In a recent post, a commenter linked to an article discussing Niall Ferguson’s allegation that flights out of Wuhan had continued into February (which contradicts claims in the post.) Then the same commenter did more research and presented evidence that Ferguson was incorrect. The second link is to an article by Daniel Bell:
Ferguson continues to support his allegation even after I pointed out that the evidence he provided does not support it. That’s worrisome. Conspiracy theorizing of this sort deflects attention from what actually went wrong. And it fuels the demonization of the Chinese political system at the same time we need collaboration between China and the rest of the world to deal with an urgent global pandemic.
I checked Ferguson’s blog, and he has now acknowledged that Bell was probably correct:
Professor Bell insisted that “no regular commercial flights left Wuhan for cities in other countries after the Wuhan lockdown was implemented on January 23rd.” But what was his source? Why, “a Chinese language application called Umetrip … provided by CAACNEWS … the website for the Civil Aviation Administration of China.” I suggested to him that it might be better if he found corroboration from a Western source—as he himself acknowledges, he has been “naïve about Chinese politics in the past”—but he did not seem to think that was necessary.
I therefore sought clarification from a U.S. company, Flightspin. They looked into the question of flights from Wuhan and concluded that it was very unlikely indeed that any flights had gone from Wuhan to Western cities after January 23. The Flightstats data I had used had omitted the fact that the flights recorded as having landed in San Francisco and Moscow after January 23 had in fact not departed from Wuhan. It appears that China Southern decided to operate the same flights, with the same flight numbers, but without making their usual stop in Wuhan.
Ferguson obviously doesn’t think much of someone that relies on Chinese sources, but in this case Bell was correct. I often get accused of relying on Chinese sources. In fact, I do not trust either Chinese or Western sources. I view all data points as part of a mosaic. Thus when thinking about Chinese economic growth, I don’t just use the GDP figures provided by the Chinese government, I consider the changes I see with my own eyes on my frequent trips to China over the past 26 years. I also look at data from Western companies on growth in their sales in the China market, everything from VW cars to Starbucks coffee. I look at satellite data on traffic congestion in Beijing. Commodity imports. It’s all part of a complex picture that must be evaluated in a non-biased fashion.
Here’s Ferguson:
It is worth adding that the Chinese government did, in one respect at least, prioritize domestic over international measures. As Nikkei pointed out on March 19:
The Chinese government locked down Wuhan on Jan. 23, halting all public transportation going in and out of the city. The following day an order was issued suspending group travel within China. But in a blunder that would have far reaching consequences, China did not issue an order suspending group travel to foreign countries until three days later, on Jan. 27 [my emphasis].
Obviously, I don’t believe this was a blunder of far reaching proportions, as I explained in this previous post. But even if I’m wrong there’s a more subtle problem here. While Ferguson doesn’t explicitly say the Chinese government is mostly to blame for this blunder, it’s likely to be the takeaway for many readers. But obviously the governments in the US and Europe are equally at fault. Flights between any two countries require the permission of both governments. And it’s not as if the whole world didn’t know about the threat of coronavirus on January 23, indeed on that very day I was in Queenstown, New Zealand going from one drug store to another looking for masks, and they were all sold out. With the possible exception of Sean Hannity viewers, almost everyone understood the problem by January 23rd.
So it’s fine to criticize the Chinese government for not closing down flights (if you think that would have helped), but not if you don’t believe western governments are equally culpable. It’s fine to criticize the Chinese government for underreporting the actual severity of the epidemic, but not if you don’t criticize western governments (except Belgium) for doing the same. It’s fine to criticize the Chinese government for lying about the epidemic, but not if you don’t criticize the US government for lying about the epidemic. The one area where China’s clearly been worse is in censorship, with legal action taken against Wuhan doctors who spoke out on the issue. In America, we merely threaten to fire doctors who honestly report on the failings of our health care system, or we fire administrators who base policy decisions on science, and who refuse to favor research on a drug merely because of political connections.
This post is certainly not a defense of the Chinese government, which deserves harsh criticism. Nor is it aimed at Ferguson, who elsewhere has criticized the response of the US government. Nonetheless, the way the post is written would lead many readers to assume that China’s errors and crimes are something special. Unfortunately, they are not.
The West needs to look in the mirror. The last thing the world needs now is a new cold war between China and the West. Ferguson has written eloquently on WWI, and knows the consequences of nationalism:
Was the Great War Necessary?
