With the growing number of deaths and the increasing spread of coronavirus across the continents, the global community’s ire towards China seems to be growing. The Chinese strategy of projecting itself as a victim of the pandemic and extending a helping hand in this hour of crisis appear to have increasingly few takers.

Calling Out China

Moreover, the USA, the UK, France, Australia, and Germany are joining the chorus who are castigating China for suppressing the facts on COVID-19 and misleading their own people and the world, thereby enabling the worldwide spread of coronavirus.

Amid the growing clamor in favor of penalizing China in some way, the US state of Missouri has filed a lawsuit in the US District Court against the Chinese government, the ruling Chinese Communist Party, and other Chinese officials and institutions. The State of Missouri alleges that Beijing’s actions of arresting whistleblowers and suppressing information about the contagious nature of the novel coronavirus have caused “severe damage” to countries globally along with the loss of many lives and economic disorder. The lawsuit also alleges that the Chinese officials did little to contain the spread despite knowing the nature of the disease. Germany’s largest tabloid newspaper, Bild, has claimed that compensation of $162 billion from China should be paid out due to coronavirus.

Will China Care?

According to information after the US Congressmen, Chris Smith and Ron Wright legislation, China and other countries cannot find rescue behind the clause of sovereign immunity if they deliberately conceal facts regarding the coronavirus, thereby US citizens, businesses and the local government can sue governments for the deaths, suffering, pain, and economic losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit alleges that Chinese communist leaders gave a false picture to the WHO of keeping the spread of coronavirus under control despite the knowledge of highly contagious diseases by mid-January.

According to the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), a British foreign policy think-tank, the Chinese government’s handling of the disease and failure to provide detailed information to the WHO breached Articles Six and Seven of the International Health Regulations [IHRs], a Treaty to which China is a signatory and legally obliged to defend. These breaches allowed the rapid spread of cases outside Wuhan, its place of origin.

The International Health Regulations mandates that states monitor and share all information regarding “conditions affecting the spread of the disease, laboratory results, clinical descriptions, sources and type of risk, numbers of human cases and deaths, and the health measures employed” concerning potential outbreaks. The Henry Jackson Society investigation concluded that there is evidence the Chinese Government breached international healthcare responsibilities and China was in a position to minimize the worldwide economic impact of COVID-19. The British foreign policy think-tank estimates that the global lawsuits against China for “patent breaches” of the International Health Regulations over its handling of COVID-19 could run to at least £3.2 trillion from just the nations of the G7. The Henry Jackson Society’s recommendations include taking up the matter with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Court of Justice, dispute resolutions through Bilateral Investment Treaties, Hong Kong Courts, and actions at the WTO.

How Much Do Experts Think China Should Pay?

James Kraska of the U.S. Naval War College believes ⁠— based on the International Law Commission’s 2001 Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the 2005 International Health Regulations ⁠— that China can be found liable for monetary damages.

According to experts, the U.S. and its allies could sue China before an international tribunal, such as the International Court of Justice. The administration could also seize the assets of Chinese state-owned companies by the legal process and cancel Belt and Road Initiative debts of Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America as compensation for coronavirus losses. Seizing Chinese property would allow the United States to use international law to its advantage. Some others advocate confiscating China’s U.S. Treasury obligations that are more than $1 trillion.

Amidst the growing clamor, China has denied any cover-up in reporting the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan in December 2019. “China was the first country to report the COVID-19 to the World Health Organization (WHO), and that doesn’t mean the virus originated from Wuhan,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the other day.

But with the US President Donald Trump warning that China could face consequences if it was “knowingly responsible” for the coronavirus pandemic and German Chancellor Angela Merkel urging China to be more transparent about the origin of coronavirus, China could have a very bumpy road ahead.

L'articolo Could China be Legally Liable for Covering Up COVID-19? proviene da InsideOver.

For months now, the restive eastern reaches of Ukraine have known relative peace. On Tuesday, February, 18, that stability was shattered. At least one person died as fighting flared-up between government troops and Russia-backed separatist rebels. Under such febrile conditions, knowing who fired first shot is never easy, and each side blames the other. Efforts are underway to dial down tensions, but peace looks to be a long way off.

What Happened?

With little warning, rebel forces shelled Ukrainian troops stationed on the front line. One soldier and four rebel fighters were killed in the ensuing violence. That, at least, is Kiev’s account of events.

Separatist groups offer a different story. According to them, government forces tried to break through their lines before getting caught in a minefield, rebel leaders said soon after the news broke.

Whoever instigated the fracas, it’s in both parties’ interest to see relative peace restored. For six years the war in eastern Ukraine has rumbled on, claiming at least 13,000 lives and displacing many, many more. 

Zelensky’s 2019 Election Win Hinged on Ending the War

Ending the conflict was key to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s election success last year. On Tuesday, after meeting with security chiefs, his message was clear: the peace process must continue.

