While Chinese diplomats could have expressed themselves more tactfully than saying it was "nothing but a joke" for the Federal government to claim vindication of its call for an independent, and wide ranging inquiry into the origins of, and the response to, the coronavirus, they have something of a point.
The statement, circulated by the Chinese Embassy in Canberra on Tuesday, argues there was an enormous gulf between what Australian politicians, including the Foreign Minister, Marise Payne, and the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, had called for, and the resolution adopted at the World Health Association conference.
Australia has been pressing for a fully independent inquiry into the origins of, reaction to, and spread of, the coronavirus for more than a month.
Ms Payne, who first floated the idea on the ABC's Insiders program, told host David Speers any inquiry should not be conducted by the World Health Organisation.
That was because of the questions that had been raised over the way the WHO, and its director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, had responded to the outbreak.
The WHO held off on declaring a global pandemic for two weeks longer than Australia, it advised against the imposition of travel restrictions against China in the crucial first weeks of the outbreak, and has been criticised for accepting Chinese assurances at face value. This was despite the fact the WHO had been critical of the quality of information made public by the Chinese during both the SARS and swine flu outbreaks earlier this century.
Ms Payne even went so far as to assert that if an inquiry into the coronavirus was carried out by the WHO it would be a case of "poacher turned gamekeeper".
China has got the inquiry it wants, to be conducted by who it wants, and to be held when it wants.
This week's World Health Assembly resolution to commission an "independent" inquiry, to be conducted by the WHO, which was co-sponsored by China and supported by more than 130 of the association's almost 200 member states, was a clear victory for Beijing.
China has got the inquiry it wants, to be conducted by the investigators it wants, and to be held when it wants. And, contrary to what Ms Payne has said, it does not specifically cover the origins of the virus.
Given the probe won't begin until the WHO declares the pandemic to be over, it may take months, even years, before investigators set foot in Wuhan.
This result was, of course, inevitable. No inquiry, "independent" or otherwise" is possible without Chinese consent. There was no way China, or any other sovereign nation, would agree to what Australia was initially proposing.
There was always some hope, however, that if a groundswell of support had emerged for a truly independent and third party probe, the pressure would have been on China to be more forthcoming than it is now likely to be.
By playing along with the WHO's "independent" inquiry, even to the extent of co-sponsoring the motion, Beijing has knocked the idea of a separate investigation on the head and buried it forever.
Any attempt to turn the WHO probe into a total whitewash is fraught with peril, however. If western nations lose faith in the WHO, their vital financial support for the organisation may be scaled back to the point it faces an existential crisis.
While a multitude of small states, many of which are open to Chinese influence and coercion, can dominate the voting, they don't put much into the kitty.
Those who pay the piper will ultimately insist on some control over the tune. That is a reality both Beijing, and the WHO, are apparently yet to grasp.