveys of potential reservoir species show that these possible reservoirs are massively under-sampled and the research in this area is not sufficient.

The joint team reviewed data collected through China National Center for Bioinformation in their integrated database, containing all the available coronavirus sequences and meta data.

For the cases detected in Wuhan, China, by linking the sequence data and epidemiological background, cases with illness onset before December 31st , 2019 were selected for in-depth analysis. The final analysis showed that several of the cases selected with exposure history to Huanan market had identical virus genomes, suggesting these several cases may can be part of a cluster.

However, the sequence data also showed that some diversity of virus was already present in the early phase of the pandemic in Wuhan, suggesting the possibility of unsampled chains of transmission outside the Huanan market cluster. There was no obvious cluster of cases by the epidemiological parameters of raw meat exposure or exposure to fur animals.

Finally, according to the relevant literature review on the data of early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 from published studies, these studies from different countries suggest that SARS-CoV-2 circulation was possibly several weeks earlier than the initial detection of cases. Some of the suspected positive samples were detected even earlier than the first case reported in Wuhan. This indicates the possibility of the missed diagnosis of cases in the early circulation in other regions.

These kind of missed diagnosis and diseases are highly related to the features of SARS-CoV-2. This is a basic judgment that we can make after the review and analysis of the global data from global research community.

The second part of my introduction would be the origin tracing work conducted by epidemiological group. Surveillance of influenza-like illness or ILI, and Severe Acute Respiratory Illness, SARI, with appropriate laboratory confirmation is a standard measure of the impact of influenza and other respiratory viruses in the community to determine the possible impact of morbidity or the causative agent of COVID-19 in the month before the outbreak of COVID-19. Adult sentinel surveillance data from ILI from one hospital in Wuhan and SARI surveillance data from one hospital in Hubei province was reviewed. The full name of SARI is Severe Acute Respiratory Illness. The finding indicated that there was no substantial unrecognized circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan during the latter part of 2019.

Origin tracing of stored lab samples. In retrospective testing of stored samples of more than 4,500 research project samples from the second half of 2019 stored at various hospitals in Wuhan, the rest of Hubei province and other provinces, no SARS-CoV-2 was identified.

Analysis of retail pharmacy for the purchase of the antipyretics, cold and cough medications have also been conducted. It did not provide a useful indicator of early community SARS-CoV-2 activity.

And also, we have conducted review of the surveillance data on all cause mortality and pneumonia-specific mortality during the period of July to December 2019 from Wuhan city and the rest of the Hubei province. There was no evidence of substantial unexpected fluctuation in mortality that might suggest the occurrence of the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2.

There is no indication of the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 in the population in the period before December 2019. There is not enough evidence either to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 infection had spread in Wuhan before December 2019.

We have also conducted research among 233 health institutions in Wuhan by searching the records of more than 70,000 cases presenting one of the four conditions or symptoms, including fever, acute respiratory illness, influenza-like illness or unspecified pneumonia in the period of October 1st to December 10th, 2019.

We have also reviewed the testing of the blood obtained from the relevant data bank and also tested the antibodies in the blood samples. All were negative. And it was also followed by the multidisciplinary clinical review and screening of those cases, which determined that none were compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Retrospective search for potential earlier cases in Wuhan in the two-month period prior to the outbreak detection in December 2019 has not revealed clear evidence of the occurrence of the clinical cases of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Based on analysis of this and other surveillance data, it is considered unlikely that any substantial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection was occurring in Wuhan during those two months.

It is not possible to determine how the SARS-CoV-2 was introduced into the Huanan market or other markets on the basis of the current epidemiological information. There was a possibility of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among the population of Wuhan in December 2019.

Although there was an association with the Huanan Seafood Market in some of the early cases, others were associated with other markets, and other cases have no market’s association at all. It is likely that an outbreak occurred at Huanan Seafood Market. But there are also transmission appearing to have the occurrence elsewhere in Wuhan at the same time. This is our basic judgment. It is not possible to determine how SARS-CoV-2 was introduced into the Huanan Market based on the current information.

The third part of my introduction will be the research of the animal and environment group, the third group of our joint study. Coronaviruses that are genetically related to SARS-CoV-2 have been identified in different animals, including horseshoe bats and pangolins. Sampling of bats in Hubei province, however, has failed to identify evidence of SARS-CoV-2 related viruses and sampling of wildlife in different places in China has so far failed to identify the presence of SARS-CoV-2.

Environmental sampling in Huanan market from the point of its closing revealed widespread contamination of surfaces with SARS-CoV-2, compatible with possible introduction pathways of the virus through infected people or contaminated cold-chain products, animals and animal products.

According to this research, the testing results of all the animal related samples from Huanan market were negative. The cold-chain products have not been tested yet.

SARS-CoV-2 can survive in conditions found in frozen food, packages and cold-chain products. Recent outbreaks in China have been linked to the cold chain. Studies have shown that the virus can survive for a long time, not only at low temperatures, but also at refrigerator temperature, indicating that it can be carried long distance on cold chain products. More attention should therefore be paid to further research of the virus in terms of its persistence in the low temperature environment and also in the damp environment where the humidity is relatively high.

In Huanan market, a substantial number of stores sold cold-chain products. But it is unclear so far how well the first confirmed cases in Huanan Market can be corresponded to the stores that sold these products or not. We need further research in this area.

This is my introduction of our major findings of the three groups of the joint study.

Thank you, professor Liang Wannian. Now I would like to invite Doctor Peter to give an introduction.

Thank you, Mr. Mi Feng and Professor Wannian for the introduction and for presenting our findings and also how we have conducted our work.

I’m here this afternoon with Prof. Marion Koopmans from the department of Virology of the College of Medicine of Erasmus University in the Netherlands. And she’s one of the member of the international team that came here a month ago together with colleagues from WHO and OIE. We have the presence of Marion, but it is unfortunate we cannot invite all the members of the joint team on the podium together. We will answer your questions later on together.

I would like to start by thanking you who are here in the room today and those joining us remotely. We have followed many of you in the past few weeks. I would also like to thank those who we have seen every day, following us on cold days for long hours in the rain and bad weather, and we really thank you for following us. It has provided us with constant reminding of the importance of this work and focus that the world is putting on this work. So thank you for following us.

And the international team would like to recognize the impact of epidemic on the city of Wuhan from the individuals affected, the communities affected, both from the government’s officials, the citizens, the scientists and the health workers in particular who fought the disease last year here, in particular. Thank for the engagement of my colleague Professor Wannian, who spent several months here, last year on the front line. Thank you for that.

So you have heard the many findings that we have detected out of our studies and work in the past few weeks and they will be detailed in the report of this mission that would be released later on. I would like to concentrate on some of our key conclusions from these findings. We came here with two goals, two objectives. One was to try to get a better understanding of what happened at the beginning of the event in December 2019. This was the starting point for our work, but also the starting point of the initial outbreak. We’ve focused on trying to understand what happened during that period and try to see if that period had a previous history, could we move the history of the start of the outbreak further down the line in earlier weeks of 2019. And then in parallel, we also embarked on trying to understand how it happens, how did the virus emerge and at some point, jumped and was introduced in the human population. So these were two broad objectives we had and all our studies and work and discussion and visits were trying to get better understanding of these two pictures.

So in terms of understanding what happened in the early days in December 2019, did we change dramatically the picture we had before-hands? I don’t think so. Did we improve our understanding? Did we add details to that story? Absolutely. You heard some of the key findings from Professor Wannian on this picture.

In trying to understand the picture of December 2019, we embarked on the very detailed, profound search for all the cases that may have been missed, cases early on in 2019. And you heard the detail from Professor Wannian. The conclusion was that we did not find evidence of large outbreaks that could be related to cases of COVID-19 prior to December 19 in Wuhan or elsewhere.

