Measures to Contain Ebola in China
Expert talk of the growing threat of Ebola spreading to China has the international media abuzz and increasingly scrutinizing the country’s preparedness to contain the highly infectious disease. Noted Belgian microbiologist Peter Piot, co-discoverer of the virus in 1976, warned China is vulnerable given the number of Chinese now resident and working in West Africa. He also presaged that the experience of other viral outbreaks points to the basic ineffectiveness of screening at airports.
China’s National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC) declared no Ebola cases in China at present and that health bureaus across the country are upping inspections at ports of entry, notably, in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou where emergency drills have been carried out to deal with potential cases. CNTV (Central Television) quoted Song Shuli, spokesman for the NHFPC as saying, “the country has set up a complete disease control and prevention mechanism following the SARS epidemic and experts believe there is no possibility of a large-scale Ebola outbreak in China.”
With viruses like Ebola, the issue of quarantine is a tricky one for many countries. An impromptu survey of online mainland and Hong Kong Chinese viewers of a debate program on Hong Kong’s Phoenix TV showed over 96% wanting restrictions on visas for West Africans to China. A recent CBS poll conducted in the US late last month indicated that 80% of Americans support mandatory quarantines for US citizens and legal residents arriving from West Africa. 27% even wanted travel bans on West Africans to the US until the virus is contained.
Two weeks ago, the states of New York and New Jersey brought in 21-day mandatory quarantines for all health workers returning from West Africa while US troops that have served in West Africa are also subject to quarantine. The Canadian government announced last Friday that no new travel visas will be issued for residents or citizens of Ebola-stricken countries along with a halt on processing of permanent residency visas for people from affected countries. Australia has also closed its borders to citizens from the three worst-hit countries.
Memories of the SARS outbreak in 2003 when over 5,000 people were infected resulting in 300 deaths partially as a result of initial policy bungling and measures taken since have much better prepared China for any possible outbreak. Interviewed by Bloomberg, Ben Cowling, an associate professor of infectious disease epidemiology at the University of Hong Kong’s School of Public Health remarked: “After SARS, China doesn’t want to be in the same situation again…In the last 10 years, they’ve built up massive capacity to respond to this kind of situation, to avoid damage to public health and prevent the socio-economic problems that arise with it.”
The limited spread of another bird flu strain, H7N9 in the spring of 2013 further firmed Beijing’s determination to fight pandemics by being transparent and cooperative with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other health authorities around the world. Learning from the SARS experience, NHFPC shared samples of the virus with laboratories worldwide to help develop vaccines in case the virus started spreading among humans.
The NHFPC introduced a Ebola control plan back in July, laying out procedures for screening, reporting, and controlling potential infections. In Guangdong, which receives as many as 190 flights from Africa every month, over a two-month period to October 21, local health authorities tracked about 8,700 visitors from Ebola-hit countries of which over 5,000 are longer being monitored. As well, 27 hospitals have been designated to handle possible Ebola cases.
Meanwhile, health checks are being stepped up across the country, especially in Guangzhou where a 100,000+ strong (mainly West African (?)) community resides. Moreover, returning medical personnel who had worked with Ebola patients in West Africa are subject to a battery of tests before entering a mandatory 21-day observation period supervised by local health workers although it is not clear whether they could spend their quarantines at home or at secure isolation units. Any staff developing symptoms would be dispatched to a designated hospital.
For ordinary Chinese returning from Ebola-affected regions, those whose temperatures checked over 37.3 degrees Celsius would be sent to hospitals for further tests. Those without a fever who have had contact with Ebola patients would have to have their temperatures checked twice a day for a period of 21 days. Those who haven’t had contact with Ebola patients are recommended to quarantine themselves at home for 21 days. In addition, the dispatching of virus screening experts to Ebola-affected areas has benefitted the work of public health authorities at home by focusing on pre-emption.
At the same time, however, a major crack remains in China’s wall to contain currently untreatable pathogens such as Ebola – China still has no level 4 biosafety laboratory to conduct scientific research on Ebola. Level 3 facilities can handle widely-known viruses, including HIV, SARS, rabies and yellow fever but not Ebola.
A senior official of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDCP), China’s equivalent of US’s CDC, recently told state media that the country is building a level 4 facility in Wuhan in collaboration with the French. The new lab is scheduled to open early next year and the CCDCP has further plans to build one on its own. But, health officials readily admit that two level 4 labs are far from enough to deal with varied pathogen risks that China will face going forward.
