Watson: Wuhan Defense War (9)
Watson, 1953. In 1986, he was awarded the first batch of "national experts with outstanding contributions". In September 1984, at the first national economic working conference for young and middle-aged people, he and his colleagues put forward the idea of price dual system reform and was adopted by the State Council to become famous. Currently, he is vice president of China Economic System Reform Research Association, President of national development and Policy Research Institute, and senior professor of Southeast University.
Over the past 30 years, Huasheng has led his research team to creatively propose the establishment of state-owned assets administration, the reform of A-share ownership and split share structure, and a series of major problems and reform plans, such as the need to correct system defects in the stock market. Watson is also widely regarded as one of the most influential economists in China's securities market.
The changing world of epidemic situation
The strategic choice of China at the historical juncture (I)
These days, there is a growing voice saying that as more people in the world throw their pots at China, the Chinese must be consistent with the outside world. At this time, it is not appropriate to talk about any problems existing in China's epidemic prevention and control, and there is a suspicion of helping the hostile forces. When it comes to such a serious degree, we really have to stop once again and carefully analyze this issue before entering the long-awaited process of Wuhan defense war on January 1 this year.
When I started writing this series, I didn't expect to be involved in international topics. In January this year, it was considered a complete Chinese problem. But with the development of the epidemic, in February, it began to be regarded as an East Asian problem, just like SARS. By mid March, people began to realize that it was also the top priority of western developed countries. In April, it was seen that the third world countries might face greater problems. In short, the new coronavirus epidemic has posed a challenge to human beings, and some people think it will also be the watershed of the historical development in the 21st century. Obviously, without the vision of global pattern, now we can't discuss the epidemic situation in China and the defense war in Wuhan comprehensively and objectively.
In a sense, looking back, this is what we should have thought: since the mid-19th century, when the sunless Empire opened the door to China, which had been sleeping for thousands of years, China has become the world's China instead of just a self-centered central empire. Around the middle of the 19th century, the history of China was first changed by the British. From the last few years of the late 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, Chinese history was rewritten by the Japanese. In the 20th century, the former Soviet Union and the United States became the two main external forces influencing China. Since the reform and opening up, China US relations have become the main axis of China's foreign relations. Without the world, we can no longer understand China in isolation.
The new crown epidemic first hit China, but it changed the whole world. How will it affect and even change China in the end? It depends not only on the changes of the outside world, but also on China's own strategic choice and response. But in any case, the choice and path dependence made at the historical juncture will determine China's road and face for quite a long time in this century.
Will China be prosecuted for the outbreak?
The answer is very simple. This question does not exist at all from the perspective of international law. This is a topic that has been deliberately hyped. We don't need to be misled. We need to scare ourselves.
Some people say that there are not a few individuals or organizations in the world who claim that China should bear the responsibility. Do they say that China should make compensation? The problem is that there is no epidemic in the world, and there are also people abroad who pick up China's problems and account for China's various responsibilities. Now some politicians in the West are facing a lot of pressure from their domestic mistakes and problems in the prevention and control of the epidemic, so they want to shift their goals, which is well understood and will not succeed, because their own opposition in China will never let them pass. At the same time, it is not surprising that the world is so big and loud, especially in the west, which believes in liberalism and all kinds of strange ideas. In the west, some people will say that the new coronavirus may have been prevalent there in the early months of last year, and even some people will swear that it was made by the US military laboratory. We don't need to get the most out of hearing this kind of voice. Because these are mostly false words, there is no basis. Even in China, there was a strong voice on the Internet two months ago. It must be said that the virus was made and leaked by Chinese scientists in the laboratory. It can be seen that conspiracy theory belongs to the gossip of imagination expansion. Those who are willing to listen to it can think that it is also a warning that they are not afraid of ten thousand just in case, but it is certainly not the basis for normal thinking and any responsible decision-making.
There must be subjective and objective factors in any outbreak of virus infection. But as I said before, there is no precedent in the world to trace the responsibility of the outbreak area and the source of the virus. In fact, so far, no government of any country has asked China for compensation for the epidemic. Far from that, take the case of the 2009 swine flu, which was soon renamed H1N1, which broke out in the United States and is believed to originate from Mexico. This is a gene recombination of H1N1 influenza virus from North American and Eurasian pig lines, so it was originally called swine influenza A virus. The virus quickly spread in many countries at the same time, and was quickly declared by the World Health Organization as a "health emergency of international concern", and then it was upgraded to the highest level of global pandemic within a few days. The outbreak mainly occurred in the United States, involving more than 70 countries around the world, infected tens of millions of people and killed more than 10000 people. In China, 120000 people were infected and more than 800 people died. But as in history, as in the case of Ebola and Middle East respiratory syndrome, which have been recurring in Africa since then, no one has ever held the country of outbreak or the country of origin responsible.
