BERLIN—The Chinese Communist Party is trying to change the narrative surrounding the CCP virus pandemic—and use it to foster geopolitical goals. But some politicians in Europe see through its efforts.
After almost 11 weeks under lockdown, authorities in Wuhan on Wednesday lifted all travel restrictions. Wuhan is the epicenter of China for the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, commonly known as novel coronavirus. For the past several weeks, the CCP has reported zero or near-zero new infections in the whole of country. But not everyone is convinced the epidemic is truly over.
“That the Chinese had supposedly already fought the epidemic, I think this is a fairy tale of the central government in Beijing. Which in turn shows what a communist dictatorship does in terms of propaganda to the outside world. This reminds me heavily of … Chernobyl,” said Ulrich Lechte, member of the Bundestag, the German Parliament.
According to a recent report by Washington-based think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), China has millions of CCP virus cases, not tens of thousands.
The estimate was based on reviewing information in a Chinese state-run media report; an infection rate observed in South Korea, where data reporting is reliable; and assuming a conservative number of days during which the virus spread across China before Wuhan was placed under lockdown.
Beijing itself publicly admitted to hiding the number of people with the disease when it announced it would start reporting cases of asymptomatic carriers on April 1, revealing that it hadn’t been doing so. China’s National Health Commission also acknowledged that asymptomatic carriers can infect others and cause outbreaks, which it had previously dismissed.
Criticism is also growing over the CCP’s failure to contain the virus. Some politicians in Europe noted how Chinese authorities knew about the virus early on, how they destroyed virus samples, detained citizen journalists, and silenced doctors who tried to sound the alarm.
“Already in November the first reports within China were forwarded to Beijing and to the health authorities that there is a new lung disease. And typical for a system like China’s, which is not democratic and pluralistic set up, they therefore first tried to cover it up,” Lechte said.
A study by the University of Southampton found that if the Chinese regime had acted just three weeks earlier, 95 percent of infections could have been prevented.
“If we had had six weeks’ lead time, if the WHO had already issued a warning at the end of November, we would probably have been able to deal with the situation much better. … And we would probably not have many thousands of deaths on our books,” Lechte said. “China must be held accountable.”
In March, the pandemic started battering Europe. China began sending medical teams and protective gear, though many were regular exports, to affected countries like Italy. The regime used those efforts as part of a propaganda campaign to restore its image.
“I find it really bizarre when you know how things have gone in China, how many people have really had to sacrifice their existence, even their lives, to get the Chinese central government to admit that there are problems. And today people are pretending that China is the great savior of the world. The opposite is unfortunately the case,” Lechte said.
The regime has been targeting European countries for years. For example, Italy as part of the Belt and Road infrastructure project and Greece and many Eastern European countries as part of the 16-Plus-One summits. Critics are concerned China aims to create dependency on the regime and divide Europe.
“They help you with fast money, with initiatives. But in the end you end up under the heel of Beijing. … You have to see it for what it is. China tries to assert its interests in the world through its economy and to rise to the next hegemonic power,” Lechte said.
As countries in Europe continue to struggle with the pandemic and its fallout, some observers see it as a chance to gain more clarity on the CCP’s true nature—and its intentions.
Frank Fang and Bowen Xiao contributed to this report.
