We use cookies to help improve and maintain our site. More information.
close

May 04, 2020

What is and isn't true about the Wuhan lab conspiracies

We would normally treat a non-EU intelligence report on a Chinese research lab as outside our reservation. But this one matters for Europeans because the issue has the potential to worsen geopolitical tensions, impair the economic recovery, and lead to divisions among EU member states.

The Australian Sunday Telegraph has a long story on the so-called Five Eyes report, drawn up by five intelligence agencies from the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It cites evidence that the Covid-19 virus might have originated from a Wuhan lab, but dismisses the theory that the virus is man-made or genetically modified. Last week's statement from Richard Grenell, the acting US national intelligence coordinator, was based on that report. So was Donald Trump's comment that he had seen evidence that the virus came from the lab. Mike Pompeo yesterday doubled down on that point.

Interestingly, the Australian government comes to a different assessment. Its base-case scenario is that the virus originated from the market, while it attaches a distinct, but low, probability to the hypothesis that it might have come from the lab. The report provides corroborating evidence that the lab might have played a role in the dissemination, but falls short of providing hard proof.

Our interest in this specific aspect of the story is the potential it has to drive a wedge in EU-US relations, and among EU member states themselves. It does not help that EU intelligence agencies were not involved in a report of five anglophone intelligence agencies. We expect Italy in particular to be inclined to allow China strategic access to the EU's single market from locations in north-eastern Italy, one of the hotspots of Chinese investments in Europe. We see parallels to the situation after the 9/11 terror attacks, when EU member states were divided in their response to George W. Bush's war against Iraq.

The main focus of the 15-page report is on the less controversial aspect of the Chinese's government's obfuscation and lack of transparency. At the very least, it mounts a strong case of negligence. This includes what the report calls a deadly denial of human-to-human transmissions, along with China's refusal to provide samples to scientists from abroad.

The report quotes the head of the Wuhan laboratory, Dr Shi Zhengli. One of the estimated 50 virus samples in Dr Shi's lab had a 96% genetic match with Covid-19. Dr Shi said she herself had sleepless nights when she heard about the outbreak of a viral pneumonia in Wuhan.

The intelligence report cites only one scientific paper according to which the virus may have been created in the lab. Researchers from South China University of Technology in Guangzhou concluded that the virus had probably originated from the lab, and recommended that safety levels would need to be reinforced in high-risk biohazard laboratories. It is not surprising to hear that the paper was subsequently withdrawn, with the author himself claiming that the evidence was not based on facts. The fact is that the paper's finding have been neither refuted nor confirmed.

The stock markets reacted strongly to Trump's hostile tone on China. We, too, see that this issue might have a direct impact on post-Covid-19 economic growth. The whole EU strategy, or rather lack of it, is premised on the hope of a V-shaped recovery. As geopolitical tensions mount, this is becoming less likely. Western companies will seek to diversify their global supply chains away from China. Especially the naively optimistic forecasts in Germany are dependent on a perfect reversal to the status quo ante in Chinese-EU relations, a prospect we find hard to square with the emerging facts. 

Show Comments Write a Comment

May 04, 2020

Towards a new government in Ireland

Ireland is one step closer to a government. The Greens’ parliamentary party voted yesterday by a two-thirds majority to enter formal coalition talks with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. This is not a done deal yet. The leaders have to work out a coalition programme. That will be put to a party membership vote, which could still go wrong if the tide turns against the party's leadership. There is a gap to be bridged between what the Greens want and what the other two parties are ready to concede. This goes beyond climate-change issues. 

Still, these are unprecedented times. A coalition between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael would not have been considered possible last year, and now the Greens are coming to crown this new political adventure. The three party leaders made their bets and put their political futures behind it. They have an interest in bringing this to a conclusion despite suspicion at the base of their parties. Whether or not this will be a successful government is another matter, writes the Irish Times, but a new government is now more likely than new elections. 

