HONG KONG — While many countries have been devastated by the pandemic, Hong Kong has done fairly well in containing the spread of the virus. In total, the country has only accumulated approximately 12,000 cases within a population of 7.5 million. 

However, the vaccination program that began in late February has been underwhelming, despite an abundance of supply, with merely 10.7% of the population receiving the first jab as of April 23. Efficacy issues associated with the Sinovac vaccine and general distrust toward the local and Chinese government has led to the poor vaccination rate.

Hong Kong is not known as an anti-vaccine city. Citizens are generally aware of public health issues and willing to participate in mass vaccination programs, especially after the SARS outbreak in 2003 took almost 300 Hongkongers’ lives and dampened the city’s economy. Between late 2019 and mid 2020, an estimated number of 1.2 million Hong Kong residents received flu vaccinations under government programs. 

Since February, Hong Kongers have been able to choose between two COVID-19 vaccines: Sinovac, developed by Chinese biopharmaceutical company Sinovac Biotech and endorsed by the Hong Kong government, and BioNTech, jointly developed by American company Pfizer and German company BioNTech. However, efficacy issues with Sinovac has made the vaccine-accepting public more resistant toward taking the Chinese vaccine.

Sinovac, a COVID-19 vaccine candidate developed by Chinese biopharmaceutical company Sinovac Biotech, began its Phase III clinical trial in July 2020. However, the company has not made its development process transparent. Normally, vaccine companies publish data from their Phase III clinical trial in peer-reviewed journals before obtaining approval from authorities. Sinovac has not published details on its vaccine in a journal. In contrast, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna released their Phase III trial data in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2020.

In January, before the vaccine was rolled out in Hong Kong and other countries, Sinovac was reported to have an efficacy rate of about 50%, according to Butantan Institute, a Brazilian medical research center. Chile’s recent vaccination program with Sinovac boosted the estimated rate to 56.5%, raising it slightly above WHO’s efficacy requirement of 50%. In comparison, BioNTech is reported to have about 90% efficacy rate, while AstraZeneca’s vaccine is estimated at approximately 75%.

Another concern with Sinovac is its efficacy within elderly populations. During its Phase III trial in Brazil, Sinovac did not gather enough data for its effect on individuals over the age of 60. Only 413 participants over 60 completed two doses in the clinical trial, not enough to have statistical implication.

The company has even released a disclaimer about the lack of data on elderly individuals. According to Pak-leung Ho, leading microbiologist at the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese government does not recommend the Sinovac vaccine for individuals over 60. He suggests that Hong Kong can learn from Macau’s vaccination policy, where individuals over 60 will need to consult medical professionals before taking the vaccine.

Currently, Sinovac is being distributed in countries across all continents, including Brazil, Turkey and Indonesia. Many government officials from these countries have reassured their public about the Sinovac’s effectiveness, including Khairy Jamaluddin, Malaysia’s science minister who posted on Twitter after taking the first shot of the vaccine. Singapore, however, has let its Sinovac supply sit in storage after receiving them in February, citing the lack of data as the reason the government has not approved the vaccine yet.

Despite all this, regulators approved the vaccine for use in Hong Kong in February of this year. Local media outlets cast doubt over the rushed approval process, though the government defended its decision and dismissed doubts as a “misunderstanding of the mechanism for authorising vaccines for emergency use.” 

Many citizens in Hong Kong remained wary of Sinovac. In a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong in January, fewer than 30% of respondents considered Sinovac an acceptable vaccine, compared to a 56.5% acceptance rate for the BioNTech vaccine, the other vaccine option in Hong Kong.  

Another major reason behind Hong Kong’s low vaccination rate is the public’s deep distrust of government. Since the city’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam instigated mass protests over an extradition bill two years ago, her approval ratings have plummeted to historical lows. Her government is also widely regarded as pro-Beijing, especially amid recent electoral reforms where only “patriots” are permitted to run for office.

Residents are particularly skeptical about Lam’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Chinese manufactured Sinovac. When an alliance of hospital employees warned older residents about Sinovac’s lack of sufficient trial data, Lam slammed the group for spreading misinformation. In another case, a private clinic was dropped from the government inoculation programme after it promoted BioNTech over Sinovac and cited their efficacy rates as evidence. 

