If Canada needing a warning about its eroded national sovereignty, having arrived in the form of a pandemic and a crippled economy. An examination of our national response to this pandemic revealed significant omissions in the government’s capacity to act independently in the interests of the people.
There are serious unanswered questions about the validity of Beijing information about the virus outbreak and the World Health Organization’s willingness to spread it. But that is what Ottawa relies on WHO, plus a China mitigation strategies, which have shackled Canada’s ability to navigate the pandemic with the nuances needed to reduce complex and evolving disasters.
Hindsight is 20/20 and direct decisions are not expected in the face of a fast-moving pandemic. As such, a degree of leeway must be given to federal and provincial leaders who must make quick decisions in the face of clear and unprecedented choices. However, this fact should not have prevented the examination of their failures, and now it appears that many important decisions were made without considering all credible data.
Dissemination of information cast doubt on Beijing by Beijing and its arbitrary praise of the regime’s detention actions should have raised eyebrows from the start. But the authority of the US agency is such that countries that only comply with their recommendations in deciding their actions have paid a huge price.
In early January, WHO explicitly stated that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission of the virus and also suggested a travel ban. The validity of this statement contradicts evidence arising from human-to-human transmission out of Taiwan, which informed WHO about its concerns in the December 31 email. But the WHO continues to line up with the Chinese regime’s narratives and lobbyists. Even after WHO declared a public health emergency, WHO continued to call on countries to avoid travel bans for fear they could trigger discrimination against China.
This critical period in early January gave Canada the best opportunity to prevent the virus from gaining a foothold in the country. But unquestionable conformity with the WHO narrative prevents important considerations from other options, including travel restrictions.
Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam explained her attitude that travel restrictions “may be more dangerous than good,” by emphasizing that actions “which have a very negative impact on certain countries that try very hard to do their best can hinder whether this country in the future will share anything transparently with someone else. … I think the idea is to support China. “
Tam’s statement, and similar sentiments expressed by federal Health Minister Patti Hajdu, are indicative of the Chinese government’s appeasement strategy and unwarranted adoration from the UN and WHO.
Most countries under the WHO umbrella have found themselves in similar circumstances in their battle against the pandemic. It should be noted that outliers who act independently of WHO find themselves in a far better place.
Taiwan is a very interesting case study because it has been closed from WHO on Chinese orders. However, instead of being a liability, this exception allows Taiwan to exercise the autonomy and independent decision making needed to implement wise and efficient control measures that prevent the spread of the virus on the market. From a travel ban that was quickly applied to increase mask production in the country, the island nation gained valuable weeks that succeeded in reducing the spread of the virus. At present, life in Taiwan is largely proceeding as usual.
New Global Order
The pandemic has revealed that Canada’s adherence to the ideology of globalism has hampered its ability to act independently, not only at the world level but also at home.
A few months ago when the anti-pipe railroad blockade was an urgent problem facing Canadians, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was lobbying for a vote to secure the seat of the UN security council – something that was criticized as a disturbance hampering an important domestic response to the growing economic crisis . Canadians will have little desire for international politics when their domestic struggles become more acute post-pandemic.
The US has moved from its original mandate to foster international cooperation to be overly influenced by totalitarian and communist regimes whose agendas are opposed to democratic values. The influence of these regimes disproportionately dictates US and WHO policies, which set a very dangerous precedent.
For example, in early April, China was appointed to sit on the United Nations Human Rights Council to oversee the recommendations of prospective human rights experts in the US. The assumption that China, with its extraordinary human rights record, must be in a position to criticize the governments of democratic countries is almost amusing in this irony. But the US, with its insistence on value neutrality, fails to recognize the universality of human rights or the responsibility of governments to treat their citizens with a little courtesy.
International institutions are used by China and other totalitarian countries to strengthen their economic models and advance their own agenda. The good faith of other member countries is seen as naive by these evil actors, who view the concept of fair trade and trust as attributes that must be utilized. Influenced disproportionately by these countries, the US and WHO have seen too many moral compromises to use the power they have given.
Each country will emerge from a pandemic awakened to the inherent danger of being too dependent on the global economy. Canada, in maintaining high international goodwill, is in an advantageous position to take advantage of this reorganization. Our stability and integrity will make us an attractive trading partner for countries that share our values.
Global cooperation will be very important but the institutions that facilitate it need to be isolated from the influence of those who want to erode national sovereignty.
There are difficult years ahead, and Canadians will need a government that wholeheartedly stands for them, not only in rhetoric but also in action. Whether it is the Paris climate target or US refugee obligations, the global agenda cannot replace our agenda. Thus, the prosperity of the nation must come before arbitrary international obligations to institutions which have proven themselves lacking in transparency and moral foundation.
Ryan Moffatt is a journalist based in Vancouver.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
to request modification Contact us at Here or [email protected]