Indonesia Joins China-Led AIIB
Over the past month, the Western press has hyped up the suggestion that three important countries – Australia, South Korea, and Indonesia – are staying out of the founding of the China-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and in so doing diminishing its credibility in the eyes of the world.
Well, Indonesia, the largest economy in ASEAN, has just decided to hop on the bank wagon and Australia said it may join if certain conditions are met. And although the South Koreans deferred when China’s president visited the country, they may still join ranks in the offing.
Of course, the US and Japan are loathe to participate because they see the AIIB as an affront (which it is not) to the ADB and other US-led multilateral financial institutions. However, note that India, a large economy, and key Southeast Asian allies of the US, Singapore and the Philippines, are also founding members. (The ADB is based in Manila.)
China (yesterday) welcomed Indonesia’s decision to join the Beijing-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which India along with 21 other countries joined as founding members.
“China welcomes Indonesia’s formal decision to join the AIIB as a founding member at an early date,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told a press briefing here.
Indonesia’s announcement came after the visit of Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, where he interacted with the new government.
The Beijing-based bank is expected to be operational by next year.
Calling Indonesia an important economy in Asia, Hong said China has called for joint efforts with countries involved, including Indonesia, to promote early establishment of the AIIB which would serve as a multilateral platform for cooperation.
The 21 countries which signed the MoU include Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
– PTI
China’s New Silk Road Fund
In addition to the BRICS Bank and the just formed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China is gearing up for its 100 billion RMB New Silk Road fund to build transport and pipeline infrastructure along traditional silk road routes connecting China-Central Asia-Middle East-Europe. China is certainly giving US-backed multilateral financial institutions a run for the money. Ratcheting up competition will only benefit infrastructure building across the vast Asian-European continents.
China is planning a US$16.3 billion (HK$127.14 billion) fund to finance construction of infrastructure linking its markets to three continents as President Xi Jinping pushes forward with his ideas to revive the centuries-old Silk Road trading route.
The fund, overseen by Chinese policy banks, will be used to build and expand railways, roads and pipelines in provinces in the mainland that are part of the strategy to facilitate trade over land and shipping routes.
More policies will be rolled out soon to encourage mainland lenders to finance infrastructure in countries along the route connecting China to Europe. The New Silk Road plan envisions an economic cooperation bloc to the Mediterranean.
– Bloomberg
America the Spoiler, Again
The US doesn’t want China in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) so China proposes the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). Of course, then, the US opposes the FTAAP just before Beijing plays host to APEC. Really makes a mockery of American talk of wanting more cooperation with China!
The U.S. has blocked China’s efforts to use a leaders’ summit to begin negotiations on a free-trade zone spanning the Pacific, people close to the matter said, as the world’s two largest economies tussle over influence in the region and billions of dollars in trade.
China, the host of this year’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum on Nov. 10-11, has sought to highlight its expanding international role by pressing for a pact known as the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific.
Beijing’s free-trade zone has been on the agenda of APEC for years — and was initially pushed by the U.S. — but has been relegated to the back burner as the U.S. has poured its efforts into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact it is negotiating with 11 nations that include Japan but not China.
For Beijing, the FTAAP would offer a way to ensure that it continues to get preferential access to some of its largest trading partners. A TPP deal would cost China about $100 billion a year in lost exports as the partners trade more among themselves and less with China, according to an estimate by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in Washington.
“China wanted to reinvigorate” FTAAP, said Alan Bollard, executive director of APEC, an association of 21 economies including the U.S., China, Russia and Japan, whose leaders meet annually and whose decisions are taken by consensus. The APEC leaders’ summit next week will be the first major international conference held in Beijing since Xi Jinping took power as Communist Party chief.
Under U.S. pressure, Beijing dropped two provisions from the draft of an APEC communiqué to be released at the end of the leaders’ session, negotiators said. The statement no longer calls for an FTAAP “feasibility study” — trade lingo for starting negotiations—and has no target date to finish the deal. China wanted 2025 as an end date.