So far, 15 people have died after receiving vaccines in Hong Kong, 12 of whom received Sinovac jabs. Health officials have repeatedly stressed that the deaths are not linked to the vaccines, though the public remains highly skeptical.

“According to the government, none of the deaths are related to the vaccine,” Hong Kong resident Belinda Lin told the Associated Press. “Most of the patients had cardiovascular conditions, so there must be some association, but the government seems to be trying to dissociate it.”

In March, the government suspended BioNTech shots for two weeks after a batch was discovered to have defective packaging. Authorities threw away the batch, a decision that several medical professionals questioned and likened to destroying evidence.

“I am quite surprised that the Hong Kong authorities said that they had already discarded all the problematic bottles,” said Alvin Chan, a co-chairman of the advisory committee on communicable diseases and a council member of the Medical Association. “To investigate the problem, at least these faulty bottles need to be examined meticulously by the company.”

These incidents have all raised concerns about a political agenda not just behind the vaccination drive, but the government’s endorsement of the Sinovac vaccine. 

As Ramon Yuen, a district councilor from the city’s pro-democracy opposition, told Bloomberg Quint, “many people are saying the government has its own agenda, and this will impact the effectiveness of public health policy.” 

By the end of March, the number of people who scheduled, but skipped, their Sinovac appointments stood at around 20%, compared with a 5% no-show rate for BioNTech appointments.

Recently, the vaccination drive has seen a big boost as the government said it would ease social-distancing restrictions for inoculated people. Bookings on the day of the announcement jumped up to nearly double the number on the previous day. Around 13,500 people made online reservations for the BioNTech vaccine on the first day of the announcement, compared with 3,300 who signed up for Sinovac.

Nonetheless, no matter the incentives offered, as long a lack of public confidence in not just the vaccines, but the government, remains high, the vaccination drive in Hong Kong will stay sluggish.

The post Vaccination Campaigns in Hong Kong Struggle to Gain Public Trust appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

SAN FRANCISCO — Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to demonstrate a real fear of rising opposition forces, fueled by Western social media platforms. On March 10, the Russian government announced it would be slowing down speeds on Twitter as part of a larger effort to crackdown on opposition within the country and impose sweeping national censorship. Russian authorities have increasingly attempted to intimidate social media platforms with warnings, fines and threats of blockage as they begin to mimic the oppressive internet initiatives under the Chinese government. 

The censoring of Twitter comes as a result of the Russian government arguing that social media platforms have played a major role in encouraging dissent nationwide. Alexei Navalny, the de facto head of the opposition movement in Russia, has used platforms like YouTube and Twitter to promote his anti-corruption agenda. Using the internet and other digital means has enabled Navalny to produce viral videos, including his documentary on Putin’s alleged palace, which has reached over a hundred million views on Youtube. 

Since Navalny’s most recent detainment and subsequent imprisonment in February, Russian citizens have been outraged, flooding into the streets to fight for Navalny and against the greater government corruption in the country. Navalny’s two-year sentence in Russia’s colony number two is at a correctional colony in Pokrov. Although Russia describes the facility as their average prison, in reality, Pokrov is considered the maximum level of imprisonment and an institution known for isolating its prisoners and destroying them psychologically. Navalny is one of several Russian political activists that have been imprisoned at this corrective colony. 

Due to Navalny’s success on platforms like YouTube, the Russian government has enacted greater measures to silence western social media platforms. Roskomnadzor, Russia’s federal executive body in charge of supervising media and mass communications, began the slowdown of Twitter in order to tighten the control of social media platforms following Navalny’s internet success. In February, Putin advocated for officials to monitor said platforms more closely, arguing they encourage children to participate in unsanctioned and illegal opposition protests. 

However, these attempts at censorship date back to 2012, when a law was implemented allowing the government to block or blacklist online content it deemed inappropriate. Since then, the Russian government has only increased its level of censorship. 

In 2014, the Russian State Duma passed a law requiring the personal data of Russian users to be stored on Russian servers. The government has continuously fined apps like Facebook and Twitter for their lack of action but have failed to ban either platform, possibly to avoid further public resentment. The Russian government successfully blocked LinkedIn in 2016, both because of its unpopularity in Russia and the company’s failure to adhere to Russian user data guidelines. 