We can also agree that we have found evidence of why the circulation of the virus in December. It was not just only the cluster outbreak in the Huanan Market, but the virus was also circulated outside of the market.

The picture we see is a very classical picture of the start of an emerging outbreak where we start with a few sporadic cases early on in the month of December. And then we start to see small outbreaks where the disease starts to spread in clusters and we have seen it further that was happening in the Huanan market.

And these early clusters are usually and also in this case, the way one detects the first cases, the first sign of these emerging disease and that’s what happened during the month of December 2019.

When mapping all the initial cases of the time throughout December, combining that with location and mapping of some of them in the market, in different parts of the market. And combining that with genetic sequence and genetic information from some of these cases, we could see that a picture becoming more and more clear of the spread within the market and spread outside the market. Initially there were very few cases and then more and more cases as we moved into January 2020.

And the data and information we got from the very large amount of looking retrospectively to different studies of mortality data, of surveillance disease data, etc., and re-analyzing a large number of the initial genetic sequences identified in the early days of the events and early January. All these data fit perfectly and very well, confirming us in the picture I just described.

Then we embarked on trying to better understand how the virus was introduced in Wuhan, the way it came from.

All the work that has been done on the virus and trying to identify its origin continue to point towards a natural reservoir of this virus and similar viruses in bat population.

But since Wuhan is not a city or an environment close to these bat environments and direct jump from bats to the city of Wuhan is not very likely. Therefore, we have tried to find what other animal species were introduced and moving in and out of the city that could have potentially introduced or contributed to introduce the virus, in particular, in the Huanan market.

The market was dealing primarily with the frozen product, in particular frozen animal product and maybe seafood. But they were also windows selling products from domestic agents – wildlife, farmed, fur, animals and their products.

So the joint team in their studies have identified the vendors who were trading this type of products, identified the suppliers of these vendors, identified the farms from where these products were coming from, and they were coming from different parts of the country and some of the products were also imported products, of course. So there is the potential to continue to follow this lead and further look at the supply chain and animals that were supplied to the market in the frozen and order process.

There was also a large amount of testing for the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 in many different animal species throughout the country in large number of samples of both the domestic animals, farmed animals, wild animals in many different provinces. To these studies, it has not been possible to point any animal species as a potential reservoir for this disease. They indicate that currently and also back in 2019, it doesn’t look like there was wide circulation of the virus in any animal species in the country.

The search for the possible route of introduction of the virus to different animal species and the specific reservoir are still under working progress. What we did after looking at our findings and combining the information that we could extract from this finding and we then sit down and say to ourselves – okay, the next step is, let’s look at the future. What are these conclusions telling us and how are we going to move forward in our search for the start of the story? Look at all the possible pathways for the introduction of the virus into the human population. You will have the details in the report, but it’s basically a very simple illustration of different pathways coming from wild animals into different environments where human and animals and products can interact.

Out of that exercise, we then identified four main hypotheses or group of hypotheses on how the virus could have been introduced in the human population. We decided to take that approach to really cover all the possible pathways, initially without any value and without any assessment or a judgment, but purely to make sure that we would cover all the possible pathways for the introduction of the virus in the human population.

Once we identified these four key hypotheses, we also did a literature research to make sure that we would not have missed some valuable options that others could have come up with. Then we sat down and went to these different hypotheses, one by one, and assessed their likelihood by putting forward arguments for and arguments against such hypotheses. And then assessing the likelihood of each of them in a systematic way, in a rational way, using scientific arguments and combining all the information that we had collectively collected in the past four weeks, and also using an extensive search of the literature for useful scientific arguments.

So the four main hypotheses that we evaluated, identified and re-evaluated are first, a direct zoonotic spill-over that is a direct transmission from an animal reservoir or animal species into the human population. So a direct jump from an animal to a human.

The second hypothesis was through the introduction of the virus, through an intermediary host species, meaning another animal species potentially closer to humans, where the virus can potentially adapt, and then circulate and then jump to humans.

The third one was the food chain, in particular, meaning the potential for food, frozen products in particular, acting as the surface for the transmission of the virus into the human population and all the food-related route of transmission.

The last one was the possibility of a laboratory-related incident.

As I have said, we took a systematic approach to look at all these hypotheses, putting arguments for and against, and assessing the likelihood using the standardized set of parameters. Each of them was then used to help us plan in a useful direction to help us continue our way forward into a better understanding of the virus origin。

Our initial findings suggest that the introduction to an intermediary host species is the most likely pathway and one that we require more studies and more specific targeted research.

Similarly and connected to this hypothesis is also including the possibility of transmission through the trade of frozen cold-chain products.

Then we were making the difference between the introduction of the virus into the human population and the possibility of the circulation of the virus through long distance and through different settings, or the introduction of the virus into a particular city, like a market, for example.

Then the hypothesis of a direct spill-over from an original animal source into the human population is also a possible pathway and is also generating recommendation for future studies.

However, the finding suggest that the laboratory incident hypothesis is extremely unlikely, and to explain the introduction of the virus into the human population. Therefore, it is not an hypothesis that implies to suggest future studies into our work, to support our future work into the understanding of the origin of the virus.

So the discussion on the different hypotheses and how they will help us direct our future studies was extremely helpful. We have been able to then develop a series of recommendations for future studies, future work in line with the plan we had outlined last July in the terms of reference for how we would go about understanding the origin of the virus and what type of sequence in the studies that would be needed, was developed. The plan we developed in July 2020 is still valid, has been extremely helpful in the guiding our work. The recommendations we are making at the end of this mission are in line with that approach.

So we have identified and we’re proposing our report, a large number of valuable recommendations and ideas for future studies. But here I would just mention some of the key studies and key recommendations we are making.

One of them is to expand existing integrated data basis that connect epidemiological, clinical and molecular data on cases, in particular. And extremely useful as well genetic sequences. So all that information can be possible and connected through integrated databases, and that should be done at the global level to facilitate the analysis and connection of data coming from a different part of the world in helping us understanding better and connecting better all the data and information that comes from many of these research projects.

And that will also include data from animal surveys, from environmental surveys and enable us to integrate all these information and make the best use of many of our studies.

In our search of still trying to identify earlier cases, because that will help us better understand the start of the event. We would recommend to continue some of the good work that has been initiated in looking for material that can be analyzed, that is still available from that time. A lot of this material has been already looked at and we heard that many studies that have been conducted for the past weeks and months. We have identified potential, new sources of valuable material that could be analyzed and help us perhaps move forward in that direction. One of them, just to give an example, is blood samples from blood banks and not only here in Wuhan and all the cities and provinces of interest but also use that material else where there are initial reports and indication that perhaps the virus was also present in individuals, in other places and other countries. And that kind of study would help get a better picture of the initial days of the event potentially if some of them turn back positive. So we have to continue our search for material that can be analyzed and give us clues on what happened in the early days of the event.

We should also explore new approaches and new ways of exploring and reinforcing the use of serological tests in some of the material that have already been tested. Here we’re talking about tests that allow us to look in old sample for traces of the presence of the virus at that time. And there we need new approaches and new ways of doing that.

And of course, we can continue exploring the potential that early cases have. Even if memory fades, if people are less present and accessible and if clinical material is also less and less available, there is still value we had targeted in the studies of some of these cases can potentially yield more useful information. But a lot has already been done in trying to extract all the information that we could extract from these early cases in December, 2019.

And for the studies to better explore the hypothesis that an intermediary animal species or an original animal species was involved in the introduction. Here we need to conduct more surveys into certain animal species that could be the reservoir or act as a reservoir and of course including more sampling and more studies of bat population, not only in China because already a lot has been tested in terms of bats in China, but we know that some of the similar species found in China are also found in neighboring countries in the sub-region and in other parts of the world. And there is under-surveyed because not much has been done in many of these countries in terms of surveying bats. But there we may have some interesting studies as well.