READER COMMENTS
Alan Goldhammer
Apr 23 2020 at 4:01pm
Hi Scott, this is off topic but Governor Cuomo announced today that a NYC serology study extrapolates to an infection of 1 in 5 New Yorkers. It was not clear who did the testing but I know the Mt. Sinai lab have a good test that has been approved by the FDA and I beleive they have shared their test protocol with the State lab in Albany. My rough calculation based on infections diagnosed by RT-PCR suggest about a 25 fold increase over diagnosed.
Scott Sumner
Apr 23 2020 at 4:29pm
That’s closer to the truth than the Stanford study. In an earlier post I estimated that about 15% of New Yorkers would be infected in this cycle, most of them already infected. Yes, the official count has missed many cases.
Phil H
Apr 23 2020 at 9:23pm
The arguments about Chinese sources just seem out of date these days. China is now an economy the same size as the USA, and equally complex. That complexity means that every number, every record of things that happen, connects to a dozen others. You can’t cover up a whole aeroplane full of people! Records at airports, immigration, hotels, coach companies will all show their existence. The idea that the government can easily falsify major issues like “did planes fly in and out” (or make up massive GDP figures in the absence of any real growth) just doesn’t add up.
Scott Sumner
Apr 24 2020 at 1:42pm
I agree.
P Burgos
Apr 24 2020 at 11:28pm
Western leaders may not have a choice about whether there is a new Cold War with China. China’s current leadership would love to have a more self reliant economy and a country much less interconnected to the rest of the world. So some kind of geopolitical rivalry with a technological arms race may be about the best that we can realistically hope for.
It is difficult for any nation to have good relations with another nation when the leadership of the nation uses the other nation as a scapegoat for their own problems.
Scott Sumner
Apr 25 2020 at 3:36pm
You said:
“It is difficult for any nation to have good relations with another nation when the leadership of the nation uses the other nation as a scapegoat for their own problems.”
So we should stop scapegoating the Chinese for our problems.
P Burgos
Apr 25 2020 at 6:00pm
Yes, but also with the knowledge that nothing the US does will prevent some kind of serious rivalry with China. China’s leadership wants something like that, so the best we can do is build a coalition to punish China when China violates international norms and harms other nations. Trying to do anything to alter their internal politics is likely to do more harm then good. However, if we do want to convince folks in China that liberal democracy is preferable to rule by the CCP, we have to be clearly better as a place to live, and have a politics that is clearly different than that in China. But right now the main fault lines in the West seem to be nationalist versus everyone else, which isn’t too different from Reds (nationalists) versus experts.
Lorenzo from Oz
Apr 25 2020 at 2:11am
Too late. The travel point that it takes two to tango applies here as well. The Beijing regime’s overall strategy implies a new Cold War. Indeed, it has used the COVID 19 disruptions to push that strategy along. (Historian Stephen Kotkin provides a nice pithy outline of said strategy here.)
Hence PM Abe in Japan deciding that the Japanese state will pay to move manufacturing away from China.
Efficiency implies using Chinese manufacturing. Given the strategic aims of the Beijing regime, resilience implies using Chinese manufacturing a lot less. The pandemic has pushed resilience up the policy preference generally, but particularly if South China sea trade routes matter to you.
Sweden has closed the last Confucius Institute in Sweden. The Morrison Government in Australia has managed to annoy the Beijing regime by perfectly reasonable comments by ministers.
Scott Sumner
Apr 25 2020 at 3:37pm
When another country shoots itself in the foot, the proper response is not to shoot yourself in the foot.
Lorenzo from Oz
Apr 26 2020 at 3:52am
State systems are much more than trade systems. May I suggest looking at George Kennan’s seminal article on The Sources of Soviet Conduct.
Then add in traditional Chinese tributary politics and that the collapse of the Soviet Empire is the central trauma motivating the Beijing regime’s policies. The US/Western strategic response of engagement was based on the assumption that we could just wait what happened to the Soviet regime to happen to the Beijing regime. As if the Beijing regime had no strategic capacity to respond to said collapse.
The Beijing regime, as a process of self-maintenance, will keep pushing and pushing until it meets effective resistance. We better have worked out a much better strategy than “isn’t China a convenient market?” because the Beijing regime uses such convenience as a strategic lever.