During the Crimean crisis, Russian authorities banned Alexei Navalny’s blog and Kasparov.ru, owned by Garry Kasparov, a chess grandmaster and World Chess Champion, known for its condemnation of Vladimir Putin. Roskomnadzor often blocks specific Facebook or Wikipedia pages and blogs, like a 2014 Facebook page protesting the prosecution of Alexei Navalny for inciting violence or “unsanctioned mass protest”. 

In April 2018, Roskomnadzor banned Telegram for its refusal to grant the Federal Security Service access to encryption keys, but lifted the ban in 2020 due to its ineffectiveness and particularly Telegram’s ability to work around the limitation. 

In December 2020, the Russian government implemented a new bill for anyone defaming the government online and sentencing them to jail for up to two years. Another bill signed into law that same day bans online discussions of law enforcement officials and judges’ personal information or property ownership. In doing so, the government is able to silence any allegations of corruption on part of officials. 

The Russian government passed a new law in January 2021, that fines companies annual revenue by 10% if they fail to block illegal activity. One example of “illegal activity” is rallying the youth to participate in unsanctioned protests. In January, the government threatened and then proceeded to fine social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and Vkontakte, a Russianowned social media platform, for allegedly promoting protests to minors. On January 28, Putin announced that he has given the government until the first of August to create more thorough rules for foreign tech companies choosing to work in Russia. Additionally, he is requiring those same companies to open offices in the country. 

Even though Russian officials have been mostly ineffective in definitively censoring popular social media platforms like Reddit, YouTube and others, their authority over television gives them lasting control. Television, Russia’s most popular medium for entertainment and information, is government-controlled. Nearly 74% of the Russian population watches national television channels. Of the three main nationwide news broadcasters in Russia, Channel One and Russia TV are government owned, while the third, NTV is owned by the state-controlled natural gas-giant Gazprom. The majority of the population that indulges in Russian news is thus fed government-propagated information rather than unbiased news. Due to television being predominantly in the hands of the government, social media has become an even greater outlet for younger generations to engage in critical debate. 

For years, Roskomnadzor and the Russian government have been building an infrastructure to minimize the freedom of speech online. Many have argued that this push for censorship is akin to China’s government monitored internet. However, the main difference is that China’s censorship was embedded from the beginning of the internet’s expansion. As a result, the distinction between China’s government propaganda and its internet are blurred. The Chinese government strategically blocked potentially unsettling information regarding COVID-19 and any negative coverage on China’s handling of the virus. But, their censorship goes deeper than just blocking unwelcome information and rather uses specialized technology to create false, alternative narratives to controversial issues. In Russia, digital entrepreneurship was encouraged until the anti-government protests in 2011 and 2012, making it significantly more difficult for Russian officials to censor the free-internet in the same way as China. Although both regimes are similar in their oppressive tactics, Russia’s late entrance into the sphere of censored internet puts them at a significant disadvantage as social media companies have built an infrastructure to fight against government bans. 

But, Russian officials have been hinting at a “sovereign RuNet”, a platform designed to tie Russian citizens to the internet regardless of if they were to disconnect from the World Wide Web. The purpose, the government argues, is to block Western observers and intruders from cutting Russia’s communication link; yet, many activists believe this Russian controlled internet would allow for more censored content that is directly cut off from the external world.

Rather than directly force its citizens to join, officials are attempting to coax Russian social media users to switch platforms from Western apps to Russian social networks like VKontakte. Vkontakte, along with the Chinese-owned platform TikTok, have previously agreed to ban certain content that may encourage protesting in Russia. Vkontakte is known to be linked to the Russian government. 

In order to further their government-controlled internet bubble, Gazprom Media has committed to creating a video platform called RuTube in order to potentially replace Youtube. On top of that, the corporation also bought rights to “Ya Molodets”, an app that strives to resemble or, even better, replace TikTok.

The purpose of Russia’s government-run array of social media platforms isn’t only to better censor Western media content, but also to destroy the potential of viral videos that the Kremlin believes could promote dissent. That way, the government is better prepared for another Navalny figure who has the potential of encouraging younger audiences to revolt. Although they can’t directly replicate China’s successful government-censored social media platforms, they can and are trying to smear and suppress the platforms that go against their regime. 