We also have to do much more into understanding the possible role of the cold-chain frozen products in the introduction of the virus and over a distance. We know that the virus can persist and survive on conditions that are found in these frozen environments. But we don’t really understand if the virus can then transmit to human and on which conditions this could happen. It will be interesting to explore if frozen wild animal that was infected could be a potential vehicle for the introduction of the virus or the viruses into market environments, where we know that the temperature, the humidity, the environment could be conducive to a rapid spread of the virus in such environment. So a lot of work needs to be done to better understand this interesting pathways.

We should also look further back in tracing the source of the products and the source of the animal products in particular that were in Huanan market in December 19, and go back and see if we can find products that were produced at that time and that are still available to also look at the suppliers to these vendors in the market. See if we can go further back in terms of identify interesting clues in the farming environment in the species being raised in these farms and where they were potentially coming from before that. This is another area worth exploring.

What was important for us when we developed our hypotheses was to make sure that they were not geographically bound because since the beginning we have taken an open approach in terms of not limiting ourselves in this manner. One of the clear reason is that the possible paths from whatever original animal species, all the way through the Huanan Market could have taken a very long and convoluted path, involving also movements across borders, travels, etc., before arriving in the Huanan market. Therefore, it’s also very interesting to follow up on every one of these clues and preliminary reports and indications that perhaps here and there in other places in the world. There were individuals who were infected and try to follow up on these and connect again dots, connect the different pieces of information to try to get a better understanding of this whole picture and again, just following all the leads, following the science, following well-designed and conducted studies.

Apologize for these two lengthy introductions, but we feel it was necessary to present you with a clear picture of all the work that we have conducted in past four weeks before and trying to give you a picture of all our findings and conclusions. And I would now give the floor back to Doctor Mi Feng. Thank you.

Thank you, Doctor Peter. Just now we have listened to the introduction from the team leaders from both sides. They have been introducing the major content and highlights of the joint report. Now we would like to take your questions. Before you raise your question, please introduce yourself by telling us which news agency you’re with. In order to provide more chances to different journalists, one question from one journalist, please. Thank you. Now we are glad to take your question.

Hello, there. My name is Josh, reporter with Thompson Reuters in Shanghai. I’d like to see if we drill down with a bit more specificity about the likelihood for these hypotheses that were presented. So whether it is possible for each of the three of us actually give a percentage of the likelihood to which we think that the virus either originated from wildlife and subsequently transition to a human or through some form of frozen food.

Peter over to you. Thank you.

Thank you. And I will ask Marion to try to give you an answer.

Yes, thank you very much. So this is a very tough question. What we really did is develop the figure that was shown to help structure our thinking, but be systematic about it. What that does is it lists from literature, from studies, various evidence for or against and various uncertainty. And that is what we then have used to assess what do we think is more or less likely. I think going into exact percentages is really overstating what can be done. It’s really developed to help us structure our thinking, also structure the discussions somewhat because these are very complex questions and there’s many different potential routes that you can think of. That’s the key use of it. So we’ve gone as far as broad categories, most likely, less likely. And that’s how I think for the time being, we will use this. What we also discussed is that whenever new information becomes available and that could be any time because there’s ongoing studies in different parts of the world, we can take this again and say with this new information, does our assessment of these different pathways change.

And maybe in our complete report, we will list all elements that were used in the assessment, including the literature, the studies, all the aspects that we included to make that assessment.

I would like to invite Professor Liang Wannian to offer additional comment.

I applaud the view offered by Doctor Marion. Actually, there will be more detailed introduction of the methodology and more abundant evidence that are going to be demonstrated in the full joint report and also in the future recommendations and suggestions for the research orientations. Actually one of the deepest impressions for me is that as regards for the question you are asking, it requires a lot of daunting and demanding efforts. We have tried our best to provide an evaluation of the possible hypothesis and also other kinds of the possibilities in a scientific way by unleashing the joint wisdom from the experts of the two sides based on the existing available evidence. This is a teamwork. And also we have not using the only quantitative nor only qualitative method either, as it was introduced by Doctor Marion. And we were using the semi-quantitative method to conduct the relevant research. We have stratification of five levels and to match each evaluation of different kinds of the possibility, to put them into different matrix to have a comprehensive consideration and evaluation.

Next question, please.

I’m with CGTN. I have one question related to Huanan seafood market. Is the Huanan seafood market the source of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan? What are the possible infection sources of the cases related to Huanan seafood market? How was the virus introduced to Huanan seafood market? What are possible early transmission routes and what kind of role did Huanan market play in the early stage of epidemic in Wuhan? Thank you.

Dr. Peter over to you.

Thank you for some very well thoughts and detailed questions. These are exactly the same questions we have ourselves, so you should join us next time on the team. We don’t know the exact role of the Huanan market. We know that there was spread among people who were and lived and worked and visited the Huanan market throughout December. How it was introduced and spread within the market is still unknown. We have a map and we have mapped over time the spread of the virus, among the earlier cases we were linked to the market. So we have a picture of where the cases were, for example, in the market. We have also genetic sequences for some of these cases that we can use to help us to understand this picture. And all that tells us that there was a spread among people in the Huanan market in December. And therefore, the market probably was a setting where that kind of spread could happen easily. But it’s not the whole story and we know that there was also spread among individuals who were not linked to this market. They were linked to other markets. There had no links to market. So the picture is not clear in that respect. And for the introduction part, it’s part of the discussion we are having and the work we are planning ahead of us through this hypothesis, evaluation is to understand how it was introduced. And as of today, we are still working with the hypothesis that it could have been introduced by a person who was infected and then spread it to other persons in the market. And that could be one of the traders. It could be a visitor, but it could also be through the introduction of a product. As I mentioned among the more interesting products where frozen farmed wild animals and some of these species are known species susceptible to this kind of viruses. So these are providing clues and providing direction for the next round of studies. We have a lot of good material now to further explore many of these avenues and hopefully some of them will provide us with a good direction afterwards.

In terms of time and place, what we know is that some of the first cases that could be linked to the market, where detected symptoms in the first two weeks of December. And that indicated that they were probably infected around the start of December or late November. But we can’t go into more details with the information we have looked at and that we have studied in detail. Thank you.

Any additional comment from Professor Liang?

I would like to offer additional comment. First, according to the current research progress of this joint research team, Huanan Market may not be the first place of the outbreak. It may not be the place that witnessed the earliest case, either, as it was also introduced by Dr. Peter. The onset date of the earliest case in this joint research was December the 8th, 2019 and also the onset date of the earliest confirmed case that had association to the Huanan seafood market was December the 12th. And actually, according to our research from the epidemiological group, the case with the onset date on December the 8th actually have no relationship or association either with Huanan seafood market.
The second point I would like to explain is that why have we attached so much importance to Huanan Market in terms of the considering whether Huanan Market is one of the earliest places of the outbreak or even the source of the outbreak? Because at the beginning, we have very limited knowledge concerning the properties and features and the etiology of the virus and the disease as well. We noted that this kind of pneumonia-like disease actually could occur on the cluster base. So that is why we focused our early research in Huanan Market and relevant cases that have association with Huanan seafood market for the earlier cases with the suspected pneumonia or PUE, Pneumonia of Unknown Etiology. And actually, in the research of those early cases, a large number or a high proportion of those early cases had association or have market exposure history with Huanan seafood market. But later, when there have been enhanced and improved testing capacity and also with the improvement and development with different kinds of the testing tools or test kits, we have greatly increased our understanding of the virus. So when we conducted the retrospective study related to the early cases, in the earlier confirmed cases, some of those earlier confirmed cases actually did not have any market exposure history with Huanan seafood market. It was also mentioned by Doctor Peter previously and actually we have also conducted the relevant research of the possible introduction of the virus transmission of the Huanan seafood market from the several possible introduction pathways either directly from animal to any intermediary hosts or from the cold-chain transmission or introduction. So we are having full exploration of this kind of possible introduction pathways. This will be also a highlight of the future research.

