The following article from Spectator Australia
With the Western Australian government rolling back vaccination requirements for several industries after June 10, a fresh wave of court cases are expected to mount to investigate the state’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
When WA was held under draconian state policies, citizens began to question what forces were driving some of these health mandates, particularly the incessant and controversial vaccination requirements.
Was the situation in WA – seen by many as more restrictive than Victoria – purely the result of domestic health officials following the state’s established pandemic plans? Or did they heavily defer to the advice of global bureaucracies? And if so, why?
It is commonly acknowledged that the World Health Organisation (WHO) played a part in worsening the pandemic through negligence, potential favouritism, delays on crucial investigations, contradictory advice, and strange strategic decisions that included the suppression of non-vaccine treatments and the heavy-handed suppression of social media conversations among global citizens.
Science, normally a field keen to diversify and investigate, became allergic to any deviation from WHO-centred pandemic responses – even after the WHO was proven to be mistaken.
Questions have thus arisen as to why the state of WA has been an avid proponent of the WHO and their recently developed ‘pandemic treaty’ which seeks to confer greater power onto international entities at the expense of Australian authority. The federal government has been critical of the WHO – to a point – while state governments like WA remain devout followers of their health guidelines without legally binding justification.
A deeper investigation into WA’s close friendship with the Chinese Communist Party might explain the government’s eagerness to uphold the sanctity of this ‘health entity’.
And no, despite WA’s indulgence in First Nation politics and ‘stolen land’ ideology, the government isn’t particularly interested in China’s treatment of Taiwan or the native people of Tibet and Xinjiang. That might hurt some powerful feelings.
China’s relationship with the WHO is openly acknowledged, with the international health bureaucracy standing as an official international partner of the Wuhan Institute of Virology where Covid is widely believed to have originated from internationally funded gain of function research.
Dong Zhihua, Chinese consulate of WA, has stated the following:
‘We are confident and capable to win this battle. With the strong leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, the enormous strength of socialism with Chinese characteristics as well as the strong support from the international community, the Chinese people fighting with one heart and mind, we will overcome any difficulty lying ahead and ultimately curb the spread of the virus.
‘I published an article in the West Australian yesterday, in which I quoted the World Health Organization WHO Director General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom, “This is the time for facts, not fear; This is the time for science, not rumors; This is the time for solidarity, not stigma.”’
That is all well and good, but it remains a fact that the WHO is believed to have shielded China from its role in creating the global pandemic and then encouraged nations like Australia to spend billions on (state-required) PPE that came directly from Wuhan, allowing China to turn a profit from its mistake.
International bureaucracies are incestuous entities, featuring the same names and partnerships wherever you look. For instance, tech billionaire Bill Gates has been heavily involved in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the development of vaccines. This has led to him being a founder, financier, and partner in various United Nations branches, the WHO, and many World Economic Forum collaborations regarding pandemic simulations and vaccine equity projects. He has also directly aided the Chinese Communist Party.
According to research published by the attorney, Robert F Kennedy Junior, the WHO is influenced by Bill Gates, who struck a partnership with Anthony Fauci to develop the Decades of Vaccines program. Fauci has widely reported ties to gain-of-function research, including projects in China.
Australians may then ask, what is WA doing acquiescing to the health advice provided by a bureaucracy with strong connections to the ethically questionable (to put it lightly) Chinese Communist Party? Why have members of the WA Parliament been so chummy with Communist Party members while the question of Covid origin remains up in the air?
The explanation to these questions defies logic, and places a stain on what should be a democratic, sovereign, and morally upright mode of governance. Perhaps it is ‘naivety’ causing WA to vote in these ‘progressive and so-called centralist ideologies’ which bring with them eerie undertones of the Chinese social credit system (vaccine passports, QR-code check-ins, lockdowns, etc).
Is WA being influenced by their old friend?
The Chinese Communist Party makes no secret of their determination to subvert the social fabric and ideology of other nations, often preferring to wage economic rather than physical wars. If an Australian leader criticises China over its human rights record, our export market is targeted in violation of WTO regulations.
It has been documented that Beijing’s tactics are covert, relying on state infiltration or local infiltration as detailed in books such as Stealth War by Brigadier General Robert Spalding and Silent Invasion by Clive Hamilton. Through manipulation of data and the planting of agents in important departments, the Chinese Communist Party keeps tabs on Australia and seeks to influence our society for their benefit.
Has WA suffered this fate? At the very least, the extent to which the state government has integrated itself with Chinese interests must be investigated by the federal government to ensure everything fits within the Foreign Interference framework and matters of national security.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald:
‘The WA government appointed two pro-Beijing community leaders to a new paid advisory council before Premier Mark McGowan escalated his criticism of the Morrison government’s handling of the China relationship.’
The WA government has also praised China repetitively on grounds that the Chinese-Australia trade relationship is a priority while members of parliament attend ‘CEDA’ events, often featuring Chinese consulate generals on panels that promulgate pro-Communist Party rhetoric. This includes the Belt and Road Initiative which has been implemented in dubious debt-trapping diplomacy strategies against poor nations – including our friends in the Pacific.
In 2017, WA extended its sister state relationship between Western Australia and the province of Zhejiang (begun in 1987). This is a concerning development, especially as the government indicates the relationship between WA and Zhejiang has grown far beyond the resources sector and may seep into areas of technology, ecommerce, small business, and leans heavily into China’s energy market.
The government’s argument for why they vehemently support China is to do with strengthening trade relationships. Maintaining diplomatic trade relations is one thing, but it is imperative to understand that many members of government are bent on strengthening and growing the Chinese economy (a questionable enterprise given the risk posed by Xi Jinping) not just ‘maintaining a diplomatic relationship’. As the Premier said:
‘I rise to make a brief statement on my mission to China in July and August 2019. The mission had three objectives: first, to help potential investors navigate Western Australia’s approvals regimes; second, to facilitate direct discussions between Chinese investors and Western Australian business representatives in need of funding; and, third, to maintain and strengthen the relationship between the Western Australian and Chinese governments…I believe, however, that strengthening Western Australia’s economic ties to China and facilitating open dialogue between Chinese investors and the WA business and education community will deliver significant benefits to the state.’
There is nothing wrong with seeking investment and partnership with China – even if the WA government is particularly incurious about China’s domestic behaviour. However, there is no denying that China poses the biggest security risk to the Pacific, with tensions rapidly escalating as Beijing threatens to steal Taiwan’s sovereignty via military force.
If WA’s economic, social, and political ties run too deep – how can the rest of Australia be confident in WA’s response to a military crisis – or indeed, the next pandemic?
External affairs should be handled and monitored by the federal jurisdiction as per the Constitution. Victoria was the last state to receive a slap on the wrist for trying to sign up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Given this, the liberty with which states conduct external affairs with the Chinese Communist Party – an entity which contrary to Australia’s commonwealth, economic and socio-cultural interests – must be watched more closely by everyone.