A safer future: Crucial to enhance cybersecurity with quantum technology. -123rf.com
THE launch of quantum computer Qianshi is a milestone in the development of quantum technology.
For the first time, a quantum computer is accessible in the public ICT network, and people are able to connect to it using their personal devices. It has only 10 quantum bits (qubits), with capabilities of a traditional computer (Baidu launches quantum computer in China and gives people access via PC, smartphone or the cloud, The Star, Aug 26, 2022).
Quantum computers can be far more powerful than any supercomputer, capable of breaking any conventional encryptions within a short period. In the lab, quantum computers with performance matching the supercomputers on specific problems have been realised.
This should be alarming to the fintech and banking sectors as the current encryptions in financial transactions based on the RSA cryptosystem are no longer secure.
The capability of the quantum computer is attributed to the way it computes that is different from conventional computing algorithms.
Making use of quantum entanglement or the superposition of a number of possibilities (called quantum states) from many qubits, one can search everywhere for an answer “at once” and get the answer almost instantaneously, without having to go through multiple searches in sequence.Scientists around the world are actively engaged in the education, research and innovation of quantum information science and technology, driven by awareness of its awesome potentials.
The race for developing quantum technology has started long ago, focusing mainly on quantum computation, quantum communication and quantum sensing or metrology. In December 2013, the United Kingdom government invested £370mil (RM1.96bil) in quantum technologies over five years.
The European Commission followed suit in 2016, and invested £1bil (RM5.30bil) over the next 10 years. China launched a quantum satellite in August 2016 and initiated a big plan to connect cities with secure communication networks. In December 2018, the United States Senate passed the National Quantum Initiative, allocating US$1.275bil (RM5.47bil) over five years for quantum information science research and education. Our neighbour Singapore is far ahead, having started the Centre for Quantum Technologies since 2007. In September 2020, Thailand announced US$6mil (RM25.73mil) to develop quantum technology over eight years.
The global investment in quantum science and technology has reached almost US$30bil (RM128.64bil) with a projected global quantum technology market of US$42.4bil (RM181.81bil) by 2027.
Notable companies like Microsoft, IBM, Google and D-Wave that have invested heavily in developing quantum computer have made rapid advancements and breakthroughs, with some having been listed in the stock markets. In November 2021, IBM unveiled its 127-qubit quantum processor Eagle, claimed to be capable of solving complex problems that a traditional computer is unable to solve. Just recently, in 2022, the University of New South Wales, Australia, and Quantinuum have made major strides to improve the reliability of quantum computation process.
While the true power of quantum computers has not been demonstrated yet, the days of public concern for data security are not far away.
Fortunately, quantum physics provides us with an unconditionally secure technique against hacking by a quantum computer. Known as quantum key distribution (QKD) technology, it is now available in the market.
It uses quantum properties of light to transfer information in the form of encrypted keys that cannot be eavesdropped by anyone.
This technology protects confidential information against any potential hacking. The current effort is to extend the secure communication distance to hundreds of kilometres via existing fibre optics network.
We can expect to have a regional-scale quantum Internet and a long-distance quantum communication network that promises secure links for government agencies, financial hubs between cities and the possibility of epolling.
As the way people work and businesses operate has transformed to be more reliant on ICT and online communications since the Covid-19 pandemic, boosting the level of cybersecurity with quantum technology is becoming more important than ever.
C.H. RAYMOND OOI
Professor Quantum & Laser Science group
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science
In addition, it built a system enabling everyone to gain access to the quantum computer with any device, including a smartphone.
The computer has just 10 qubits, fewer units for quantum computing than more advanced systems built by China’s top universities and Western companies, such as Google and IBM.
Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.
Chinese tech giant Baidu to release self-driving car in 2023
But China’s leading quantum scientist said there were high hopes for the new system because it was a brave first step towards bringing the futuristic technology out of the laboratory.
“We have already achieved superiority with the performance of quantum computers
surpassing supercomputers on specific problems and further progress, such as programmable quantum computers, needs cooperation from industry
leaders and academic researchers,” said Pan Jianwei, a leading quantum scientist with the University of Science and Technology of China.
“I’m glad to see investment from China’s enterprises promote exploration,” said Pan, who led the development of the world’s first quantum satellite, Mozi.
The quantum computer is called Qianshi and can be accessed by a Baidu app from the Apple, Huawei or Xiaomi stores. Users can download
the software and send their own computing task, such as a quantum circuit experiment, to “Qianshi”.
