Few controversies from the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic have generated as much global debate as the World Health Organization’s repeated praise of China’s “transparency.” At a time when Chinese doctors were being silenced, journalists were disappearing, and critical data was either delayed or concealed, the WHO continued to applaud China for its “speed,” “openness,” and “effective response.”

This contradiction—between China’s public narrative and evidence from whistleblowers, leaked memos, and internal frustrations within WHO itself—raises a critical question:

Why did the WHO publicly praise China despite mounting signs of secrecy, censorship, and suppressed information?

To answer this, we must look beyond surface-level explanations and examine the political dynamics, institutional weaknesses, geopolitical pressures, and strategic calculations that shaped WHO’s public messaging.

I. The Early Timeline: The Praise Began While Truth Was Being Suppressed

To understand the WHO’s praise, we must revisit the timeline.

December 2019 – Early Alarms Ring in Wuhan

Doctors in Wuhan, including the now-famous Dr. Li Wenliang, warned colleagues about a SARS-like outbreak. Instead of being supported, they were reprimanded by police for “spreading rumors.”

Early January 2020 – China Downplays the Threat

While infections spread rapidly:

• China denied human-to-human transmission for weeks.

• Authorities withheld case data.

• Independent researchers were ordered to stop publishing findings.

• Genome sequences were delayed despite scientists already discovering them.

Yet during this period, the WHO publicly repeated China’s claims and thanked China for “timely sharing of information.”

January 14, 2020 – WHO Amplifies a Misleading Narrative

The WHO tweeted that preliminary investigations by Chinese authorities found “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.”

We later learned Chinese officials already had multiple clusters showing clear transmission.

February–March 2020 – Whistleblowers and Leaks Expose the Cover-Up

Reports emerged of:

• doctors forced into silence

• journalists disappearing

• laboratories shut down

• samples destroyed

• data on early cases withheld from foreign experts

Yet the WHO continued praising China’s “commitment to transparency.”

So why?

II. The WHO’s Dependence on Member States: A Structural Weakness

The WHO is not a police force. It cannot:

• enter a country without permission

• demand access to hospitals

• seize documents

• interview whistleblowers

• force a government to release data

The organization fundamentally relies on member states voluntarily sharing information. Its power exists only with cooperation.

In the early days of COVID-19, China tightly controlled access—but it controlled some doors. The WHO leadership believed maintaining good relations was the only way to keep those doors open.

Thus, praising China became a diplomatic strategy, however questionable.

III. Political and Financial Influence: China’s Growing Leverage Over International Institutions

China’s rising influence in UN agencies—including the WHO—cannot be overlooked.

1. China’s Contributions and Leadership Influence

China is a major funder of WHO programs, especially through:

• direct contributions

• voluntary contributions

• funding through affiliated organizations

While not the largest donor, China’s money increasingly supports crucial WHO activities, giving Beijing leverage.

Additionally, China’s diplomatic presence in multilateral institutions has grown dramatically in the last decade.

2. WHO Leadership Needed Chinese Cooperation

Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has long emphasized diplomacy and cooperation. For China, he adopted a conciliatory tone, believing:

• China would share more data if treated with respect

• Public criticism might shut down access completely

• Maintaining good relations would allow WHO teams to enter Wuhan

Even after China delayed WHO access for more than a year, this diplomatic approach remained unchanged.

IV. Fear of Political Fallout: Avoiding a U.S.–China Geopolitical Crisis

The early pandemic unfolded amid intense rivalry between the United States and China. The WHO feared becoming a battlefield in a geopolitical war.

If WHO publicly challenged China:

• China could cut cooperation and block all investigations

• Other nations might take sides

• WHO could be destabilized or defunded (which eventually happened when the U.S. froze funding)

To avoid escalation, the WHO chose a “neutral” or “supportive” tone—even when evidence contradicted China’s narrative.

This wasn’t neutrality; it was strategic silence.

V. A Diplomatic Strategy Gone Wrong: “Praise to Gain Access”

Several WHO insiders admitted—off the record—that public praise was intended to:

• encourage China to share more data

• keep Chinese authorities cooperative

• avoid embarrassing Beijing

• position WHO as a “partner,” not an adversary

The problem?
Praising a government that suppresses critical information does not incentivize honesty. Instead, it rewards secrecy.

China interpreted WHO’s praise as validation, not pressure.

VI. Internal Frustration Inside WHO: The Truth Behind Closed Doors

Leaked audio recordings and internal documents revealed deeper tensions.

WHO officials privately criticized China

Behind the scenes, WHO staff:

• complained about China withholding genome data

• worried about delayed case reports

• expressed frustration at lack of transparency

One leaked WHO memo stated China was providing data “in fragments.”

Another internal briefing noted that China was “not sharing information we need.”

Yet the public messaging remained positive.

This disconnect between private frustration and public praise made the WHO appear compromised and overly deferential.

VII. The WHO’s “China Model” Narrative: A PR Strategy

Another reason for excessive praise was the WHO’s desire to highlight public health successes. China executed a massive lockdown of Wuhan—an unprecedented action. WHO leadership framed this as:

• bold

• swift

• decisive

• evidence of China’s “competence”

By promoting China’s response as a global example, the WHO hoped to persuade other nations to adopt similarly aggressive measures.

However, this narrative ignored:

• the early concealment of the outbreak

• the censorship of doctors

• the destruction of samples

• the suppression of bad news

The WHO praised China’s actions after the virus spread—but failed to question what happened before the containment effort began.

VIII. Maintaining Access Became More Important Than Speaking Truth

Ultimately, WHO leaders faced a choice:

Speak bluntly—and risk losing all access?
Or speak diplomatically—and maintain cooperation with constraints?

They chose diplomacy.

However, diplomacy during a fast-moving pandemic can become dangerous. By presenting China’s narrative as accurate, the WHO inadvertently:

• misled other countries

• delayed global response

• undermined trust

• damaged its own credibility

In global health, truth is a weapon. But the WHO chose caution instead.

IX. The Consequences: Public Trust Eroded and Political Backlash Exploded

The WHO’s praise of China had far-reaching consequences.

1. Erosion of Public Confidence

Many governments—especially in the West—began to doubt WHO’s neutrality.

2. Delayed Response Across Nations

By repeating China’s early statements, WHO inadvertently encouraged countries to:

• underestimate the virus

• delay border controls

• slow down testing and tracing

3. Escalating Geopolitical Tensions

Critics accused the WHO of being too close to China. This accusation, whether fair or exaggerated, became a major political flashpoint.

4. Difficulty of Later Investigations

When WHO eventually sent a team to Wuhan, its credibility was already weakened by perceived deference.

X. A Failure Rooted in Diplomacy, Dependence, and Institutional Weakness

Why did the WHO praise China despite evidence of secrecy and suppressed information?
The answer lies in a combination of:

• institutional dependence

• diplomatic strategy

• geopolitical pressure

• leadership styles

• fear of losing access

• China’s influence

• lack of enforcement powers

The WHO’s mistake was not merely praising China—it was treating diplomacy as more important than accuracy during a global emergency.

The world needed an independent, assertive, uncompromising health watchdog.
Instead, it received a politically cautious organization navigating global sensitivities.

The lesson is clear:

A pandemic cannot be fought with diplomacy alone.
It requires transparency, accountability, and the courage to speak truth to power—even when that power is a global superpower.