Search

Begin New Search Topic Pandemic Political Geography Asia

121. Responding to the Epidemic in Wuhan: Insights into Chinese Military Logistics

Author:
Joel Wuthnow
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has portrayed its response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan in heroic terms: battling against an insidious enemy, PLA personnel courageously and tirelessly helped to mitigate the disaster in the epidemic-ravaged city. The PLA has even made the amazing (and highly improbable) claim that it accomplished this while suffering zero infections within its own ranks (China Military Online, March 3). Despite the hype, the crisis has provided an opportunity for the PLA’s newly reformed logistics system to test its ability to mobilize resources in exigent circumstances. The Joint Logistic Support Force (联勤保障部队, Lianqin Baozhang Budui) or JLSF, which was created in September 2016 as part of Xi Jinping’s larger overhaul of the military, has been at the forefront of the PLA’s response. [1] The JLSF’s role in Wuhan illuminated several key strengths of the PLA logistics system—including centralized control, effective use of information technology, and civil-military coordination—while also suggesting potential deficiencies. At a minimum, the crisis likely resulted in “lessons learned” that could improve the JLSF’s role in supporting commanders during wartime.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Leadership, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Civil-Military Relations
Political Geography:
China and Asia

122. Tashkent COVID-19 Video Conference Calls for International Cooperation

Author:
Gregory Gleason, Pál Dunay, and Robert Baumann
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
Abstract:
The COVID-19 infection spread rapidly through the Central Asian states in early 2020. Political leaders in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan were quick to adopt containment and mitigation policies to counter the spread of the disease, announcing national emergencies, establishing quarantines, ordering commercial and public institutions to temporary close, and restricting road, rail, air, and maritime transport routes. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, in particular, swiftly took steps to implement restrictions, impose curfews, and initiate sheltering-in-place measures. The neighboring Central Asian states of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, meanwhile, instituted a number of counter-infection measures but did not acknowledge instances of COVID-19 infection.1 The Tashkent State University of Oriental Studies, a leading foreign area studies center in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, conducted an international video-teleconference on the topic of the coronavirus pandemic on April 22, 2020. George C. Marshall Center professors Dr. Pál Dunay and Dr. Gregory Gleason were invited as presenters at the international video conference. Also invited as a presenter was Dr. Robert Baumann, the director of graduate degree programs for the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth. The Uzbek Academy of the Armed Forces was included in the video conference. Marshall Center alumni also participated and actively contributed to the discussions. The key questions facing the crisis caused by the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic were introduced by Gulchekhra Rikhsieva, Uzbekistan Senator and Rector of Tashkent State University of Oriental Studies. Professor Rikhsieva opened the video conference, describing the seriousness of the dangers presented by the spread of COVID-19 in Uzbekistan and other countries. She called upon the fifty-three video attendees of the conference to use the opportunity to meet the challenges of the crisis objectively and realistically. She called upon the attendees to identify international cooperation measures that could augment Uzbekistan’s state policies in reducing the risks inherent in this and other potential subsequent pandemics. The two-and-a-half-hour conference included eighteen brief video presentations, surveying and comparing the current state of affairs in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and other countries. Professor Rikhsieva concluded the discussion with remarks regarding the challenges and opportunities inherent in addressing public policy issues of international cooperation in the context of the video format.
Topic:
Governance, Leadership, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Central Asia and Asia

123. CoronaShock and Socialism

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
In late December 2019, the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in central China’s Hubei Province detected cases of pneumonia of an unknown cause. In the first few days of January 2020, Chinese authorities were regularly informing the World Health Organisation (WHO) as well as other major countries and regions with close ties to China’s mainland, such as Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan about the outbreak. On 5 January, the WHO released its first briefing on a ‘pneumonia of unknown cause’ in Wuhan. Little was known about the virus, neither how to properly understand it nor whether transmission could occur between humans. The genome sequence for the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was published by the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) on 12 January. Dr. Zhong Nanshan, a leading Chinese pulmonologist who is advising the Chinese government on this pandemic, confirmed human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus on 20 January. As soon as it was clear that this virus could be transmitted between humans, the Chinese authorities acted. Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, was shut down, the scientific establishment in China – and its collaborators around the world – went to work to understand the virus and the disease (COVID-19), and medical personnel in China rushed to be trained and to help break the chain of the infection. Inside Wuhan, the neighbourhood committees, which include members of a range of other associations, Communist Party cadres, and volunteers of all kinds, hastened to assist with temperature checks, food and medicine distribution, and assistance in hospitals. After ten weeks in lockdown, Wuhan opened once more on 8 April. On 15 May, the authorities started to test all the residents of Wuhan once again in order to protect public health and to resume social and economic activities (China shared the results of this test to aid with studies on the feasibility of the herd immunity theory). On 30 January, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared that the outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). From its Geneva headquarters, the WHO sent up a flare which effectively read: a highly contagious virus has been detected that requires stringent measures of tests, physical distance, and aggressive sanitation. At this point, in the aftermath of 20 January, a gulf opened between the capitalist states and the socialist states. Our analysis shows four main areas of differentiation between the socialist and capitalist approach to the virus. The socialist approach is based on: Science-based government action Public sector production of essential materials Public action mobilised to facilitate social life Internationalism In the capitalist states (such as the United States, Brazil, and India), the governments have instead operated in a hallucinatory manner, pretending that the virus is either not real or not contagious and hoping that some extraneous factor would protect their citizens from its dangers. For-profit sector firms have failed to provide the necessary equipment, while public action has been hard to galvanise in atomised societies that lack the habit of organisation and struggle. Finally, to cover up their incompetence, the ruling political class in these states has resorted to stigmatisation and jingoism, using – in this case – the lethal combination of racism and anti-communism to blame China. In this report, we look at three countries (Cuba, Venezuela, and Vietnam) as well as one state (Kerala, India) to investigate how these socialist parts of the world have been able to handle the virus more effectively.
Topic:
Governance, Capitalism, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Socialism
Political Geography:
India, Asia, Brazil, Vietnam, South America, Cuba, Caribbean, Venezuela, North America, and United States of America

124. China and CoronaShock

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
This is the first in a multiple part series of studies on CoronaShock. It is made up of three articles on how China identified the novel coronavirus and then how the Chinese government and Chinese society fought against its wider diffusion. The report is researched and written by Vijay Prashad (Director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research), Du Xiaojun (a translator and linguist from Shanghai), and Weiyan Zhu (an attorney from Beijing). These articles first appeared through the Globetrotter service of the Independent Media Institute. The paintings in this booklet have been done by Li Zhong, an artist from Shanghai. At the end of the booklet is an interview with Li Zhong conducted by Tings Chak (Lead Designer at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research).
Topic:
Governance, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China and Asia