The Baidu quantum computer uses superconducting materials to generate an extremely low temperature for the quantum processor unit, which is similar to a CPU in a
traditional computer.
The
superconducting fridge cools the QPU to near absolute zero degree through a multi-cascade cooling system, so the coherent quantum bit is not affected by thermal noise caused by high temperatures.
“It is the world’s first integrated solution for both the hardware and software of quantum calculation,” said Duan Runyao, director of the Institute for Quantum Computing, Baidu.
“The system is accessible from PC, phones and cloud. While users could enjoy the convenience of the software framework provided by Baidu, they could choose a suitable hardware for their calculation,” he said.
For now, apart from the Qianshi QPU, two separate chips – from the Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Innovation Academy for Precision Measurement Science and Technology – are also connected to the system.
China condemns new US law aimed at boosting domestic semiconductor manufacturing
The new system may accelerate fundamental research in this area, according to Duan.
“Integration, automation and visualisation are the main technical features. The system helps with the standardisation of daily operation, and the chip initialisation efficiency is improved at least 100 times for researchers,” he said.
Progress on hardware also provides opportunities for commercial and industrial users.
“In the past, we had limited options for hardware and some online services from the US were not open to Chinese researchers. We hope Baidu’s device will promote our research in the academic world,” said Ji Zhengfeng, an expert in quantum computing theory with Tsinghua University.
Quantum computing has many applications. The classic computer, for instance, takes more than 100,000 years to solve the RSA public key password, a widely
studied password algorithm. A fully functioning quantum computer in the future will only take 1 second to find the password, according to some
estimates.
According to Duan, the industrial scale of quantum computing in the world will reach 800 billion yuan (US$116 billion) by
2031, and most large global enterprises will adapt quantum computing technology within a decade.
“In the future, when scientists use
100 qubits, problems in AI and portfolio optimisation could be solved. With 1,000 qubits, cryptographic security and chemical pharmacy will be
possible. With 10,000 qubits, global weather forecasting and big data processing will become common,” Duan said.
During their meeting, both leaders discussed cooperation between China
and Saudi Arabia in the matters of science, technology, regional peace and other aspects of society.
Saudi Arabia rolls out red carpet for China’s Xi Jinping in snub to US, says analyst
Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived in Saudi Arabia to a lavish reception, a welcome seen as a not-so-subtle reminder to the United States that the Saudis can forge other alliances, analyst Nader Hashemi tells CNA’s Asia Now.
Xi, Saudi king agree to hold regular head-of-state meetings
The national flags of China and Saudi Arabia are seen on the street of Riyadh ahead of the China-Arab States Summit on December 7, 2022. Photo: thepaper.cn
A grand welcoming ceremony, high-level bilateral meetings and wide-covering investment agreements are among proofs that China-Saudi Arabia relations have been lifted to a new high.
On Thursday, President Xi Jinping and Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud signed an agreement on the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries and also agreed to hold a meeting between the two heads of state by turns every two years.
Experts believed that Saudi Arabia's industrial diversification endeavor can be a perfect match for China's Belt and Road Initiative and its policy of developing high-tech industries. During the visit, Saudi and Chinese companies signed 34 investment agreements, covering green energy, transportation, logistics, medical industries and construction, local media reported.
In the welcoming ceremony held by Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud on behalf of King at the royal palace in the capital Riyadh on Thursday, Xi reviewed the guard of honor, who extended the most solemn welcome to the Chinese president with traditional sword-holding etiquette.
Cultural roots
This visit also witnessed the efforts of the two sides to enhance people-to-people exchanges between the two countries. In a signed article published Thursday on the Saudi newspaper Al Riyadh, Xi said that "China and Saudi Arabia have admired each other and conducted friendly exchanges since ancient times. The prophet Muhammad said, 'Seek knowledge even if you have to go as far as China.'"
Such mutual respect has been carried forward to today. On Thursday China agrees to list Saudi Arabia as a destination for group travel and expand personnel exchanges as well as cultural and people-to-people exchanges between the two sides.
Experts believed that China-Saudi relations play a crucial role in boosting the relations between China and Arab countries, serving as an example as South-South cooperation. As the only G20 member among Arab countries, Saudi Arabia has seen its regional influence grow, playing a leading role in the affairs of GCC as more Arab countries are realizing that compared to China that promotes peace and development in the region, the US instigated conflicts and divergences, imposes extra geopolitical conditions in its cooperation with Arab countries.
A new level
Abdulaziz O. Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Center in Saudi Arabia told the Global Times that China-Saudi Arabia relations is a good role model that can be expanded to different countries in the Middle East region, as the great relationship is based on mutual interests and non-intervention in the domestic issues from both sides.