Next question, please.

I am Tom Cheshire, Sky News. Of the four hypotheses, the one you decisively rejected was the laboratory incident. Can you explain the evidence of the reasoning for discarding that hypothesis?

Dr. Peter, thank you.

Thank you. We evaluated this hypothesis in the same way we evaluated the other hypotheses described by Marion. We looked at what are the arguments for and against such a hypothesis. So in short, you can see in the report the more detailed evaluation of these hypotheses, but in short, it’s about yes, accidents do happens. Unfortunately, we have many examples from many countries in the world of the past accidents. So this is not impossible. It happens once in a while. We also in terms of arguments against, look at the fact that nowhere previously was this particular virus researched or identified or known. There has been no publication, no reports of this virus or another virus extremely linked or closed to this, being worked with in any other laboratory in the world. We were also discussing with the managers and the staff of many of the relevant laboratories in the region and looking and discussing with them these hypotheses as well, and hearing from them how their staff health monitoring program, how their audits program, for example, are conducted and what this revealed in the past months and years. We also looked, for example, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, P4 level laboratory and the states of that laboratory. And it was very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place. And we also know that when lab accidents happened, there are extremely rare. If you look at the history of lab accidents, these are extremely rare events. So this is not the first thing that happened on or would happen on a regular basis. So many of these evaluations and the arguments were put for and against and helped us take a rational approach to assessing the likelihood of such an event happening. As I said, we looked both at the arguments against but also the arguments for to make sure that we are not biased in our approach. And again, in terms of arguments for the fact that, as I said, past accidents have happened all over the world. There was the fact that some of the laboratories were in the city of Wuhan and all these arguments were put for and against each other in helping us making this assessment.

For us, it was important to develop a system to evaluate all these hypotheses where we could take a rational approach and look at fact and evidence in a rational way and try to move away from the situation that has been around for the past year where all of us and many people around the world have all come up with. There are personal views and feelings, wanted to move away from “I think it is this way” or “I believe it is this way”. And try to move away from that and put rational facts on the table that everybody can then look in a systematic way. We felt that was a much more useful approach than to put personal views, feelings, etc., are looking at only half of the arguments. Thank you.

Professor Liang?

I agreed with the answer offered by Doctor Peter. The hypothesis of lab leak is put into the matrix of extremely unlikely as a conclusion of the research outcome of the joint team. On the basis of a serious discussion and very diligent research, we have reached the extremely unlikely conclusion. As regards for the hypothesis of lab leak, there are two possible pathways if there was one. First, virus was engineered by humans, but this hypothesis has already been refuted and rejected by the whole scientific community around the world. Second, there may be a leak of the virus from the lab. But in terms of the leaking of the virus, it should be leaking of existing or known virus. However, in all the laboratories in Wuhan, there is no existing virus of SARS-CoV-2. If this virus does not exist, there would be no way that this virus could be leaked. In addition, for all the laboratories in Wuhan, including WIV, they uphold a very stringent and high quality management system. And also proceeding from the current evidence, we regard the lab leak hypothesis is extremely unlikely. Thank you.

Mi Meng: Next question, please.

From Hubei Radio Network. The number of the confirmed patients has already been cleaned to zero in Wuhan 9 months ago. In terms of the origin tracing in Wuhan, how do the joint expert team members conduct this kind of origin tracing, including the identification of the early cases?

Maybe I can start. What was done was a series of studies. So there were reports of known cases from later December. There was a series of studies to try and find if there was evidence for earlier circulation. That was done by a systematic analysis that is in the report of different registrations. One is a registration that lists the number of people with fever with respiratory symptoms in a wider region that was looked at to see if there was evidence for earlier increase in the number of people with flu-like symptoms, for instance, that was seen in December, but not before that.

The same was done looking at mortality statistics. And we’ve seen in other countries that correlates very well with activity of SARS-CoV-2. So that again showed increase, a peak that said there was considerable circulation in December, second half of December, but not really much before that.

The third element was a very extensive review of patients and patients records by clinical teams from, I think, 233 health care centers in Wuhan. They have with their knowledge of now what COVID-19 cases look like, have looked back in their records to see if they found evidence for earlier cases. That is what has been done. What all the studies then showed was there was a number of recorded cases in December with the first people that were mentioned by Professor Liang. That’s how that was done. We can not say there was absolutely no circulation and there are no cases before December because that’s not what you can do by this approach. But what we can say is there’s no evidence for widespread circulation much earlier. That’s what the studies conclude.

Professor Liang.

Additional introduction of the methodology that we have been adopted in this joint research. And actually, in our joint research, it covers three methodologies. First, we conduct ample and abundant retrospective study. And second, by reviewing the accumulated or existing information or material, we tried to generate literature review and also to have some relevant analysis in a comprehensive manner of those existing material or information. The third methodology is that we tried to connect the dots by analyzing different associated element in a holistic manner by pricing in as many factors as we can in a highly integrated and systematic manner. So in our research, our diverse and multi-prong approaches can allow us to have different kinds of comparative studies and also to better draw inferences from those causal relationship. So apart from those kinds of broad-spectrum analysis, we also provide description of the current situation. This kind of all-encompassing research methodology can allow us to reach a more comprehensive conclusion portfolio. Thank you.

We are already having two and half hours together in this press conference. Due to the interest of time, last question, please.

Thank you, from the Wall Street Journal. I was wondering if you could talk a little more about the animals that were found alive or dead at the Huanan Market. For example, I don’t think it has ever been confirmed what exactly those animals were. And you mentioned that some are known to carry coronaviruses. Have you identified some of greater interest to you as potential intermediate hosts? Have you identified ones that maybe were in the market earlier, but it had left by the time that inspectors arrived, by the time the market was closed? And in terms of following the trial and trying to identify the traders and the farms and the sources of those animals, could you go into a bit more detail about how far you’ve got and what’s the stumbling block? What needs to be done next?

And then a quick follow-up on the Wuhan Institute of Virology. You mentioned that there were no Coronaviruses in Wuhan that matched SARS-CoV-2, but did you obtain that you ask for and obtain information, data, samples regarding any gain of function experiments that might have been done at Wuhan Institute of Virology, which might be working with one type of coronavirus and then enhancing it through some genetic mutation. Thank you.

Dr. Peter.

Thank you, I will let Marion start with the first part of the question. Thank you.

The question about animals. I think first, it is important to emphasize that the testing did not reveal any positives, but the full trace-back that was done was very extensive. Trace-back of all animals and other products on the market showed that there were some animal species that have been confirmed as susceptible like rabbits or that could be suspected to be susceptible, like ferret badger, bamboo rats. The way that is interpreted is to really say if they were there, then maybe they could have been similar animals earlier. So it is an entry point for a trace-back research because that’s the step that we’re now looking for. We have a deeper understanding of the early situation – where would you go for a next step of these origin studies. The reason why that raise some interest is also that some of the trace-back was in farms or in traders in regions that are known to harbor bats with a closely-related viruses. So it is really seen as an entry point for rational, for taking the next step of surveys in animals, on farms. That’s how we’ve looked at.