– Wall Street Journal
The Kerfuffle Over Confucius Institutes in Canada
Last week, trustees of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), which has oversight over public schools responsible for teaching some 232,000 students in the city, voted to suspend ties with the Chinese government-backed Confucius Institutes (CI). For months, opponents, including notably members of the Falungong religious cult and the local Uighur community, had lobbied strongly against continuation of the collaboration, pointing an accusatory finger at CIs for breaching academic freedoms and promoting the interests of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
The TDSB cancellation follows terminations of CI contracts at McMaster University and Universite de Sherbrooke last year, and in the US at the University of Chicago and Pennsylvania State University earlier this year. Last December, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUTS) also urged Canadian institutions of higher learning to sever their ties with CI. Currently, there are 10 active CI programs in Canadian post-secondary institutions and more than 480 worldwide.
The TDSB vote result was not surprising with community organizations split right down the middle on the issue. The cancellation of the program represents a temporary setback for China’s efforts to promote CI in Canada as well as overall efforts to project its soft power. The TDSB had initially hoped that the CI tie-up would bolster its after-school mandarin and Chinese art and culture classes for elementary school students.
Interviewed by Reuters, a China critic believed the termination would not be taken well in Beijing adding surprisingly that “Canada’s reputation in China as being hostile to Chinese foreign policy goals will be enhanced by the fact of Canada’s largest school board causing the Chinese side to lose face by openly and publically denouncing the idea of a CI.”
There is little to back up the accusation that CIs promote the interests of the CPC. Michael Nylan, a China historian at the University of California at Berkeley, argues that CIs have become more sophisticated in their operations, being careful to avoid earlier heavy-handed tactics such as insisting host institutions abide by a policy of one-China.
A 2011 (?) survey of faculty and administration at 15 universities in the US with CI ties conducted by Professor Nylan found only two reports of pressure to block guest speakers but both speakers spoke anyway. Similarly, in response to charges that CI curriculum is politically determined, the CI director of Chicago Public Schools stated emphatically, “CIs have total autonomy in their course materials and teachers.”
Another claim, that by teaching simplified characters, CI promotes mainland China at the expense of other regions in Greater China that use traditional characters namely Taiwan, Hong Kong/Macao, Malaysia, and other Southeast Asian countries, is simply a red herring. Simplified characters along with pinyin have been taught since their introduction in the late 1950s and have gone far to promote literacy in China given the complexities of traditional characters. If it were not for their superiority over the English Wade-Giles system of conveying mandarin phonetics, why then would Taiwanese educational authorities officially adopt pinyin?!
As for the purported ‘threat to academic freedom’, a report in the leading US educational journal Chronicle of Higher Education found little evidence of meddling by the Chinese authorities. Based on a series of interviews of China scholars, journalists, and Ci directors, the Diplomat magazine, which is not China-friendly by any measure, also reported little support for the contention that CIs could serve as propaganda vehicles for the CPC although the author did find some constraints on such touchy curriculum topics as Tibet and human rights.
Quoted in the Toronto Star, TDSB trustee Sheila Cary-Meagher called opposition lobbying “a tsunami of pressure”. She elaborated that, “the way (the CI program) would have worked here was different; this would have been advisers to our own teachers, using Ontario curriculum, with our own students…I am ashamed of the board and myself for not standing up to the pressure…” Ms Cary-Meacgher ultimately voted with the motion “because it was dead already” and only two other trustees dissented.
But, just as the TDSB cancelled its CI pact, the University of Regina and the University of Saskatchewan announced they are reinforcing theirs which have been in operation for three years offering courses in Chinese language and culture. Interviewed by cbcnews.ca, Thomas Chase, a University of Regina official, said there have not been any complaints about the Institute and that both the U of R and U of S would never compromise their academic integrity.
David Parkinson of the U of S added that its CI is not providing courses for university credit. “It’s important to recognize the limit placed on the level of the classes that are in fact offered. These are highly introductory classes”, he made clear. Asked whether the CI would shy away from issues sensitive to China, Daniel Huang, an instructor in Chinese cultural history at the U of R CI, replied, “we encourage people to raise questions.”
China’s Ministry of Education estimates as of the end of 2010, there were over 40 million people studying Chinese worldwide with other projections as high as 100 million. (Four years on, a doubling or tripling of that figure is easily imaginable.) In spite of some hiccups along the way, unsurprising in Western countries that doubt any institution supported by the Chinese government, Hanban headquarters, which oversees CI operations for the Ministry of Education, aims to establish 1,000 CIs by 2020. With galloping growth in the developing world, that target can only be surpassed.