"We will not interfere in the issues between the US and China. We will not take US' position when it comes to China. We think our relationship with China is extremely important, and extremely valuable," said Sager.
China and Saudi Arabia will reportedly sign a plan to harmonize the Kingdom's Vision 2030 with China's Belt and Road Initiative, according to people familiar with the matter.
"There is a lot of complementarities between BRI and the Saudi vision 2030," said Sager, noting this unleashes many opportunities for China and Saudi Arabia to have stronger ties. He expects the China-Saudi Arabia and China-Arab relations to move forward not only from an economic dimension, but to have a political dimension, saying the Arab countries are looking for more constructive engagement with China on regional issues that are of concern to them.
In the past, many Middle Eastern countries were seen as proxies of the West but are now trying to get rid of such identity by working on development on their own, seeking a balance in cooperation with major powers, Zhu Weilie, director of the Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai International Studies University, told the Global Times on Thursday.
"China-Saudi strategic relations have now entered a new level covering many more areas, and the two countries share similar aspirations in the country's development and reform, especially in green energy and digital economy," Zhu said, adding that deepening cooperation is in line with their own development targets, and it's not targeting any third-party country.
Fahad Almeniaee, Director of the China and Far East Unit of the Riyadh-based Center for Research and Intercommunication Knowledge, told the Global Times that the relationship between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and China is a multi-faceted relations ranging from trade to culture. "Xi's visit has been successful by all standards," he emphasized.
Broader cooperation
Xi also met with leaders of several other regional countries, including Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Kuwait's Crown Prince Sheikh Mishal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabahon, on Thursday.
Commenting on China-Arab States Summit, news site Middle East Eye said the goals of China and the Gulf are aligned in many domains, which means that the summit is only likely to produce new synergies. "It is a growing reality in the Gulf and it is likely that the summit will elevate these economic synergies to a new level and a possible free trade agreement, oil deals in yuan and membership of BRICS Plus would hugely strengthen Gulf-China ties and further challenge US hegemony," the news site said.
Xi's visit to Saudi Arabia came amid strained US ties with the Middle East country, some US media reports said, which also underlines Beijing's growing influence in the Middle East and draws "inevitable comparison" to a low-key welcome afforded to Biden when he visited Saudi Arabia in July.
Compared with relations between the US and Arab countries, China's relations with them are based on equality and mutual respect with honesty, unlike the US which brings ideological bias in its interactions with the countries, some experts said.
"And more Gulf countries understand that when the US mentions 'security,' it has become unsecure for them while China-proposed ideas promoting peace and development are much more welcomed," Wang Guangda, secretary-general of the China-Arab Research Center on Reform and Development at Shanghai International Studies University, told the Global Times.
China hopes to promote the benefits for people of the both sides rather than competing with the US in terms of the influence in the region or filling "vacuum" left by the US, Wang said.
China-GCC relations have achieved sound, steady and comprehensive development, staying at the forefront of China's relations with Arab countries. China has remained the GCC's largest trading partner for a long time.
In 2021, the trade volume between China and GCC bucked the overall downward trend and rose by 44 percent. And China-GCC relations have set a fine example of cooperation between China and other developing countries.
Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, and the other newly elected members of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the 20th CPC Central Committee: Li Qiang, Zhao Leji, Wang Huning, Cai Qi, Ding Xuexiang and Li Xi, meet the press at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, Oct. 23, 2022. (Xinhua/Shen Hong)
A toast: Xi and Li raising glasses during a reception at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. — Reuters
AS the Communist Party of China prepares for its 20th National Congress in October, where President Xi Jinping is expected to secure a controversial third term as top leader, Asian Insider looks at his record over the last 10 years and what the future holds for him, the party and the country.
Last weekend, Twitter was abuzz with “news” that there had been a military coup in Beijing and President Xi Jinping was under house arrest.
The grist to the rumour mill: Hundreds of flights had been cancelled across the country, Xi had not been seen in public for a week, and a video showing a military convoy making its way into the capital city was being widely circulated.
Unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories about Chinese leaders’ fall and demise come and go with enough regularity to make the most seasoned China watchers roll their eyes every time one of them pops up on social media.
The 101-year-old Communist Party of China swept to power 73 years ago on Saturday, but it is still one of the world’s most opaque political parties.
As it gears up for its twice-a-decade congress in two weeks, where nearly 2,300 delegates will elect a new Central Committee made up of 370 or so leaders, it is keeping political pundits guessing over who might rise in the ranks to lead the country of 1.4 billion people.
