This is a follow-up comment that addresses the 6 points I mentioned in my other comment.
---
Re point 1: you keep saying they "covered it up" but based on what evidence? The first doctor who discovered it, Zhang Jixian, diagnosed an unknown pneunomia on Dec 27. By Dec 31 the case had been escalated to WHO. Where is the room for "covering up"?
Yes Wuhan officials probably were incentivized to not raise a big fuss until more about the virus is known. They probably erred too much on the optimistic side. But being too optimistic in the face of an unknown virus is still a far cry from "covering up" which would mean intend to lie in the face of clear evidence. Where is your evidence that that's what happened?
Where is the "misleading WHO"? The only thing I could think of was that tweet from the WHO saying that they "found no clear evidence of transmission", but that's not at all the same as "it's not transmissible". Now one would be correct in saying that that's too vaguely worded. So literally the next day they clarified that "transmission is still possible"[1].
Thus, I conclude that continued assertions that "they covered it up" is based on prejudice and the tendency to blame China, not based on actual facts.
[1] https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/15/china-says-it-s-possible...
---
Re point 2: why is COVID "wholly China's fault" when western countries failed to take precautions even 1 month after the Wuhan lockdown? 1 month after Wuhan I remembered that Alglophone media still called it "a flu", and that the Dutch prime minister didn't take the issue seriously at all. Yeah just wash your hands and sneeze in your elbow, no need for further precautions. A week later he had to eat his own words. How is this China's fault? Is locking down a megacity not enough of a warning?
This also brings us back to point 1. We can now say that Wuhan officials were wrong to have been too optimistic. But by the time Wuhan locked down, it should have been safe to say that one must err on the side of caution instead. But western countries didn't do that: they were still too optimistic. Why is Wuhan officials — who had little knowledge of the virus — being optimistic, a sign of a wholly corrupt regime that's 100% to blame for COVID, while western countries who were too optimistic despite massive warning not wholly corrupt and blameable?
I assert that this double standard is based on prejudice and sinophobia.
---
Re point 4 and 5: where are the lies? What exactly did they lie about? You keep saying that they lie but where is the evidence? Why are you so convinced that they must lie even in the absence of such evidence? The Chinese public certainly doesn't think that the whole system and whole regime systematically lies (corruption here and there exist, as with anywhere else in the world).
In the absence of evidence about lying, I assert that the iron-clad belief that they must lie is based on prejudice and sinophobia.
---
Re point 6: "military aggression" is propaganda, not based on facts.
China hasn't shot a bullet over its borders in 40 years. China still has border disputes, but those disputes are neither recent, nor did they arise out of military aggressiveness, nor are they purely a China problem.
All desputes are a legacy of the colonial period when the British drew lines all over Asia that neighboring countries later didn't agree on. All disputes that the People's Republic has and had, were inherited in 1949 from its predecessor state — none of the disputes are recent.
All land border issues, with the exception of India, have been resolved. The Indian dispute hasn't been resolved not because China is aggressive: in late 80s, China offered a very common-sense diplomatic solution, namely turning the status quo (territories that are de-facto controlled by each party) into official territory. India said no because they promised their public that all territory belonged to them.[2]
W.r.t. China's response to Russia: this is not a case of "the world unites against Russia and only China fails to condemn Russia, therefore China is complicit", as the media wants to paint. Pretty much only the west and its traditional allies like Japan, have voted in the UN to condemn Russia. Many other countries besides China have abstained, including India, most of the ASEAN countries, and many African states.[3][4] To single out China as being a sole "Russia enabler" is pretty disingenuous. But I will also add that I don't know all that much about Russia or China-Russia relationships so this is all I will say about this matter.
The South China Sea dispute is not a case of "China is aggressive against all other countries in the region and all others are asking for help against China". It's a case of "everybody in that region has disputes with everybody else". Vietnam and Taiwan have disputes with each other[5]. Vietnam and and Malaysia have disputes with each other[7].
China started building islands as a response to US military aggression (Pivot to Asia). China didn't want to do this and offered to deescalated together with the US, US said no, so China said "have it your way". Vietnam has been bulding islands in the SCS since the late 70s[6], so China is pretty late to that game.
It's definitely not a case of "countries unite against Chinese aggression". When AUKUS was formed, Malaysia expressed grave concern about AUKUS, going as far as planning consultations with China[8]. Singapore started holding navy drills with China[9]. ASEAN countries upgraded strategic ties with China.[10]
The 2022 ASEAN-US summit was postponed indefinitely.[11] There is indeed military aggression in that area, but it's not China. The US tried painting China as an aggressor, not only in SCS but also re Russia. But ASEAN countries don't see it that way, and re Russia they perceive China as neutral.
One thing I've learned in the past 2 years following geopolitics is that when people say "the world" or "the international community", they mean "the west and its allies like Japan". If you actually look at the world map and see what countries outside that clique think, you get a very different picture.
[2] Asian Peace Talks with Kishore Mahbubani E6: India's Relations with China and Pakistan: interview with Professor Kanti Bajpai, the foremost expert on India-China-Pakistan relations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoR0nQjvnkU&t=21m30s (21:30)
[3] Signatories to UN letter criticizing Russia's invasion of Ukraine: https://www.axios.com/un-security-council-vote-condemn-russi...
[4] Why African Countries Had Different Views on the UNGA Ukraine Resolution, and Why This Matters: https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-african-countries-had-diff...
[5] https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-asks-taiwan-to-sto...
[6] https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3156306/south-c...
[7] https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_how-vietnam-mala...
[8] https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3149713/mal...
[9] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234992.shtml
[10] https://www.france24.com/en/video/20211028-asean-summit-sout...
[11] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/25/bidens-summit-with-...
---
In conclusion, I still assert that the notion that China is a militaristic hellhole that abuses its own citizens, is not based on fact, but on misrepresentations (i.e. anti-China propaganda), prejudice (one already believed that China is bad, so one is inclined to believe stories/rumors that confirm this regardless of their truth), ignorance (the "rest of the world" is bigger than the west), and sinophobia (fear of the Other; applying a different and unrealistic standard on China).