Features Australia

Now wash your hands

Xi Jinping cannot evade responsibility for his deadly global disaster

24 April 2020

11:00 PM

24 April 2020

11:00 PM

Until recently the sanity of anyone suggesting the Wuhan virus came from a laboratory rather than a wet market would be in issue. But in a well-researched report in early April, Tracking Down The Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus, youthful American investigative journalist Joshua Philipp makes a persuasive case that the wet market story was just another communist fabrication.

When the virus raged in Wuhan, Beijing imposed a brutal lockdown, blocking all movement to other parts of China but malevolently keeping open travel to the US and other Western countries who were being kept in the dark. The result was that Xi Jinping, the most powerful and authoritarian dictator since Mao, achieved what he surely intended: while most of China was substantially virus-free, the West’s economies were seriously damaged with lives both ruined and lost.

As to the origin of the virus, Philipp demonstrates that it came from a major research project into cross-species infection at the Wuhan Institute of Virology led by notorious ‘bat-woman’, Shi Zhengli. Philipp also includes evidence suggesting the virus was genetically modified to make it transferable to humans and even more contagious, a taboo subject for most media. If this is because they believe that Beijing is too moral to engage in such activities, they should read the unanimous 2019 judgement of the expert China Tribunal chaired by war criminal  Slobodan Miloševic’s chief prosecutor, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. This found Beijing to be engaged in the trade of selling human  organs removed on demand from healthy political prisoners it readily liquidates.

Philipp does not include any suggestion of a deliberate release as insurance against a second Donald Trump victory, no doubt because this remains conjecture.


Even conservative media usually steer clear of allegations that Beijing is involved in weaponising viruses, despite its 1984 accession to the Biological Weapons Convention. Instead Philipp reports that this is part of Beijing’s ‘total war’ agenda, relying on no lesser authority than from within the Peoples Liberation Army. In Unrestricted Warfare, retired Army officer Qiao Liang explains how a technologically superior United States  can still be defeated in a war through the use of other methods including ‘cyber and biochemical warfare’.

Our political class grudgingly admits Beijing’s propensity to resort to cyber-warfare. Why then rule out serious discussion of Beijing developing biological warfare? The National Cabinet must therefore have high on its agenda the goal of ensuring Beijing pays reparations for damages for its criminal behaviour. Xi Jinping cannot be allowed to wash his hands of responsibilty for his lethal disaster. The National Cabinet should waste no time on any useless UN, World Court or other global process. Proposals by well-intended US legislators to amend their Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 1976 to allow hearings before US courts  will not be accepted by Beijing. Moreover, this will suffer from the limitations of American evidentiary and other laws appropriate only to domestic cases.

A better and more effective method would be a Nuremberg-style tribunal or commission created by executive agreement or treaty between the US and close allies such as Australia. The strategy would be that when Beijing predictably defaults on the commission’s required early interim judgement, we could then constitutionally take back, by legislation, all those premium and strategic assets so foolishly handed over in the past.

Australians are already losing confidence in the National Cabinet which they are beginning to realise is lacking in common sense. Typical of a political class happy to consort with Beijing, they unwisely  ignored the one country which knew how to deal with the communists: democratic Taiwan. So for almost two months they let in, without any medicinal control, by both air and by sea the mainly unknowing infected who then infected others. As a result we have so far suffered ten times the deaths of Taiwan, who have neither damaged their productive economy nor loaded the next generation with unbelievably massive debt. Nor did they put their faith in doomsayers’ computer-generated modelling which is always wrong. A major and foolish decision, which  even at the time of writing had not been reversed, was to ban all non-urgent elective surgery. Even now all the beds commandeered are still empty with queued patients left suffering.

The National Cabinet has seriously damaged if not destroyed business, employment and lives and loaded the next generation with unbelievable debt; all things which Taiwan did not even contemplate. And while we are constantly told our  testing is the best in the world, twenty-five countries are ahead of us, but crucially not Taiwan.

Readers will recall the common-sense suggestion here that the reason for the extraordinary discrepancy between the death rates in New York and California could probably be explained by crowding in mass transport (made worse by cuts imposed by media-darling Governor Cuomo). MIT research now confirms precisely this. It wasn’t surfing that made Bondi  a hotspot; it was excessive peak hour public transport crowding tolerated by the NSW government while it engaged in projects like moving the Powerhouse Museum to flood-prone land curiously favoured by powerbrokers.

The National Cabinet should immediately follow President Donald Trump’s common-sense federal guidelines to reopen the  economy. They must abandon three conditions especially that at least 40 per cent of us must sign-up to the Beijing-like app revealing contacts and movements. Having seen how power-crazy potential dictators abused the distancing rules, few Australians are likely to do that. And if Australians can have no confidence in the political class and their decades of consorting with Beijing, can they have any in the mainstream media, American and local Little Sir Echo’s?

Just consider how they would react if a GOP presidential candidate used previous political office to be an advocate for Beijing, massively enriching his family and was now showing clear signs of losing his mind. Instead of being ignored or downplayed, he would be on the front page and in every TV bulletin every day. Do they really assume people do not notice this manipulation?

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
Close