Now, some people take the international health regulations, which came into force in China in 2007, as an article to make it clear that they equate the responsibility of local governments with that of the state. Therefore, if we admit that local governments and local officials have concealed information in the early prevention and control of the epidemic, it is equal to the responsibility of the state and provides evidence for foreign countries to pursue responsibility and claim compensation. It's totally out of nothing and out of thin air.
The IHR makes it clear that "the purpose and scope of this regulation is to prevent, resist and control the international spread of diseases and to provide public health response measures in an appropriate way to address public health risks while avoiding unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade" (see article 2). Among them, Fourth "responsible authorities" propose that all countries should establish or designate a "national unit" responsible for the implementation of the Ordinance (in China is the state Wei Jianwei). According to the regulation, "the responsibilities of the national centralized unit of IHR shall include:
（1） On behalf of the States parties concerned, to communicate with the WHO international health regulations focal point on emergency situations concerning the implementation of these Regulations ",
"(II) disseminating information to the relevant administrative authorities of the state party concerned and summarizing feedback, including those responsible for monitoring and reporting, ports of entry, public health services, clinics, hospitals and other government agencies.".
In Article 6 "notification" of the regulations, the regulations require "each State Party shall, within 24 hours after the assessment of public health information, inform the World Health Organization through the national centralized unit of the international health regulations in the most effective way available.". Annex 1 and 2 of the regulations provide guidance for "assessment and notification of decision-making documents that may constitute public health emergencies of international concern", i.e. "capacity requirements at local community level and / or grassroots public health response level:
1. To discover, in all areas of its territory, at specific times and places, more than expected incidents involving illness or death;
2. Immediately report all important information to the corresponding health care institutions. ".
"Middle level public health response capacity requirements:
1. Confirm the status of reported events and support or take additional control measures;
2. Evaluate the reported incidents immediately, and report all important information to the national level agencies in case of emergency ".
"Capacity requirements for assessment and communication at the national level:
1. Evaluate all emergency reports within 48 hours;
2. If the assessment results show that the incident is notifiable in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1 and Annex 2, "who shall be informed immediately".
It can be seen that, considering the actual situation of all countries, especially the developing countries, the IHR has relatively loose response requirements for public health at the grass-roots level and even at the middle level, and there is no time limit. Whether to report level by level depends on the evaluation of each level. However, China's national health and Health Commission learned the information from the Internet on December 31, rushed to the site immediately, did not rest on New Year's day, and evaluated within 48 hours The incident was also reported to the World Health Organization and relevant States parties within 24 hours, i.e. January 3. It can be seen that the operation of the national centralized management units in China is standard and standardized, and there is no problem.
In terms of the content of the notification, Article 6 "notification" of the regulations requires that "after the notification, the State Party shall continue to report to the World Health Organization in a timely manner the exact and fully detailed public health information it has received on the reported event, including case definition, laboratory test results, source and type of risk, number of cases and deaths, and the number of diseases affecting the spread of the disease, if possible Situation and health measures taken ". Since January 3, the health commission of China has reported all kinds of "obtained" information to who, including "possible" in the regulations. Even if there is any inaccuracy in the content that may be included in the report, it is obvious that it does not violate the regulations. In addition, China has provided detailed samples, gene sequences, epidemic stage backtracking and virus transmission path analysis reports, which are totally impossible in general developing countries. In particular, it has provided details that countries, including the scientific community, do not rely on the site, but can independently study and analyze the nature of the virus and the possible development trend of the epidemic, so it has been published since the very beginning Who's affirmation and praise.
It is not hard to see that, in view of the imbalance of world development and the huge differences among countries, the regulations, as a consensus document of all countries, leave room for many requirements. Nevertheless, many countries, including the United States, still have some reservations about the regulations that they do not implement. China has greatly strengthened the construction of public health system since 2003 due to the tragic lessons of SARS. The requirements of many laws and regulations are more detailed and clear, which is significantly stricter than the requirements of the international health regulations. Therefore, China has not made any reservation on the regulations. Therefore, the local governments and officials in Hubei and Wuhan have no problems according to the requirements of the international health regulations. However, because these principals and responsible persons violated a series of domestic laws and regulations formulated and revised after SARS, they should still be punished according to the stricter domestic laws and regulations.
At the same time, it should be noted that Article 56 of IHR "dispute settlement" refers to consultation in international cooperation on epidemic situation