• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Paul Haenle"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Carnegie China Commentaries"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Democracy",
    "Economy",
    "Civil Society"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary
Carnegie China

China’s Zero COVID Policy Is a Double-Edged Sword

Beijing must choose between preserving its pandemic narrative or facing more unrest.

Link Copied
By Paul Haenle
Published on Dec 1, 2022

Over the past several days, China has witnessed both an increasingly severe coronavirus outbreak and an explosion of protests against its Zero COVID policy. A deadly fire in a locked-down apartment building in Xinjiang was the proximate cause of the latest round of unrest, though resentment and anger against Beijing’s harsh virus containment policies has been building for some time. The Chinese leadership now faces a difficult choice between relaxing restrictions, with the potential for greater viral spread, or ignoring protesters’ demands at the cost of greater social discontent.

In recent weeks, the Chinese government has sent mixed signals about the degree of coronavirus restrictions necessary to contain the virus, leading many to question the efficacy of the current policy. At the 20th Party Congress in October, many Chinese observers anxiously searched for indications that China would shift away from Zero COVID, but such hints were disappointingly absent. Chinese President Xi Jinping only mentioned the policy in the section of his speech on achievements of the past five years, wherein he highlighted the restrictions’ importance in stopping the spread and reducing fatalities. The work report did not include information on how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would handle the coronavirus pandemic going forward.

One month later, Beijing announced twenty measures meant to ease restrictions, including shortening quarantines for travelers and relaxing some contact tracing measures. Chinese citizens viewed these modifications optimistically, but the measures appear to have added to the confusion about China’s evolving approach to the pandemic. While some Chinese cities, such as Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Zhengzhou, have begun to ease lockdowns in recent days, and central authorities have begun to make rhetorical shifts by omitting reference to “dynamic Zero COVID,” a complete relaxation of the strict policy is unlikely anytime soon, as rising cases risk undermining the narrative that China handled the pandemic better than any other country.

To make matters worse, Chinese citizens saw crowds of maskless World Cup fans cheering in Qatar, leaving a deep impression that while the world has moved on, they continue to suffer under the highly restrictive and harsh measures of China’s current policy.

There is no doubt that Xi faces daunting challenges dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. But his problem really begins with how he wants China’s pandemic story to end, a story wherein the CCP’s Marxist-Leninist political system was able to manage the virus better than any other political system, especially those of the United States and other Western democracies.

The narrative Xi wants to tell is one where the Chinese people are strong and willing to sacrifice their individual freedoms for the common good. While the West may have returned to normal life faster than China, in Xi’s mind, it did so at the expense of its citizens and broader public health. The CCP protected its people, took care of their safety, and ensured that China made it through the coronavirus pandemic without the high mortality rates that many other countries experienced. This narrative overlooks the many other social ills brought on by Zero COVID, such as the inability of locked-down residents to receive emergency medical care, let alone engage in normal business and social activities.

So if Xi’s goal is to show the strengths of China’s political system through Zero COVID, how will the leadership be able to relax restrictive policies while avoiding the high transmission and mortality rates that would undermine his ultimate political objectives?

To move beyond Zero COVID, China would need to vaccinate a much higher percentage of its citizens, including the vulnerable elderly, and make significant improvements to China’s health care infrastructure. The country’s ICU capacity, for example, is wanting—China has at least seven times fewer per capita than that of the United States. Add the fact that many Chinese have not developed any form of herd immunity after suppressing the virus for so long, leading to the potential for more severe illnesses.

Given these challenges, the Chinese leadership faces a double-edged sword: relax Zero COVID restrictions and risk a high infection and fatality rate, or continue along the current path and risk continued citizen anger, frustration, and resentment.

About the Author

Paul Haenle

Former Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair, Carnegie China

Paul Haenle held the Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and is a visiting senior research fellow at the East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore. He served as the White House China director on the National Security Council staffs of former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Carnegie China Scholars on the Biden-Xi Meeting
      • +1

      Paul Haenle, Xue Gong, Ngeow Chow Bing, …

  • Q&A
    Biden and Xi Meet at APEC

      Paul Haenle, Chong Ja Ian

Paul Haenle
Former Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair, Carnegie China
Paul Haenle
DemocracyEconomyCivil SocietyEast AsiaChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Kremlin Is Destroying Its Own System of Coerced Voting

    The use of technology to mobilize Russians to vote—a system tied to the relative material well-being of the electorate, its high dependence on the state, and a far-reaching system of digital control—is breaking down.

      Andrey Pertsev

  • People in voting booths
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Indian Americans Still Lean Left. Just Not as Reliably.

    New data from the 2026 Indian American Attitudes Survey show that Democratic support has not fully rebounded from 2020.

      • +1

      Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, Andy Robaina, …

  • A young man uses Kimi, an AI grand model of artificial intelligence launched by Moonshot AI, in Shanghai, China, March 22, 2024.
    Article
    China Is Worried About AI Companions. Here’s What It’s Doing About Them.

    A new draft regulation on “anthropomorphic AI” could impose significant new compliance burdens on the makers of AI companions and chatbots.

      Scott Singer, Matt Sheehan

  • Teenagers hold a large banner reading "stop pollution in Gabes, stop pollution everywhere, save Gabes'' in English and Arabic
    Article
    Civil Society Restrictions in North Africa: The Impact on Climate-Focused Civil Society Organizations

    For climate-focused civil society in countries like Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia to be most effective, organizations should work together to develop networks that extend their reach beyond their local area and connect across borders to share best practices and amplify each other’s work.

      • Sarah Yerkes

      Sarah Yerkes

  • Research
    New Approaches to Defending Global Civil Society

    New thinking is needed on how global civil society can be protected. In an era of major-power rivalry, competitive geopolitics, and security primacy, civil society is in danger of getting squeezed – in some countries, almost entirely out of existence.

      Richard Youngs, ed., Elene Panchulidze, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.