The Politburo Standing Committee – the pinnacle of power with seven men – and the wider Politburo of 18 other leaders will be of particular interest to most.
But compounding the difficulty in making any predictions is President Xi Jinping’s track record of breaking norms – whether written or unwritten – and the cloak of secrecy that has only thickened under his rule.
Only two things appear to be certain for now: President Xi will secure a rare third five-year term as party and military chief during the week-long gathering. And there will be no apparent successor.
But who else might stand alongside Xi when the new team takes the stage a day after the conclave? Here are three possible scenarios:
Most conservativeTwo of the seven standing committee members will step down, in keeping with an unwritten retirement rule that requires Li Zhanshu, 72, and Han Zheng, 68, to relinquish their third-ranked and seventh-ranked seats.
The “seven up, eight down” rule sets at 67 the age limit for old and new members of the standing committee and the Politburo at the start of a new term. Politicians aged 68 or older are disqualified.
But the rule does not apply to Xi, 69, who is looking to seek a third term in office.
Conventional wisdom has it that Premier Li Keqiang, 67, will retain his second-ranked seat in the standing committee because he has not reached the retirement age. But he is constitutionally required to step down as premier in 2023 after two five-year terms and could take over Li Zhanshu’s role as head of Parliament.
Wang Yang, 67, who is chairman of Parliament’s top advisory body, is the frontrunner to succeed Li Keqiang as premier in 2023. As far as seniority goes, Wang should be next in line for the prime minister’s job.
Tradition also dictates that only those who have been vice-premiers and are capable of managing the economy can be appointed premier. Wang was vice-premier between 2013 and 2018, overseeing commerce, among other things.
Current standing committee members who have yet to reach retirement age could stay on. Zhao Leji, 65, currently ranked sixth, could take Wang’s fourth-ranked seat and become chairman of the advisory body in 2023.
Wang Huning, 67 in October, is expected to retain his fifth-ranked seat as the party’s top ideologist.
Party insiders have singled out Hu Chunhua, 59, and Ding Xuexiang, 60, as the two likely new faces in the standing committee.
Hu, currently the third-ranked vice-premier and who was thought to have been groomed for the top job during the leadership reshuffle at the last congress, is tipped to become executive vice-premier.
Ding, director of the party’s General Office, is the frontrunner among the President’s men to be promoted to the standing committee. He is Xi’s most trusted aide among the younger leaders.
Other aspirants are Propaganda Minister Huang Kunming, 64; Beijing party secretary Cai Qi, 66; Chongqing party boss Chen Min’er, 62; and Shanghai party secretary Li Qiang, 63.
But this scenario could well be too unimaginative for Xi, who has a penchant for departing from tradition and surprising pundits.
The surprise
In the second scenario, Premier Li will retire from the standing committee this year and as premier next year, according to several party insiders and observers.
Three other standing committee members will also step down: Li Zhanshu and Han – in accordance with the retirement rule – and Wang Huning, who was said to have indicated privately that he would like to retire earlier.
Only three of the seven standing committee members will retain their seats: President Xi, Wang Yang and Zhao.
The four other standing committee members will be newcomers and mostly the President’s men.
Regardless of whether Premier Li stays on or not, the number of standing committee members could be expanded to nine to accommodate more of the President’s allies and possibly a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) general for the first time since 1992 – a hint that China might be preparing itself for military conflict.
If so, the person who fits the bill is PLA Ground Force General Zhang Youxia, 72, one of two incumbent Central Military Commission vice-chairmen, and who has combat experience from the 1979 border conflict between China and Vietnam.Most boldIn this scenario, President Xi will be the only standing committee member to hold on to his seat – a clear sign of his iron grip on power.
This could be done if the unwritten retirement age rule is revised down instead of up.
“It will be ‘winner takes all’,” said Ho Pin, who runs Mirror Media Group, a Chinese-language publishing company in New York.
“There will still be norms, but no more factions,” said Ho, who correctly predicted the standing committee line-ups of the 16th to 19th party congresses from 2002 to 2017.
Factional balance of power has always been a major factor in the composition of the standing committee to keep the unity and stability of the party.
The current standing committee strikes a balance between Xi and his allies (Li Zhanshu and Zhao), former president Jiang Zemin’s “Shanghai Gang” (Han Zheng) and former leader Hu Jintao’s Communist Youth League faction (Li Keqiang and Wang Yang).