Overall, this begs the question of whether or not Russia’s strategy for censorship will be effective in the long-term. Even though China has successfully incorporated their oppressive political tactics into their citizens’ everyday lives and thus acts as an example, Russia is unable to double-down in the same way due to their lack of control over free speech on the internet.  Jailing or eliminating opposition leaders and troublemakers as a means of censorship is nothing new. 

Yet, Putin is beginning to demonstrate a real fear that opposition is spurred on by the free internet. Russia’s inability to tackle Silicon Valley’s influence in its country could create a serious obstacle for their regime in the near future. However, Putin has curtailed similar mass protests before, like the 2011 protests, showing that Navalny might not be as real of a threat as the western media paints him to be. Navalny’s prior commitments to nationalist groups, his history of making xenophobic and controversial videos, along with his constantly fluctuating views on economic and social issues have caused Russian citizens and Western observers alike to be skeptical of a Navalny Russia. But, even if Navalny’s success as the de facto leader of the opposition is unsuccessful in dismantling Putin’s regime, the Kremlin’s lack of control over the free internet could pose significant problems for their future political success.

The post Creeping Veil: Tracking the Increase in Russian Internet Censorship appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The highly infectious nature of COVID-19, and the lack of effective action from some of the world’s governments, mean that many countries are still struggling to cope with the pandemic and its economic, political and social devastation. And while the world now moves forward with vaccinations, many countries in the Global South are left behind. Additionally, the pandemic isn’t over yet; new strains and ever-changing public health guidance leaves an uncertain future for the global community. 

But as the world begins to learn more about different country’s public health responses, key lessons have emerged. In particular, several countries have proved to be successful in controlling the virus and mitigating its effects. 

To determine the effectiveness of different country’s pandemic control, it is necessary to take into account three elements: healthcare responses, political responses and economic responses. In the past year, the Lowy Institute launched the COVID-19 Performance Index to assess different pandemic responses in nearly 100 countries. Countries were ranked based on their lock-down implementation, testing regimes, confirmed cases and death rates. The Institute found that the best global responses to COVID-19 were countries that were successful in achieving these goals with early action and mass testing. Countries identified as victors have been able to take COVID-19 transmission under control while monitoring the status closely to prevent another potential relapse. 

In contrast, countries that failed to effectively manage the pandemic have seen devastating consequences, including mass infections and high death rates. For instance, India — with over 11 million infected cases — is ranked at 86th out of 100 countries, while England ranks 66th with the highest death number in Europe. For these countries, the lack of a quick and adequate response was likely caused by early disregard for the severity of the virus, opposition to scientific guidelines by country officials or inefficient enforcement of lock-downs. 

This article will provide a brief overview of countries that have been labeled relative “victors” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

China: Strict Policies

China, the first country where COVID-19 became prevalent in 2020, has implemented efficient policies and public health strategies since last March. To first tackle the pandemic, China initiated a uniform and centralized response and alerted Chinese citizens quickly when deadly cases first appeared in Wuhan Province. 

One of the most critical policies undertaken was an immediate lockdown of Wuhan Province in January 2020, following a surging number of COVID-19 related deaths in late 2019. The province’s quarantine lasted for 76 days with 14,000 health checkpoints established to conduct timely tests. More impressive was the fact that 9 million people were tested during the region’s lockdown under short notice and with limited medical personnel. 

As Wuhan underwent a severe lockdown, other cities throughout China quickly followed suit. Outdoor activities were severely restricted and person-to-person interaction was significantly reduced. Throughout China, the government implemented face mask mandates and daily temperature tests for individuals looking to leave their homes for essential goods. In China, the government also implemented swift policies related to education: school openings were delayed and online classes were instated countrywide.

The decisiveness of Chinese policy regarding virus containment and elimination has proven to be successful, even over a year after the first emergence of the virus. In China, life has generally returned to pre-COVID normality. Fast response along with strong enforcement were the determining factors for getting preliminary virus transmission under control. 