Then I will take the second part of your question about the Wuhan Institute of Virology. We went there and we have also received the visits of some of the staff here. They have participated in further discussion and worked with us. We’ve had over the weeks quite substantial interaction with the staff there. During the visit, we first had the visit of the place, the institute, the different laboratories. And then a very long frank open discussion with the management and the staff of the institute. First, they gave us a description, very detailed description of their research, both present and past, all the projects involving the studies with bats and coronaviruses and so on, and also some of the more advanced projects. And then we engaged in the discussion with them on the different lab-related hypotheses because they have been on the front line of the discussion around this hypothesis for the past year. And it was very interesting to hear directly from them how their thinking in terms of how can we explain this one, how can we dismiss this one, are we using the wrong arguments, are we providing the wrong evidence or are we answering questions in the wrong way. So we had a very interesting discussion on their views, on all these hypotheses involving their lab. And we discussed how to improve that communication, how to provide the right arguments in the future for better explaining their position, explaining their views. And of course, they are the best one to be able to dismiss any of these claims and provide answers to all the questions that are out there around it. So we also feel that by again taking our detailed and rational approach, we will help to better clarify some of these claims around specific studies, gain of functional working with samples directly from bats, etc. You will also have in the report the minutes of our different visits and meetings with different individuals and this one will also be in the report. Thank you.

Professor Liang.

I would like to cite a few numbers for joint animal research study. First and foremost, we have conducted testing of the serum samples, numbering 11,000 from different species of animals like pig, cow, goat, chicken, duck and goose as a kind of testing sampling from the live stock and poultry from 31 provinces in China from 2019 to 2020. And the testing results of those 11,000 samples of SARS-CoV-2 antibody were all negative. We have also done the testing related to the 12,000 swap samples and animal tissue samples from different kinds of animals in terms of PCR testing. The testing results were all negative as well. In addition, from 2019 to 2020, we have conducted PCR testing for 26,800 samples generated from different kinds of animals that are distributed in 24 provinces in China. Again, the PCR testing results were all negative.

Meanwhile, as regards for the testing of the samples from wild animals, the samples collected during the period from November 2019 to March of 2020 were taken. We have conducted testing of 1,914 serum samples from 35 different species of wild animals. The testing results of antibody testing from the serum samples were all negative. And also before and after the COVID-19 outbreak, we have increased our sampling scale from Huanan seafood market, Wuhan municipality and other cities in Hubei province and also the neighboring provinces of Hubei, and collected 50,000 samples of the wild animals covering 300 different species. With the PCR testing of those more than 50,000 samples, the testing results were again negative again. Thank you.

Dr. Peter expressed that he would like to take one more question.

Thank you. I’m from AFP. I’d like to ask. So the Chinese government and the Chinese media have highlighted various reports of virus cases in countries such as Italy and other places abroad that appeared in late 2019 with the implication that the virus originated from overseas. How likely do you think this is and do you think there’s a possibility that they were passed on to the sort of seemingly unrelated places across the world from undetected mild cases traveled to Wuhan? Do you think that because there’s obviously substantial spreading we had at the time with several concurrent clusters, in addition to Huanan Market.

Sorry. Would you please repeat your question?

Sure. Okay, so I’d like to ask so the Chinese government and Chinese media have drawn attention to reports of several virus cases that appeared in other countries outside of China such as Italy in late 2019 with the implication that this virus originated from overseas. How likely do you think this is? Especially given that there were several clusters in Wuhan in December 2019 at the same time? Do you think it’s likely that maybe a mild or asymmetric case traveled from Wuhan to these places in different places around the world that might have led to the clusters elsewhere?

What we have done is looking into that question also again in a systematic manner. So the focus here initially was on what exactly can we learn about the initial phase of the pandemic in Wuhan. That showed that there was clearly circulation in December. But as part of that work, we also reviewed what is available in the literature and also in the databases about viruses possibly circulating elsewhere. And that has found a couple of, a few publications that would suggest that for instance in Italy, there has been already circulation in December, may be late November, but difficult to know. Because the methods for that were not confirmatory. So they did not provide full evidence for that circulation, but these parts of information is part of what we collected, reviewed and included in our recommendations for the next step. So in the next step, what we say is we should really go and search for evidence for earlier circulation, wherever that is indicated, and indications like this can come from that kind of literature. So this is therefore in our recommendations for follow-up. Maybe to then say, could that mean that the virus had traveled from Wuhan to elsewhere? Again, here we take a step-wise approach. But looking at what evidence is there, what evidence could be found, it would be possible to get genetic information and then see what that tells us.

This is a very good question and also your question has explained the issue by itself – why do we need to take an international perspective in terms of the origin tracing of SARS-CoV-2. That is also why we will need to have the joint endeavor from the international scientists to have this kind of research in a highly cohesive manner to identify the possible pathways and to identify the possible rationale behind. That is also an orientation that both from the joint research team and also different scientists around the world will try to follow in their future plans. Thank you.

Any final comment from Dr. Peter？

Thank you. Thank you all for all your very interesting questions. As you heard, many of them are exactly the same questions we asked ourselves over the past few weeks. And just to let you know that we have answered some of your question today, but the other members are not here and will be available for questions in the coming days and we will also organize more media access in the coming days for you and your colleagues. As we go back home, we will also have opportunities back afterwards in a few days.

And as I said, you’re only facing three of us here, but we have been over the past 4 weeks and even before working closely with some 30 to 40 colleagues who were part of the joint team. And over the past few weeks, we have really had an intense and very productive work among that very special group. I would like to take them all individually for all their contribution and efforts.

And beyond them, we were discussing that earlier today, there are probably more than 1,000 individuals who have contributed over the past four weeks in providing us with data, helping us analyze data, generating reports, and finding and helping us getting information and processing them. And it’s also here an opportunity for us to thank them all for that. So as you can hear, it’s a huge, huge group and amount of work that is behind the outcome of this joint-study and robust and very numerous details that came out of this work.

And to go back to the work itself in my closing remark, I would like to point the detail that marked me, because before embarking on this work like probably many of you, I was thinking how will it be to actually be on the ground and trying to find answers around the first cases. And who are they? What information could they provide about the origin of the virus? It was in a way fascinating to realize that these people are not holding very exciting clues when we talk to one of the first cases who had symptoms in early December. When you talked to one of these cases, you immediately think they must have some very special habits, hiking in the mountains, having special wild pets at home. All these kinds of ideas pop up. And then you realize that they’re very much like all of us, no special particular history of interest, spending most of their days on the internet or doing the same activities and sports and jobs of his work, type of jobs as many of us do. So it’s also illustrating how complicated this work is and therefore it’s not that easy to come up with all the answers after a few weeks of studies. Therefore, we have to understand that these are complex studies that need to be done systematically. And that’s how we bit by bit can connect the dots and get all the information and we need to move forward. And that’s the approach we have taken. That’s approach we will continue to take in continuing this work together with our colleagues in China and in the international team. So again, thank you to my colleagues and thank you to my friend Liang.

I would like to express my appreciation to the three experts on the podium with us. COVID-19 global pandemic has been exerting unprecedented and profound impact to the whole human society and the future progress of the development of the global community. However, people from different countries never change their pursuit for the betterment of their life. As it was mentioned by Director General, Doctor Tedros of WHO, there will always be the light at the end of the tunnel. As long as we unite as one, we will achieve the ultimate victory. Chinese New Year, the year of ox, is coming soon. Here I would like to wish all of you happy Chinese New Year, good health and all the best.

That’s the end of the press conference. Thank you.

(https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-03-15/Full-text-China-WHO-press-release-of-global-study-on-COVID-19-origins-YETbEy0ndu/index.html)

***

17 March 2021

Source: countercurrents.org

By Countercurrents Collective

The UK prime minister Boris Johnson has said UK plans to increase its nuclear arsenal by 40%, but China should be brought into international efforts to reduce the world stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Speaking on Tuesday, as the British government published its Integrated Review of Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy, the UK prime minister highlighted China as posing a “great challenge” to Britain.

The policy would change the number of warheads the UK can possess from 180 to 260. Trident warheads are loaded onto ballistic missile submarines as part of the UK’s nuclear deterrence strategy, and at least one nuclear-armed sub is always on patrol.