Even so, these factional lines are also not so clear-cut. Zhao, for instance, is also known as Jiang’s man, while Wang is also not as entrenched within the elite circles of the youth league.
Wang Huning is the exception as he was trusted by and has worked with all three leaders.
If Xi’s hold on power is as unwavering as it looks to be, this scenario could well pan out, and he will have free rein to fill the standing committee with younger allies, such as those born in the 1960s. — The Straits Times/ANN
WHEN US President Joe Biden asked the United States Intelligence Community (IC) to determine the origin of Covid-19, its conclusion was remarkably understated but nonetheless shocking. In a one-page summary, the IC made clear that it could not rule out the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) emerged from a laboratory.
But even more shocking for Americans and the world is an additional point on which the IC remained mum: If the virus did indeed result from laboratory research and experimentation, it was almost certainly created with US biotechnology and know-how that had been made available to researchers in China.
To learn the complete truth about the origins of Covid-19, we need a full, independent investigation not only into the outbreak in Wuhan, China, but also into the relevant US scientific research, international outreach, and technology licensing in the lead-up to the pandemic.
We recently called for such an investigation in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Some might dismiss our reasons for doing so as a “conspiracy theory.” But let us be crystal clear: If the virus did emerge from a laboratory, it almost surely did so accidentally in the normal course of research, possibly going undetected via asymptomatic infection.
It is of course also still possible that the virus had a natural origin. The bottom line is that nobody knows. That is why it is so important to investigate all the relevant information contained in databases available in the US.
Missed opportunities
Since the start of the pandemic in early 2020, the US government has pointed an accusatory finger at China. But while it is true that the first observed Covid-19 cases were in Wuhan, the full story of the outbreak could involve America’s role in researching coronaviruses and in sharing its biotechnology with others around the world, including China.
US scientists who work with SARS-like coronaviruses regularly create and test dangerous novel variants with the aim of developing drugs and vaccines against them. Such “gain-of-function” research has been conducted for decades, but it has always been controversial, owing to concerns that it could result in an accidental outbreak, or that the techniques and technologies for creating new viruses could end up in the wrong hands. It is reasonable to ask whether SARS-CoV-2 owes its remarkable infectivity to this broader research effort.
Unfortunately, US authorities have sought to suppress this very question. Early in the epidemic, a small group of virologists queried by the US National Institutes of Health told the NIH leadership that SARS-CoV-2 might have arisen from laboratory research, noting that the virus has unusual features that virologists in the US have been using in experiments for years – often with support from the NIH.
How do we know what NIH officials were told, and when? Because we now have publicly available information released by the NIH in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. We know that on Feb 1, 2020, the NIH held a conference call with a group of top virologists to discuss the possible origin of the virus. On that call, several of the researchers pointed out that laboratory manipulation of the virus was not only possible, but according to some, even likely. At that point, the NIH should have called for an urgent independent investigation. Instead, the NIH has sought to dismiss and discredit this line of inquiry.Heads in the sand
Within days of the Feb 1 call, a group of virologists, including some who were on it, prepared the first draft of a paper on the “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” The final draft was published a month later, in March 2020. Despite the initial observations on Feb 1 that the virus showed signs of possible laboratory manipulation, the March paper concluded that there was overwhelming evidence that it had emerged from nature.
The authors claimed that the virus could not possibly have come from a laboratory because “the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.” Yet the single footnote (number 20) backing up that key claim refers to a paper from 2014, which means that the authors’ supposedly “irrefutable evidence” was at least five years out of date.
Owing to their refusal to support an independent investigation of the lab-leak hypothesis, the NIH and other US federal government agencies have been subjected to a wave of FOIA requests from a range of organisations, including US Right to Know and The Intercept. These FOIA disclosures, as well as internet searches and “whistleblower” leaks, have revealed some startling information.
Consider, for example, a March 2018 grant proposal submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) by EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) and researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the University of North Carolina (UNC). On page 11, the applicants explain in detail how they intend to alter the genetic code of bat coronaviruses to insert precisely the feature that is the most unusual part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Although DARPA did not approve this grant, the work may have proceeded anyway. We just don’t know. But, thanks to another FOIA request, we do know that this group carried out similar gain-of-function experiments on another coronavirus, the one that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
In yet other cases, FOIA disclosures have been heavily redacted, including a remarkable effort to obscure 290 pages of documents going back to February 2020, including the Strategic Plan for Covid-19 Research drafted that April by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Such extensive redactions deeply undermine public trust in science, and have only served to invite additional urgent questions from researchers and independent investigators.