A significant factor that prompted China’s recovery from COVID-19 was its political system. As an authoritarian country, China handled the emergency more easily than democracies across the world. China was able to mobilize the country’s resources to impose strict lock-downs and attempt to control the spread. The deeply centralized and dictatorial style of governance allowed for a military-style mobilization, which was the defining characteristic of China’s pandemic response. 170,000 party officials, executives and military personnels were summoned by Chairman Xi Jinping in a conference, who laid out clear guidelines of governing responsibilities. China’s Communist Party (CCP) demonstrated its formidable and controlling capacity in declaring and administering emergency crises. 

While China has been fast in their early actions and eager to control COVID-19’s spread, China has nonetheless been blamed for its failures in the early stages of the catastrophe. Former U.S. President Donald Trump blames China for the pandemic. He also pointed out that China did not engage in full information sharing with foreign officials, which resulted in an uncontrollable spread. Admittedly, the Wuhan mayor acknowledged that China failed to reveal necessary information in a “timely manner,” and that doctors who treated the first patients in Wuhan were under a strict order to downplay the severity of the virus and to keep silent. Moreover, many believe that the virus emerged originally from China, however, after extensive background research and laboratory tests, its spread pattern remains elusive. 

Under the Trump administration, Washington saw this as an opportunity to downgrade China’s global reputation. Trump often called COVID-19 the “Chinese virus,” and throughout the United States, anti-Chinese sentiment spiked and there has been an increase in hate crimes and acts of violence against the Asian American community. 

But, other countries that implemented similar policies and enacted national lockdowns did not seem to generate promising results. This is because in addition to a strict nationwide quarantine, China’s track and trace programs were also effective and efficiently implemented.  China put procedures in place that required each individual not only to self-track, but also to report and document their health status using apps, QR codes and social media platforms. Individuals who wanted access to public places had to demonstrate their green QR code, proving their good health status. This enabled local authorities to closely monitor the rate of virus transmission and implement policies accordingly. 

In contrast, many western countries failed to establish an effective surveillance system on health status and, therefore, lacked crucial information about virus transmission and its severity. For example, the UK has been criticized for its poor tracking system, which rendered it difficult for the country’s authorities to record accurate numbers of infected individuals and trace case interactions While the number of deadly cases were on the rise, a significant data-entry error occurred due to logistical problems, further delaying the UK’s effective tracing program during the moment it mattered most. 

Essentially, China’s government was able to engage in early, sweeping and deeply restrictive action in the name of public health. Comparatively, the United States was late to the game with poor testing checkpoints, an overwhelmed healthcare system, crippling numbers and a lack of cohesive federal action under the Trump administration. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it was reported that American labs were experiencing difficulties with processing CDC-approved testing kits. As a result, confirmed cases during early February 2020 only reached about 500, which was significantly lower than the actual number of active cases in the country. 

As China was taking strict measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 in February, the U.S. government implemented few policies targeting the virus and therefore lost the chance to control the pandemic before it spiralled out of control. It wasn’t until late February 2020, almost 2 months after the first case was reported, that the United States declared a state of emergency and began implementing travel bans, as well as considering vaccine development. 

New Zealand: Successful Leadership

New Zealand is a unique case when it comes to understanding how countries combatted COVID-19, not only due to its distinct geographical characteristics but also because of the government’s strong enforcement of health protocols. 

New Zealand’s government underwent swift actions at the early stages of pandemic to contain the virus’ spread. The international community has praised New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who executed quick and decisive measures, including a strict national lockdown and quarantine orders, with the hope of eliminating the virus. The country has identified one last-known COVID-19 case and therefore marked the end of the pandemic only in 103 days since the first case, making it fewer than 2000 COVID-19 cases altogether and 25 deaths in New Zealand. Ardern has led New Zealand with optimism and science at the forefront of her policy — reinforcing the idea that the battle against COVID-19 could be won. 

In the early stages of the pandemic, Ardern gave a speech directly to New Zealanders, which many observers noted had a soothing effect on preparing the island as a united front, ready to collectively work as a country in the name of public health. Her policies included strict quarantine for anyone entering New Zealand, suspension of select foreign travel, and a suspension of select domestic travel within the country’s borders. While COVID-19 cases were exponentially increasing in Europe and the United States in March 2020, New Zealand reported about only 1,500 cases by the end of May 2020. More importantly, New Zealand officials encouraged effective communication with health officials and supported the country’s scientists and health experts.