This is UK’s first nuclear arsenal increase since the end of the Cold War. However, speaking to lawmakers, Johnson claimed that the UK had not turned its back on nuclear disarmament.

“We’re committed to nuclear arms reduction, and indeed we believe that China should be brought into strategic nuclear arms reduction,” he stated.

Johnson’s plan sees the UK shift its interests towards the Indo-Pacific region as the world’s “geopolitical and economic centre of gravity” moves east. The PM added that while there was internationally “deep concern over China’s mass detention of the Uighur people,” Johnson was keen to maintain cordial relations with Beijing and protect trade between the two states.

“We will also work with China where that is consistent with our values and interests, including building a stronger and positive economic relationship and address climate change,” Johnson noted.

The UK PM said the plan was a “new chapter” in UK history in which the country is now “open to the world, free to tread our own path.”

The new UK defense and foreign policy strategy came under considerable scrutiny on Tuesday morning.

Kate Hudson, the general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, told the Guardian that it was senseless of the cash-strapped government to pursue “grandiose, money-wasting spending on weapons of mass destruction.”

Labour leader Keir Starmer said there was “no obvious strategic purpose” behind Johnson’s decision to reverse years of nuclear disarmament.

The UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab defended the decision, describing it as the “ultimate insurance policy” against threats from hostile states.

Activists and commentators have accused Boris Johnson of turning his back on disarmament after his government signaled that it would drastically increase the limit placed on the UK’s nuclear stockpile.

According to the Guardian, a 100-page security review inked by the government states that the increase in the nuclear warheads cap is a response to “the evolving security environment” and “the developing range of technological and doctrinal threats” to the country.

Russia was deemed an “active threat” to the UK, while China was described as posing a “systematic challenge.” The document also warned that there is a “realistic possibility” that a terrorist group will carry out a chemical, biological or nuclear attack by 2030.

Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project, part of the Federation of American Scientists, said it was “deeply” disappointing to see Britain “end its nuclear weapons reduction policy and instead join the nuclear arms race by increasing its nuclear weapons stockpile.”

Others reacted to the news by demanding that the UK government explain how allowing for an increase in the nuclear stockpile would keep the country safer.

“Say goodbye to life on earth if they let ONE of those off,” read one of many disapproving comments.

Although billed as necessary to ensure Britain’s safety, the Trident program has been regularly criticized as needlessly expensive and poorly managed. In October, a Navy officer responsible for his submarine’s nuclear missiles reportedly showed up for duty drunk during a port call in the U.S.

17 March 2021

Source: countercurrents.org

By Manlio Dinucci

The NATO Dynamic Manta anti-submarine warfare exercise took place in the Ionian Sea from February 22 to March 5. Ships, submarines, and planes from the United States, Italy, France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Belgium, and Turkey participated in it. The two main units involved in this exercise were a US Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarine and the French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle together with its battle group, and a nuclear attack submarine was also included.

Soon after the exercise, the Charles de Gaulle carrier went to the Persian Gulf. Italy, which participated in the Dynamic Manta with ships and submarines, was the entire exercise “host nation”: Italy made the port of Catania (Sicily) and the Navy helicopter station (also in Catania) available to the participating forces, the Sigonella air station (the largest US / NATO base in the Mediterranean) and Augusta (both in Sicily) the logistics base for supplies. The purpose of the exercise was the hunt for Russian submarines in the Mediterranean that, according to NATO, would threaten Europe.

At the same time, the Eisenhower aircraft carrier and its battle group are carrying out operations in the Atlantic to “demonstrate continued US military support for allies and a commitment to keep the seas free and open.” These operations – conducted by the Sixth Fleet, whose command is in Naples and base is in Gaeta – fall within the strategy set out in particular by Admiral Foggo, formerly head of the NATO Command in Naples: accusing Russia of wanting to sink with its submarines the ships connecting the two sides of the Atlantic, so as to isolate Europe from the USA. He argued that NATO must prepare for the “Fourth Battle of the Atlantic,” after those of the two World Wars and the cold war. While naval exercises are underway, strategic B-1 bombers, transferred from Texas to Norway, are carrying out “missions” close to Russian territory, together with Norwegian F-35 fighters, to “demonstrate the readiness and capability of the United States in supporting the allies.

Military operations in Europe and adjacent seas take place under the command of US Air Force General Tod Wolters, who heads the US European Command and at the same time NATO, with the position of Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, this position is always covered by a US General.

All these military operations are officially motivated as “Europe defense from Russian aggression,” overturning the reality: NATO expanded into Europe with its forces and even nuclear bases close to Russia. At the European Council on February 26, NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg declared that “the threats we faced before the pandemic are still there,” placing first “Russia’s aggressive actions” and, in the background, a threatening “rise of China.” He then stressed the need to strengthen the transatlantic link between the United States and Europe, as the new Biden administration strongly wants, taking cooperation between the EU and NATO to a higher level. Over 90% of the European Union’s inhabitants, he recalled, now live in NATO countries (including 21 of the 27 EU countries). The European Council reaffirmed “the commitment to cooperate closely with NATO and the new Biden administration for security and defense, “making the EU militarily stronger. As Prime Minister Mario Draghi pointed out in his speech, this strengthening must take place within a complementarity framework with NATO and in coordination with the USA.

Therefore, the military strengthening of the EU must be complementary to that of NATO, in turn, complementary to the US strategy. This strategy actually consists in provoking growing tensions with Russia in Europe, so as to increase US influence in the European Union itself. An increasingly dangerous and expensive game, because it pushes Russia to militarily strengthen itself. This is confirmed by the fact that in 2020, in full crisis, Italian military spending stepped from 13th to the 12th worldwide place, overtaking the place of Australia.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

5 March 2021

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Ranjan Solomon

It is no surprise that the US has chosen to back Israel in its confrontation with the ICC. This unequivocally illustrates United States’ resolute loyalty to ‘Israel’s’ security while simultaneously disregarding Zionist genocidal crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories.

There is speculation that Israel is in backroom talks with EU States to push the ICC back and even have the investigation called off. In the meantime, Israel will do all it can to delay the investigation hoping that Prosecutor Bensouda will retire and be replaced by British prosecutor Karim Khan. There is speculation that Karim Khan, might just call off or water down the probe. Israel’s desperate lobbying shows how a fearful it is to be exposed to an honest probe. Israel argues that it has its own judicial system where a probe can be carried out. Israel contends that it can investigate itself and hence an external probe is redundant .The world knows beyond doubt that Israel’s judicial system cannot be trusted to deliver a verdict of guilt against war crimes and various other violations of international law that Israel has committed.

The US has proven that a racist-colonialist-apartheid regime is the kind of political system US administrations, whether Republican or Democrats, will back any day – political ethics be damned. The numbers that will stand for an ethical line of action against Israel’s intransigencies are politically insignificant.

The launch of the ICC probe has also left Liberal Zionist groups in a quandary. They concur with Palestinians against the occupation but are unable to stand up and be counted when it comes to the probe against Israel’s criminalities.

Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq reports how, in 2000 alone, Israel seized the Corona-driven crises to press on with its settler project and heap on tyrannical measures against Palestinians in all their places of residence. War on Want reinforces this view when it claims that “a core part of what sustains that occupation is a military judicial system characterized by violations of international law”.

Yet, these facts are the mere tip of the iceberg. 37 Palestinian workers trying to cross into Israel through breaches in the separation barrier since the start of 2020; 23 were shot last year according to the UN. In the first two months of this year, 14 were shot under the same circumstances according to a report from Haaretz.

And the world watches muffled.

Please read these notes and links and disseminate widely.