In a one-page summary, the IC made clear that it could not rule out the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) emerged from a laboratory. – AFP
The facts of the case
Here are ten things that we do know.
First, the SARS-CoV-2 genome is distinguished by a particular 12-nucleotide sequence (the genetic code) that serves to increase its infectivity. The specific amino acid sequence directed by this insertion has been much discussed and is known as a furin cleavage site (FCS).
Second, the FCS has been a target of cutting-edge research since 2006, following the original SARS outbreak of 2003-04. Scientists have long understood that the FCS holds the key to these viruses’ infectivity and pathophysiology.
Third, SARS-CoV-2 is the only virus in the family of SARS-like viruses (sarbecoviruses) known to have an FCS. Interestingly, the specific form of the FCS that is present in SARS-CoV-2 (eight amino acids encoded by 24 nucleotides) is shared with a human sodium channel that has been studied in US labs.
Fourth, the FCS was already so well known as a driver of transmissibility and virulence that a group of US scientists submitted a proposal to the US government in 2018 to study the effect of inserting an FCS into SARS-like viruses found in bats. Although the dangers of this kind of work have been highlighted for some time, these bat viruses were somehow considered to be in a lower-risk category. This exempted them from NIH gain-of-function guidelines, thereby enabling NIH-funded experiments to be carried out at the inadequate BSL-2 safety level.
Fifth, the NIH was a strong supporter of such gain-of-function research, much of which was performed using US-developed biotechnology and executed within an NIH-funded three-way partnership between the EHA, the WIV, and UNC.
Sixth, in 2018, a leading US scientist pursuing this research argued that laboratory manipulation was vital for drug and vaccine discovery, but that increased regulation could stymie progress. Many within the virology community continue to resist sensible calls for enhanced regulation of the most high-risk virus manipulation, including the establishment of a national regulatory body independent of the NIH.
Seventh, the virus was very likely circulating a lot earlier than the standard narrative that dates awareness of the outbreak to late December 2019. We still do not know when parts of the US government became aware of the outbreak, but some scientists were aware of the outbreak as of mid-December.
Eighth, the NIH knew as early as Feb 1, 2020, that the virus could have emerged as a consequence of NIH-funded laboratory research, but it did not disclose that fundamental fact to the public or to the US Congress.
Ninth, extensive sampling by Chinese authorities of animals in Wuhan wet markets and in the wild has found not a single wild animal harboring the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Despite this, there is no indication that the NIH has requested the laboratory records of US agencies, academic centers, and biotech companies involved in researching and manipulating SARS-like coronaviruses.
Tenth, the IC has not explained why at least some of the US intelligence agencies do in fact believe that a laboratory release was either the most likely or at least a possible origin of the virus.
Time for transparency
Given the questions that remain unanswered, we are calling on the US government to conduct a bipartisan investigation. We may never understand the origin of SARS-CoV-2 without opening the books of the relevant federal agencies (including the NIH and the Department of Defense), the laboratories they support, academic institutions that store and archive viral sequence data, and biotechnology companies.
A key objective of the investigation would be to shed light on a basic question: Did US researchers undertake research or help their Chinese counterparts to undertake research to insert an FCS into a SARS-like virus, thereby playing a possible role in the creation of novel pathogens like the one that led to the current pandemic?
Investigations into Covid-19’s origins should no longer be secretive ventures led by the IC. The process must be transparent, with all relevant information being released publicly for use by independent scientific researchers. It seems clear to us that there has been a concerted effort to suppress information regarding the earliest events in the outbreak, and to hinder the search for additional evidence that is clearly available within the US. We suggest that a panel of independent researchers in relevant disciplines be created and granted access to all pertinent data in order to advise the US Congress and the public.
There is a good chance that we can learn more about the origins of this virus without waiting on China or any other country, simply by looking in the US. We believe such an inquiry is long overdue. – Project Syndicate
Neil L. Harrison is a professor at Columbia University. Jeffrey D. Sachs, university professor at Columbia University, is director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. This article was first published on Project Syndicate.
Since the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine began, the international community has grown increasingly aware of the roles the US and NATO have played behind the crisis.
From launching color revolutions around the world to leading NATO's eastward expansion to hem in Russia's territorial space; from imposing sanctions on "disobedient countries" to coercing other nations to pick sides… the US has acted like a "Cold War schemer," or a "vampire" who creates "enemies" and makes fortunes from pyres of war. The Global Times is publishing a series of stories and cartoons to unveil how the US, in its superpower status, has been creating trouble in the world one crisis after another.