Zelensky’s determination is well-founded — his efforts in recent months have led to a number of breakthroughs. Kiev-Moscow relations have improved significantly since he took office, with he and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin holding regular phone calls.

Late last year the pair negotiated the return of seized Ukrainian ships and brokered two major prisoner swaps. But news that high-caliber weapons — presumably Russian in origin — were used by rebel fighters in Tuesday’s skirmish is a reminder of the two leaders’ differences.      

It’s also worth remembering that in December, when Putin and Zelensky met to thrash out a ceasefire, no progress was made on two of the peace process’s most contentious issues: when local elections will be held in the east, and when Kiev can retake control of the Russian-Ukrainian border.

Zelensky Has Reason for Confidence

Still, developments elsewhere will give Zelensky fresh confidence. Now that Donald Trump’s impeachment proceedings — which hinged on the President’s relationship with Zelensky — have concluded, Kiev can be hopeful of renewed US support. 

Having Washington (and the West more generally) onside would certainly strengthen his hand in negotiations with the Russians, experts believe. 

“[The recent] aggression must be condemned by [the] US and EU, and Putin must understand that only path to better West/Russia relations runs through Ukraine,” said Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General. 

But with an election on the horizon, Trump might feel that the situation in Ukraine is simply too toxic to be involved with. Where does that leave Zelensky? Dependent more and more on the help of European allies. 

Who Can Zelensky Trust to Help Ukraine?

France, however, is keen on tightening relations with Russia and cannot be trusted to take a firm line with Putin. Likewise, Germany’s Angela Merkel is determined to see completed the Nordstream 2 project — a pipeline that channels Russian gas into Europe via the the Baltic Sea. And Britain, wrapped in the upheaval of Brexit, is too preoccupied to play a meaningful role.     

And so it must fall to Zelensky himself, a man who this time last year was a television comedian. Facing off with Putin will not be easy, but with peace as the prize he must push on.

L'articolo Violence Flares Up in Eastern Ukraine proviene da InsideOver.

The past few weeks in Iraq have been marked by great uncertainty due to massive protests against the current political climate that has become a pawn of foreign interference. It started off as agitations against Tehran’s extraordinary influence over the Iraqi government, and soon turned violent which led to many being killed. 

In such a backdrop, it was particularly ironic when leader of another foreign power touched upon the country. On Nov 23, US Vice President Mike Pence paid a surprise visit to Iraq and met his troops at the Al Asad Air Base, where he shared a Thanksgiving meal with them. Much of his remarks to the forces were expressing gratitude while assuring that the Trump administration will ensure defence needs are met. In addition to this, he had a phone call with Iraqi Prime Minister Adil-Abdul Mahdi. 

“We spoke about the unrest that’s been taking place in recent weeks here in Iraq,” Pence told reporters. “He assured me that they were working to avoid violence or the kind of oppression we see taking place even as we speak in Iran.”

Reuters further quoted him as saying: “He pledged to me that they would work to protect and respect peaceful protesters as … part of the democratic process here in Iraq.”

But beyond this uncharacteristic affair, a more significant development took place later in the day when the US vice president went to Erbil, the capital of Kurdistan region. There he held a meeting with Kurdish President Nechirvan Barzani to reiterate American support for the community. 

What could prompt Pence to ignore the country’s capital for an autonomous region? The reason Pence gave was that Baghdad was mired in a loop of violent protests, but the motive is obviously much more meaningful than that. During his telephonic conversation, the vice president had reportedly asked the Iraqi prime minister to disassociate from Iran and perhaps wanted to send a very clear message that Washington will not rewarding pro-Tehran sentiments.    

There is another layer to it as the meeting with Barzani comes around a month after President Trump had unexpectedly withdrawn US troops from Syria border, giving Turkey a green signal to conduct limited military operations in the Rojava region, ending the rule of Syrian Kurds there. 

Among the Kurds, Trump’s pullout was largely seen as an act of betrayal given the community was instrumental in defeating Daesh and were closely supported by the US. To calm down the matter, Pence later on brokered a brief pause with Ankara to let Kurdish fighters withdraw. 

While it did some damage control, the dents were already made as proved by the statement of Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces chief, Mazloum Abdi, that their trust in the US is at the “lowest”. 

Post-Turkish offensive in northeastern Syria, Iraqi Kurdistan is now the only self-governed Kurdish region in the Middle East, which makes Barzani the key representative for the community and one of the most important partners for US, if not the biggest. He had earlier called Trump’s withdrawal “undesirable”, while appreciating America’s historical role in the region – a rather contained reaction. 

His calm and conciliatory tone towards the US, despite such a setback to the American-Kurdish relationship, makes Barzani a crucial partner, which helps explain Pence’s latest bilateral meeting with him.

L'articolo A Kurdish Thanksgiving: Mike Pence’s Surprise Visit to Iraq proviene da InsideOver.