Ranjan Solomon

7 March 2021

Source: palestineupdates.com

In brazen contempt for the international law, the US administration announced that it backs the Israeli occupation entity’s war crimes against Palestinians in the occupied territories amid the International Criminal Court [ICC] probe into those crimes.

In a phone call with Zionist premier Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, US Vice President Kamala Harris underscored Washington’s support for the Tel Aviv regime, opposing what she referred to as the ICC’s “attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over ‘Israeli’ personnel”, the White House said in a statement.

Harris, the statement noted, “emphasized the United States’ unwavering commitment to ‘Israel’s’ security”, while resisting any move to expose the regime’s genocidal project in the occupied territories.

The first call between the two officials came a day after the ICC prosecutor said her office will formally launch a probe into Zionist war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The announcement follows a February 5 ruling by the international court claiming jurisdiction in the case.

ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who is set to be replaced by British prosecutor Karim Khan in June, said in December 2019 that war crimes had been or were being committed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

She named the Zionist military, which has for years unleashed a reign of terror on Palestinians, as perpetrators of war crimes.

Bensouda further noted that there was a “reasonable basis” to launch a probe into ‘Israeli’ military actions in the besieged Gaza Strip, as well as illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

She then asked judges to rule on the extent of the court’s jurisdiction in the case, and the court last month established that it had jurisdiction.

Judges at ICC said the decision was based on jurisdictional rules in court’s founding documents, and it does not imply any attempt to determine statehood or legal borders.

The international court, which has often sought to expose war crimes committed by the ‘Israeli’ regime and the US around the world, has faced bullying and intimidation from both Tel Aviv and Washington.

The ‘Israeli’ regime occupied East al-Quds, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip in 1967. It later had to withdraw from Gaza.

About 700,000 Zionists currently occupy in over 230 illegal settlements built in the West Bank and East al-Quds, which have been deemed illegal under international law.

Palestine is a party to the ICC’s founding Rome Statute and has long carried out diplomatic efforts for the investigation of the war crimes by the ‘Israeli’ regime in the occupied territories.

Both the Tel Aviv regime and the United States have refused to be a party to the ICC, which was set up in 2002 to be the only international tribunal to investigate war crimes.

6 March 2021

Source: en.abna24.com

By MEMRI

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said last week that an indictment of Israel by the International Criminal Court would open the door to U.S. companies and organizations being hauled before the court. It was for this reason, he said, that the United States had exerted “unparalleled” pressure against the P.A.’s 2015 request to join the ICC.

The court’s chief prosecutor announced on March 3 that in response to an appeal by the P.A., the court would open an investigation into war crimes allegedly committed by Israelis and Palestinians since 2014.

In an interview that aired on Palestine TV on March 1, Shtayyeh said, “Before we turned to the ICC, there had been tremendous and unparalleled pressure.”

“I was in New York when a delegation from the State Department came. They left Washington, D.C., at 6 o’clock in the morning so that they could meet [Palestinian Authority] President [Mahmoud] Abbas in New York. The reason was that our membership in the ICC is not only against Israel,” he said.

“If Israel is indicted, all the parties involved in the Israeli actions against the Palestinians will also be indicted. This means that we can also take the American companies and organizations that support Israel to court. Hence, the deputy secretary of state said to President Abu Mazen [Abbas]: ‘If you become members in the ICC, it will be like obtaining nuclear weapons.’ ”

Neither Israel nor the United States is a signatory to the Rome Statute from which the ICC derives its authority.

The Palestinian premier also said that the P.A.’s appeal to the ICC had “shattered” Israel’s claimed “monopoly on pain.”

“Israel was basically purporting that the Jews in the world were the only ones who were tormented by the Nazis and so on,” he said.

“Our appeal to the ICC demonstrates and proves that the Palestinian people suffer, their prisoners have been tortured and killed, Palestinians have been martyred and displaced. … So we shattered the monopoly on pain that Israel purported to have,” he added.

7 March 2021

Source: www.jns.org

By Philip Weiss

The two decisions from the International Criminal Court in the last month to move forward on an investigation of war crimes in Palestine have shaken Israel and suggested that the power politics of Israeli impunity are finally going to change.

These decisions have predictably angered Israel– “undiluted antisemitism” — and its lobby— “spurious allegations”– and been condemned by the American government. They have been welcomed by Palestine, which sought the actions.

But the decisions have put the liberal branch of the Israel lobby in an awkward position. For many years liberal Zionists have offered Israel political support in the U.S. but said that the occupation and Jewish settlement of lands across the Green Line must end in order for Israel to fulfill its promise as a democracy. Americans for Peace Now has diligently monitored settlement activity. J Street has built Congressional opposition to Israeli actions in the West Bank, such as demolitions and annexation.

You’d think that the ICC investigation would give liberal Zionists a place to stand. At last someone is investigating settlements as a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

But none of the leading liberal Zionist groups have hailed the ICC. They have issued dithering statements saying it’s a sad reflection on the occupation that it’s come to this, and not a surprise; but they’ve stopped short of endorsing the ICC and have even said critical things about the court.

Torn between supporting Israel in the U.S. and trying to stop Israeli human rights violations, the liberal Zionists have chosen Support for Israel. These same organization oppose reductions of U.S. military aid to the country, and have blasted the nonviolent BDS campaign as antisemitic.

Let’s look at some of the liberal Zionist comments.

Yesterday J Street issued a statement on the ICC investigation that openly waffles. It takes no position on the ICC’s assertion that it has jurisdiction to investigate war crimes in Palestine but says that Israel of course should be accountable under international law. Then it pulls that hope away, saying if Israel would just ask the court to “defer” to Israel’s own legal procedures for addressing violations, “Such a request would freeze the case and could ultimately even lead the prosecutor to close the case if the investigation is deemed sufficient.”

But everyone knows Israel regards the settlements as perfectly legal! And as for investigations of war crimes in Gaza, no one has ever faced accountability.

J Street expresses solidarity with those Israelis:

We understand and deeply sympathize with the fear and concern felt by many Israeli families who have been told by critics of the Court that an ICC investigation could result in the penalization of rank and file soldiers who have served in the IDF.

There is no expression of deep sympathy for Palestinians.

J Street’s balancing act also entails keeping right with the Biden administration. Its statement on the ICC last month seemed to affirm the Biden team’s stiffnecked response.

The Biden administration has already clearly and definitively stated its disagreement with the Pre-Trial Court’s decision on jurisdiction…

The liberal Zionist group T’ruah was also very critical of the ICC while sidestepping the issue of the investigation. Rabbi Jill Jacobs’s statement last month:

“The ICC in its current form is a flawed institution. Some of the worst actors — including leaders of China, Syria, and Russia — cannot be held accountable, as they are not party to the Rome statute. Nor is the United States a member; thus, high level Bush administration officials cannot be charged with war crimes despite the documented use of torture during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as part of the War on Terror.

But as for Israeli human rights violations, they’re… tragic.

The true tragedy is that Israel has reached the point that the ICC would consider investigating possible war crimes. For more than half a century, Israel has carried out a policy of displacing Palestinians from their homes in the occupied territories, expanding settlements, and too easily resorting to deadly and disproportionate force in both the West Bank and Gaza.

T’ruah concludes, forget about the ICC, Jews need to fix the problem!

Rather than focus on the ICC, which should be the last resort for accountability on human rights, Israeli leaders and Jewish leaders around the world should put our energy toward ending these human rights abuses and pursuing a long-term solution that protects the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.” 

J Street in its latest statement also says with “dismay and frustration” that Jews (and others) should redouble “efforts to reach a comprehensive, mutually agreed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to end over 53 years of ever-deepening occupation.”

Well, it’s gone on 53 years because there’s been no real outside pressure. And things have only been getting worse in the West Bank and Gaza, despite liberal Zionists’ concerns.