This is the fourth installment.
Supporters of Pro-Russian groups protest during US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin' visit in Bulgaria on March 19, 2022 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: AFP -Anti-government protestors wait at the entrance of a barricade in front of the Dynamo Kiev stadium in Ukraine on February 23, 2014. Photo: AFP
On the evening of December 25, 1991, the hammer and sickle flag representing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was slowly lowered over the Kremlin, and the flag of the Russian Federation in white, blue, and red was raised on the same flagpole.
The change of flags signified the official disintegration of the Soviet Union, which had existed for 74 years, as well as the end of the 44-year Cold War.
There were no ceremonies held in Moscow that night, just the dull tolls of bells from Spasskaya Tower from across the Kremlin. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Pacific, Americans proclaimed internationally how they had defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War victory.
It has been 31 years since this period in history, and several major changes have taken place in the world order and international patterns. However, these have not dispelled the arrogance of the US enraptured in the title "winner of the Cold War" and its overconfidence in the "maker of history" conclusion.
Standing at the start of the third decade of the 21st century, people can witness how American politicians still view every country considered to be a threat through the Cold War lens. They are still keen to incite ideological hostility and battle their own imaginary enemies, which makes the dissipation of the dark Cold War clouds virtually impossible. The shadow of the Cold War has spread from Washington to Beijing and Moscow.
From disintegrating the Soviet Union to designing the "Ukrainian Trap" step by step with the intention of achieving the strategic goals of "eliminating" Russia, suppressing Europe, containing China and maintaining an absolute hegemony, the "strategic master plan" adopted by the US can kill many birds with one stone in order to dominate the world.
The US is still a schemer that harbors a Cold War mentality.
US plays 'central role' in political demise of Soviet Union
"NATO is a defensive alliance that has never sought the demise of Russia," said US President Joe Biden, defending the eastward expansion of NATO in a speech he delivered in Warsaw on March 26, but turning a blind eye to the "not one inch eastward" pledge that NATO had made in the 1990s. Biden's words were not a complete lie, as there's little possibility of trying to eliminate (or, achieve the demise) of a nuclear world power with more than 17 million square kilometers of land and a permanent seat on the United Nations (UN) Security Council.
A physical "demise" of Russia is almost impossible. Nonetheless, the US-led NATO has been attempting to "eliminate" Russia in the past decades in various aspects including politically, economically, culturally, and ideologically, in order to keep dividing and weakening Russia, observers noted. Having acted out a similar script on the Soviet Union, the US is now looking forward to an encore performance on present-day Russia.
"The American role in the political defeat of the Soviet Union... was indeed central," Zbigniew Brzezinski, a renowned US geopolitical expert who served as President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981, pointed out in his book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. "The defeat of the Soviet Union was the consequence of a forty-year bipartisan effort that spanned the presidencies," he wrote. "...almost every US President made a substantial contribution to the outcome."
A prominent example of this "effort" was the US' Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as the "Star Wars program," which was proposed by then US President Ronald Reagan in March 1983. The US proposed the program to try to maintain its nuclear superiority, hoping to bring the Soviet Union's economy to its knees through space arms races.
The US announced the end of the program after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The release of the secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents in the Cold War era showed that the "Star Wars program" that the US had hyped was no more than a calculated strategic deception.
Another "Cold War tool" resorted by the US was its foreign propaganda machine system, such as the Voice of America (VOA). Founded in 1942, VOA began to serve the US' Cold War strategy after WWII, and became the main tool for the US government's promotion to the Soviet people of, not only the American way of life but also the principles of the "free world."
In the 21st century, the US still wields its ideological "soft knife," playing up its color revolution intrigues under the disguise of "democratic values" to countries such as Ukraine, Georgia and Tunisia, which only brought about three instances of political turmoil, mass impoverishment and war.
US engrossed in creating purported enemies
The end of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union did not bring about an end to the US' Cold War mindset, which continues to haunt the White House, Capitol Hill, the Pentagon and the CIA even today. American politicians view the international situation through a "zero-sum game" and "ideological competition" mindset, and keep seeking out purported enemies - now Russia and China.
It is truly a reflection of the US' geopolitical strategic ambition when former US President Barack Obama said that "Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors" or when the incumbent, Biden, said Russia is the country that most "threatens [the] security" of the US while China is US' main competitor. There has long been an anti-Russian consensus among America's political elites.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia had pinned great hopes for the West. But as former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, "We lied, we cheated, we stole… we had entire training courses" and "It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." That encompasses reasons why an ambitious schemer cannot be trusted.
https://youtu.be/DPt-zXn05ac
From 1999 to 2020, NATO increased its membership from 16 to 30 through an eastward expansion, completing the 3,000-kilometer-long strategic encirclement of Russia.