Show Comments Write a Comment

This is the public section of the Eurointelligence Professional Briefing, which focuses on the geopolitical aspects of our news coverage. It appears daily at 2pm CET. The full briefing, which appears at 9am CET, is only available to subscribers. Please click here for a free trial, and here for the Eurointelligence home page.

 

Recent News

  • May 12, 2020
  • Brexit decision is slowly approaching
  • EU will remain closed for a while yet
  • January 06, 2020
  • A decade that started with a bang
  • What to expect of Spain's next government
  • Divide et impera: Macron's pension reform strategy
  • August 27, 2019
  • Remain’s narrowing pathway
  • Macron's diplomatic masterstroke
  • April 24, 2019
  • May's final and biggest gamble
  • Will the EP be Brexit's great parliamentary beneficiary?
  • Can Loiseau fight the far right given her past?
  • December 21, 2018
  • Not just Brexit makes 2019 a year of EU uncertainty
  • Sentiment is fickle, especially about sentiment
  • Father Christmas - French edition
  • King suspends Michel's resignation
  • EP has objections to the withdrawal treaty
  • Let's break the law
  • August 20, 2018
  • ... and a subtle shift in EU policies towards both Russia and Turkey
  • Nothing to celebrate about the end of the bailout programme
  • Support for Brexit holding up
  • April 19, 2018
  • Greece fears escalation after Erdogan calls snap polls
  • Towards repeat elections in the Czech Republic?
  • Lords defeat UK government on customs union - but it’s not what it seems
  • December 19, 2017
  • German pre-coalition talks to conclude mid-January
  • Shall we talk about Brexit?
  • August 21, 2017
  • Soft, getting softer
  • Tsipras' chances of a boost
  • On the fallacy of a middle-ground option for the eurozone
  • April 10, 2017
  • Nein, nein, nein, und nein
  • Sounds like a bad Brexit story, but ain’t
  • On how not to exit the euro
  • December 12, 2016
  • Renzi without Renzi
  • Shall we compensate the losers of globalisation?
  • The need for a partnership with China
  • August 18, 2016
  • Watch out for a return of the Ukraine crisis
  • Moody's is relatively optimistic on the UK
  • April 25, 2016
  • The death of the Grand Coalition
  • Insurrection against TTIP
  • Juppé to benefit from Macron hype
  • On optimal currency areas
  • Why the Artic region could be the next geopolitical troublespot
  • From a currency to a people
  • September 16, 2020
  • Unclear whether Turkey and Greece will start talks soon
  • Macron's transformation to bottom-up candidate
  • September 01, 2020
  • What just happened in front of the Reichstag?
  • When revolutions fail
  • August 17, 2020
  • How Putin could divide the EU over Belarus
  • The impossible mission of forming a federal government in Belgium
  • July 21, 2020
  • A deal, but at what cost?
  • July 10, 2020
  • On Germany's eagerness to please Beijing
  • June 29, 2020
  • Édouard Philippe - mayor or prime minister?
  • Sir Humphrey, R.I.P.
  • June 17, 2020
  • Dijon violence and the politics of law and order
  • A Franco-German divide on holding Turkey accountable over Libya
  • June 09, 2020
  • The EU and the re-emergence of the state
  • This is not 1968.
  • June 01, 2020
  • Refugees' mass eviction in Greece
  • This is Brexit week again
  • May 26, 2020
  • French fashion stores - lockdown is one crisis too many
  • An important German supreme court ruling against VW
  • Public scrutiny over lockdown rules
  • May 18, 2020
  • Why this won't be a symmetric shock
  • Towards a new cold war
  • May 14, 2020
  • Another migrant wave from Turkey?
  • Hyperventilating about the German court
  • May 10, 2020
  • On court rulings and folk economics
  • EU regions - some far better on Covid-19 but not on downturn
  • May 06, 2020
  • ...and what it means for the future of the EU
  • Ciudadanos saves Sanchez' Covid-19 plan
  • May 05, 2020
  • Germany's cash-for-clunkers
  • What about the summer holidays?