Americans for Peace Now also concluded last month that the ICC investigation was a “heartbreaking” result of Israel’s actions; but the investigation provides a moment for reflection, not action. Its president came close to embracing the ICC but couldn’t do so.

Hadar Susskind said: “The ICC’s decision and possible investigations are a sobering reminder for Israel’s leadership and for the Israeli public that the occupation, the settlements, and the ongoing military rule over a large civilian population are untenable. This 54-year-old status quo may seem to them like a situation that can be sustained in perpetuity, but the ICC decision is a clear example of the fact that the international community will not tolerate it…

“The prospect of seeing Israel accused of war crimes in an international tribunal is, to me, heartbreaking. But the response to that should not be hollow cries of ‘antisemitism.’ It should be a national reflection on 54 years of Occupation. It should not be an attempt to delegitimatize international law. It should be a clear-eyed look as to whether the IDF is, as is often proclaimed, ‘the most moral army in the world.’”

The contradiction in that stance is that APN has for years nobly documented Israeli army human rights abuses in defense of settlements. Now it asks for reflection on the army’s morality? What about action?

Americans for Peace Now also calls on American Jews to flip the script.

The ICC’s decision is a clear example of the fact that the international community will not tolerate the occupation. Neither will Americans for Peace Now or the many progressive American Jews who support our organization and Israel’s peace movement.

A New Israel Fund statement in February also equivocated. Daniel Sokatch cheered the effort to impeach Donald Trump as a demonstration of accountability, and came close to approving the ICC investigation of the settlement project. But he called that a “conundrum around power and accountability” and proceeded to meditate on-the-one-hand, on-the-other. Excerpts:

The Court was founded to hold individuals accountable for grave violations of international laws when a country lacks the capacity or will to do so itself. And after over 53 years of prolonged military occupation and settlement, the ICC’s decision around jurisdiction calls into question who is capable of—and responsible for—holding individuals accountable for potential violations of international law in the West Bank and Gaza…

[T]he ICC’s decision about its jurisdiction turns our attention to the role Israel’s own courts play in holding Israeli decisionmakers accountable for the state’s alleged actions in Gaza and the West Bank…. [The Israeli High Court’s] position—that Israel’s settlement policies in the West Bank are political questions that the courts should not rule on— opens the question of whether it is up to the task of delivering justice for those living under Israel’s occupation, and, if not, what alternative recourses to justice exist for the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank.

Sokatch ultimately threw his hands up in the air.

When it comes to Israel and its occupation, the jury is still out on where this critical accountability will come from.

The wishywashyness is understandable because these organizations are in a difficult practical position. Their donors and boards include older Jews who still regard Israel as a miracle and, though critical of the occupation, likely see the ICC probe as singling Israel out. Those donors and others to their right have set the tone for the Democratic Party’s response– the Ted Deutch/Brad Schneider lockstep statements with Israel, and Biden and Blinken’s too. J Street and Americans for Peace Now don’t want to be out of step with the Israel lobby broadly, because they would then lose some political access. Peace Now is a member org of the rightwing Conference of Presidents!

Meantime, the progressive base of the Democratic Party likes the ICC decision, and so do young Jews. The left-wing Jewish communal group IfNotNow has repeatedly praised the ICC probe and bewailed the American response. This was how IfNotNow greeted Tony Blinken’s opposition to the ICC:

The liberal Zionist organizations are afraid of losing that generation. At its last conference in Oct. 2019, J Street made several gestures towards IfNotNow. For now, though, they’ve chosen the conservative generation.

Philip Weiss is senior editor of Mondoweiss.net and founded the site in 2005-06.

5 March 2021

Source: mondoweiss.net

WASHINGTON, Friday, March 5, 2021 (WAFA) – A US congresswoman Thursday slammed US administration’s decision to oppose ICC probe Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people.

Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib defended the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s decision to launch a probe into war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The ICC “has the authority and duty to independently and impartially investigate and deliver justice to victims of human rights violations and war crimes in Palestine and Israel,” the first Palestinian American elected to Congress tweeted.

“The U.S. should not interfere with its ability to do so,” she insisted.

Tlaib’s rebuke of the US opposition to the ICC probe came in response to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s remarks expressing firm opposition to such a probe.

“The United States firmly opposes an International Criminal Court investigation into the Palestinian Situation,” he tweeted while vowing to “continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security, including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.”

Blinken was not the only US official to oppose ICC probe of possible war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories, as he was joined by US Vice President Kamala Harris.

In a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, Harris and Netanyahu noted their governments’ “opposition to the International Criminal Court’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel.”

Prosecutor Bensouda, who will be replaced by British prosecutor Karim Khan on 16 June, said in December 2019 that war crimes had been, or were being, committed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

She named both the Israeli army and armed Palestinian groups such as Hamas as possible perpetrators.

K. F.

Source: english.wafa.ps

By TOI staff

The International Criminal Court will send Jerusalem a letter next week formally detailing the scope of its war crimes investigation against Israel and the Palestinians, Channel 13 reported Friday.

Israel will then have 30 days to respond, the report said, adding that Jerusalem is leaning toward doing so after largely refusing to cooperate with The Hague-based international court until now. However, Israel is expected to use its response as an opportunity to once again voice the argument that the ICC has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

The hope in Israel is that its argument over jurisdiction will succeed in delaying the case until outgoing ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda is replaced in June by British lawmaker Karim Khan, whom Jerusalem hopes may be less hostile or may even cancel the probe.

A number of officials told Channel 13 that they’re concerned the ICC may already start issuing arrest warrants against former IDF officers in the coming months.

Consequently, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz have begun reaching out to counterparts throughout Europe to galvanize support against the case, the Kan public broadcaster reported. Netanyahu and Gantz have been stressing in those calls that the investigation is biased against Israel, which has an independent legal system capable of prosecuting any alleged crimes.

Bensouda announced on Wednesday that she was opening an investigation into actions committed by Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem since 2014.

Bensouda indicated in 2019 that a criminal investigation would likely focus on the 2014 war between Israel and Hamas, Israeli settlement policy, and the 2018 Great March of Return protests, a series of violent demonstrations along Gaza’s border with Israel that left dozens of Palestinians dead.

However, it is unclear to what degree Israel’s argument would stick, particularly with regard to settlement policy, as in recent years Israeli courts have been used to regulate settlements and legalize wildcat outposts in the West Bank, which most of the international community deems as illegal.

Meanwhile, Israel has sent warnings to the Palestinian Authority, which had submitted the requests to the ICC in 2014 that led to these probes, telling Ramallah that the war crime investigation will make it difficult for Jerusalem to advance confidence-building measures for the Palestinians, Kan reported Thursday. PA officials responded, saying that just as Israel has engaged in peace talks while building in the settlements, the Palestinians can continue their contacts with Israel while the ICC probe moves forward.

The announcement of the investigation came less than a month after the court ruled it had the jurisdiction to open a probe. A preliminary investigation to settle the justiciability question took more than five years.

“The investigation will cover crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court that are alleged to have been committed in the situation since 13 June 2014, the date to which reference is made in the referral of the situation to my office,” Bensouda said in a statement on Wednesday.

Ramallah has been gearing up for the investigation for years, preparing documents and submitting files to the ICC on what it deems to be Israeli war crimes.

Israeli observers noted the significance of the timing of the investigation’s span: On June 12, 2014, Hamas terrorists kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teenagers in the Gush Etzion area of the West Bank. Bensouda’s investigation — based on the request submitted by the so-called State of Palestine — is set to begin from the following day.

The brutal terror attack, which horrified Israelis and drew international condemnation, was a pivotal moment in the lead-up to the fighting in Gaza later that summer. With the investigation set to consider events beginning on June 13, 2014, the crime could be excluded from the court’s investigation.

5 March 2021

Source: www.timesofisrael.com