All the Nazis wanted was Russia up to the Urals and Judenfrei dominions. That was more absolute within the area of interest, but more limited in area of desired dominance, than the Beijing regime’s ambitions. A regime that finds how democratic societies operate a threat to its self-maintenance. Glib cliches about the value of trade do not intellectually cut it.
We are in the second great period of globalisation (steam transport to WWI being the first). Folk thought that the depth of trade and liberal economics was stabilising to the world system then too. Look at how that worked out.
Then remember that the German Hohenzollern Reich, Habsburg Austria-Hungary and Romanov Russia all found that the processes of modernisation undermined their systems of class dominance and dynastic power. And consider how that worked out, in the light of processes of democratisation (that globalisation has some tendency to foster) also undermines the Beijing regime’s system of class power and family networks …
P Burgos
Apr 26 2020 at 10:52am
The idea that opening up trade with China would change their internal politics was way oversold. But why does the West need to change China’s internal politics? Get them to engage in free trade and to not start wars with their neighbors or other countries, and that is an incredible victory. It also serves as a kind of promise to other autocratic regimes
Scott Sumner
Apr 26 2020 at 1:44pm
If and when China becomes an expansionist power like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or 1930s Japan then I would agree with you.
Warren Platts
Apr 27 2020 at 2:40pm
What about the South China Sea Anschluss?
Lorenzo from Oz
Apr 28 2020 at 4:18am
It is very unlikely to become expansionary in that way, and I was pretty clear that I did not think it would.
The Chinese Ambassador to Australia has now threatened Australia with economic and/or financial sanctions if Australia continues to call for an open inquiry into the origins of Covid-19. The tributary states are supposed to understand their place vis-a-vis the Middle Kingdom.
China is our largest trading power. If it is going to so blatantly use its economic clout as a lever, then obviously the value of trading with China is reduced. This goes back to the efficiency v resilience tension I have previously mentioned. That is typically a risk trade-off. As China’s “diplomacy” is now making clear.
Japanese PM Abe deciding to subsidise moving manufacturing out of China is Japan making a clear resilience v efficiency trade-off. China’s threats to Australia hardly make Abe’s strategic judgement less sensible.
Warren Platts
Apr 28 2020 at 11:21am
Neither you nor Scott have a theoretical basis for your about China’s future evolution. In general, neoliberal economics makes for lousy international relations theory. The entire liberal internationalist project has proved to be a dismal failure. In particular, the notion that free trade with China would magically turn them into a liberal democracy–sort of like how the tinpot dictatorships in South Korea and Taiwan managed to democratize–has got to be about the most misbegotten hope in world history.
The one theory that correctly predicted the currently ongoing mess is offensive realism. John Mearsheimer made the following ex ante predictions decades ago that: (1) the invasion of Iraq and Arab Spring attempts to spread democracy; (2) the expansion of NATO; and (3) free trade with China would all end badly–the latter has merely accelerated China’s evolution into a competitive great power.
Given offensive realisms good track record for predicting the future, it is worth asking what it predicts is in store regarding China. The answer is that China will strive to achieve regional hegemony in Asia; it will attempt basically attempt to establish a Monroe Doctrine for Asia with Chinese characteristics. That means getting the Americans out of the 1st island chain, and then the 2nd island chain. It further entails that the annexation of Taiwan at a minimum is in China’s indisputable national interest. And since Taiwan will not go willingly into China’s arms, military invasion must happen.
Meanwhile, offensive realism predicts that the United States will sooner or later wake up to this reality and will strive to do whatever it takes to thwart China’s ambitions. This entails that Cold War 2 is inevitable (although I would argue that it has been going on since 1949, only the Americans are too stupid to realize it).
Lorenzo from Oz
Apr 25 2020 at 2:32am
I would point out that the Beijing regime’s strategic aims are an updated version of bog standard Middle Kingdom tributary system, where all surrounding states acknowledge the pre-eminence of the Middle Kingdom and all rulers are on a lesser level than the Son of Heaven.
The Beijing regime is not inventing some new playbook, it is just updating previous patterns to modern technological reach and putting a vaguely Marxoid, but more Leninist-Party, rhetorical cover over it. Setting up all those Confucian Institutes is, in its own way, a bit of a clue.
It also explains the regime’s relentless pressure against Taiwan. Not only is Taiwan a denial of Beijing pre-eminence by its separate existence, it undermines the Beijing regime’s pretensions and legitimacy by its democratic existence.
Comments are closed.