Based on Rui Abiru’s column in the Sankei Shimbun, this article explains why the new coronavirus should be called the “Wuhan virus.” It examines the Chinese government’s attempts to shift responsibility, statements by senior U.S. officials, the Japanese media’s tendency to defend China, and the danger of using vague terminology.

March 19, 2020
The existence of Japanese citizens who allow such a person to be paid an effective annual income of about 50 million yen as a member of Japan’s National Diet is one of the foremost things Japan cannot be proud of before the world.
The following is from a serial column by Rui Abiru, one of the finest active journalists, published in today’s Sankei Shimbun under the title “Why It Should Be Called the Wuhan Virus.”
What should we call the new coronavirus that causes pneumonia spreading throughout the world?
The WHO, the World Health Organization, named it “COVID-19,” but this hard-to-remember disease name has not really spread, nor does it feel clear.
Since it is a disaster that will likely remain in history, a clearer name is more appropriate.
China aiming to shift responsibility
“There are LDP lawmakers who use discriminatory expressions such as ‘Wuhan fever.’”
Renho, deputy leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party, pointed this out on Twitter on February 15.
＊I learned this for the first time, but as I have written before, Renho’s relationship with China is far too suspicious, including her history of studying at Peking University.
The existence of Japanese citizens who allow such a person to be paid an effective annual income of about 50 million yen as a member of Japan’s National Diet is one of the foremost things Japan cannot be proud of before the world.＊
This was probably out of concern that connecting the disease with a specific place name might encourage reputational damage or discrimination.
That said, when one looks at China’s posture of trying to evade responsibility, removing the place name or country name may, rather, create harmful consequences.
In the United States, senior government officials have clearly called this virus the “Chinese virus” (President Trump) and the “Wuhan virus” (Secretary of State Pompeo).
This is not without reason.
In a speech on the 11th of this month, National Security Advisor O’Brien declared that the Chinese government’s initial response to the virus was “a cover-up,” and strongly criticized it as follows.
“Because of that, the responses of countries around the world were delayed by two months.”
A Hong Kong newspaper also reported on the 13th that the first infected person developed symptoms in China’s Hubei Province in November of last year, and it is only natural that Mr. Trump stated the following on the same day.
“China knows where the virus came from. The United States also knows the origin of the virus.”
Meanwhile, China is not only openly taking an attitude of escaping responsibility, but is also blatantly attempting to shift responsibility to other countries.
On the 12th, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian wrote on Twitter, without presenting any evidence, that “the U.S. military may have brought the epidemic to Wuhan.”
In response, Pentagon spokeswoman Farah also wrote on Twitter that “the Chinese Communist Party is spreading a ridiculous conspiracy theory that is contrary to the facts.”
However, China, which originally places greater importance on political effect than on facts, will likely continue trying to pin the blame not only on the United States, but also on other countries, including Japan.
In fact, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang expressed “strong indignation” in response to Mr. Trump’s remark about the “Chinese virus.”
It is as if he were saying that the virus has nothing to do with China.
Mr. Pompeo also emphasized in a phone call on the 16th with Yang Jiechi, a member of the Communist Party Politburo and China’s top diplomat, that “this is not the time to spread disinformation and odd rumors.”
China’s “global information manipulation” (a senior U.S. State Department official) has begun.
Vague terminology is irresponsible
The problem is that, in Japan, there are not a few people who, in such cases, immediately relativize the matter cheaply by saying “both sides are the same” or “it is a mudslinging match,” or who simply view it as something that “does not matter either way.”
Professor Jun Sakurada of Toyo Gakuen University warned as follows on Facebook on the 18th and appealed for the importance of terminology.
“The exchange of accusations between the United States and China must not be understood on the level of a ‘children’s quarrel’ inappropriate in the midst of a crisis.”
“The outcome of the U.S.-China conflict is directly connected with the shape of the world to come. I, Sakurada, believe it is important to continue using the term ‘Wuhan virus disaster,’ because I do not wish for the arrival of a world in which the intentions of authoritarian states like China hold sway.”
In Japan, the media reported critically that Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Taro Aso said on the 10th, “that thing called the Wuhan virus.”
＊I learned this for the first time as well, but it is now known to all under heaven that these media outlets, probably the Asahi Shimbun and others, are under the influence of Chinese and Korean operations, that they are masses of self-tormenting historical views without parallel in the world, and that they are madmen who devote themselves to degrading their own country.
In other words, the Asahi Shimbun, NHK, and others are naked emperors, just like Xi Jinping and Moon Jae-in.
Even Takashi Uemura, a representative of the lowest kind of human being, has said, “Only after leaving the Asahi Shimbun did I learn how severe the public wind was.”
In other words, they are madmen playing with logic that is valid only within their own organizations.
The Japanese people and the whole world must know that the people controlling NHK’s news department are the same.＊
However, to make the terminology ambiguous, defend China, and leave its propaganda war unchecked can be called irresponsible as a member of the world.
(Editorial writer and political department editorial committee member)