Since 2014, Russia has been slapped with 5,532 sanctions, according to sanctions monitoring database Castellum.ai, followed by Iran, Syria and North Korea. And Moscow has been subjected to 2,778 new sanctions in less than two weeks since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops' advancement into Ukraine.
At the same time, the US has been trying to undermine Putin's domestic authority, paving the way for a potential "color revolution" in Russia.
Who set the 'Ukraine trap'
Analysts point out that the current situation in Ukraine is a trap that the US has spent years digging into and is determined to draw Russia into.
To prevent Russia from becoming a threat to US hegemony again, the US has promoted two "color revolutions" in Ukraine, first by putting the pro-West Viktor Yushchenko in the presidency in 2005 and then forcing pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych out of office in 2014.
Since August 2021, the US government has been speculating about Russian troops along the border with Ukraine and the possibility of an "imminent invasion" of Ukraine, which further provoked Russia.
It is almost certain that not only does the US want to deter Russia, but it also wants Russia to send troops to Ukraine, said Tang Shiping, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, adding that the real purpose of the US' actions was to force Russia to use force against Ukraine.
Supporters of US-backed Ukrainian opposition leader wave flags during a rally in Kiev, Ukraine on November 28, 2004. Photo: AFP
The tactic of weakening Europe's strategic autonomy by putting it in a dangerous situation, a tactic that the US always used during the Cold War, is being played out again in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In this gradual escalation of the situation in Ukraine, the US continues to provide funds and weapons to Ukraine and impose a full range of sanctions on Russia. The sense of crisis created by the US has also strengthened Europe's dependence on the US and NATO, thus greatly enhancing the US' chokehold over Europe, experts noted.
Complex security issues should not be dealt with in a simplistic approach of determining whether "friend or foe" or "black or white," said Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi during a virtual meeting with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell Fontelles on March 29, 2022. "Facts have proven that the outdated Cold War mentality and camp confrontation leads nowhere in Europe, let alone the acts of taking sides and dividing the world," Wang noted.
Dragging the Cold War to the 21st century
"After 1991, the Cold War did not really end, as the US and NATO have not stopped strategically hemming Russia's territorial integrity. In recent years, the US has also regarded China as its main competitor, trying to shape an external environment that is not conducive to China's development through various means," Lü Xiang, a research fellow on US studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times.
American politicians not only harbor a "Cold War mentality," but also continue to promote a new "Cold War strategy."
Robert Gates, former secretary of defense, wrote in the Washington Post on March 3 that "A new American strategy must recognize that we face a global struggle of [an] indeterminate duration against two great powers that share authoritarianism at home and hostility to the United States."
The two countries Gates refers to are undoubtedly Russia and China. Containing them and ensuring that no one can shake US' hegemony has become the core of the US' current global strategy.
"NATO members have demonstrated their loyalty to Washington by vowing to follow its orders aimed at ultimately containing Russia," the Russian Foreign Ministry's spokesperson Maria Zakharova said on March 24, adding that Washington once again "disciplined" its allies by pressuring sovereign countries and erasing Europe's strategic autonomy.
Supporters of Pro-Russian groups protest during US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin' visit in Bulgaria on March 19, 2022 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: AFP
In terms of China, the US government has introduced the "Pivot to Asia" and the "Indo-Pacific strategy," and has united with Japan, India, Australia, and other countries in the region to consolidate small strategic cliques such as "QUAD" and "AUKUS," trying to contain China from multiple directions.
Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, summed up that the competition between the US and China will be all-rounded, involving governments and societies; in-depth competition could lead to a serious weakening or even decoupling of China-US ties in the fields of industrial chain, science and technology, and people-to-people and cultural exchanges; in terms of intensity, competition is extraordinary.
"Since President Joe Biden entered the White House a year ago, he and his top advisers have insisted they are not looking for a return to the superpower competition between the United States and the Soviet Union that dominated global affairs for nearly five decades. Yet one year into his presidency, Biden's actions have indicated otherwise," a commentary published on the US National Interest website stated, adding that in all areas of US foreign policy, the Biden administration has a Cold War-style mentality.
"The Cold War was not a golden era of foreign relations, but instead was a tragedy that cost millions of lives around the world. Washington cannot fall for feel-good nostalgia about its Cold War victory," it stated