However, with a population of only 4.8 million people, New Zealand was able to easily move ahead the curb. The advantage of a relatively smaller population and New Zealand’s unique geographical features have played an indispensable role in its successful COVID-19 response. As an island country, New Zealand’s mountainous terrain limits residential capacity and population density remains low. It was also fairly easy to control the country’s borders. 

Comparing New Zealand’s successful efforts with those of the United States is like night and day. Former President Donald Trump decided to disband the White House’s pandemic response team in May 2018. Trump also repeatedly communicated false statements about the pandemic to the American public. His dubious attitude toward science and the pandemic have proven to be detrimental to controlling the pandemic. As of March 2021, the U.S death toll reached 568,000. After being infected with COVID-19, himself, and receiving medical care in Washington, Trump had a triumphant return to the White House, and told Americans: “Don’t be afraid of COVID.”  

Trump’s leadership, or lack thereof, posed a genuine threat to the American pandemic response — a stark contrast with the decisive and science-forward leadership of Ardern. 

Finland: Clear Communication

On the European continent, a successful model that has emerged from the pandemic is Finland, which has one of the lowest COVID-19 infection rates among the Nordic countries. With a population half of Sweden’s, Finland has only around one-tenth of Sweden’s confirmed cases and record 805 deaths in total. The low infection rates and death rates are largely attributed to its aggressive and early action. 

When the first identified case emerged, Finland implemented a two-month long lock-down swiftly following closings of public facilities including schools and restaurants. More importantly, the central feature that made such early action possible is because the constitution in Finland permitted its government to use the Emergency Act to enforce lock-down measures, which Sweden failed to use since it had a stricter constitution only for emergency situations such as war. 

Other than swift actions undertaken in early 2020, which happened two weeks earlier than other Scandinavian countries, through the increased usage of social media, Finland has excelled at public health communication, which has allowed its citizens to fully understand the severity of the virus. Clear communication was the key to Finland’s success, according to Finnish doctors, who professed direct guidelines to encourage social distancing and quarantine rules. The Finnish government also ran on transparent management with weekly public briefings with press conferences and open ground for questions commenced by Prime Minister Sanna Marin. Finland also utilized the power of technology to raise awareness of COVID-19. 

It has also effectively monitored the growth of COVID-19 through an app called “Corona Flush.” This app was widely adopted by almost every person in Finland and enabled the country to identify and keep track of virus cases. Additionally, the Finnish government partnered with social media influencers, who spread the correct information about the virus on various digital platforms. The role of social media influencers includes raising awareness and reaching as many audiences as possible, especially young people who are more active on digital media. One of the most prominent collaborations was between the Finnish government and social media influencer PING Helsinki, who was responsible for editing government messages into appropriate format and posting them on her personal account. The instances of such cooperation prevail since Finnish people have high faith in social media and have a tendency to reach fact-based information on digital networks. 

Finland has also been alert in keeping track of potential relapse of COVID-19 spread after its initial success. In fact, as there have been rising cases of COVID-19 cases in the past month, the Finnish government has immediately declared a state of emergency and responded with closing of restaurants and schools again in order to minimize human contact. It has also declared entry restrictions for any Schengen Area countries until April 2021 to prevent incoming virus. The border control has also been reinforced by a limited operation hour for the border crossing point. The Ministry highlighted that anybody who wishes to enter Finnish border must be tested negative in order to be qualified. 

Lessons Learned 

Though it is impossible to replicate the success of combatting COVID-19 in one country in another,  there are still many lessons we can glean from the success of COVID-19’s “victors.” 

Early action, a respect for science, decisive leadership and effective communication were critical factors in several countries’ successful pandemic response  But countries ought to continuously monitor the virus and public health in order to prevent another outbreak — whether it be different COVID-19 strains or different viruses all together. 

The post The Victors and Role Models Emerging from the COVID-19 Pandemic appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

A quick skim through the numbers illustrates what China claims to have accomplished. According to a BBC report, China had nearly 90 million below the poverty line in 2012, but that number was reduced to 7.2 million in 2016. President Xi’s ambitious goal of lifting 100 million people out of poverty when he assumed office in 2012, though slightly exaggerated, is in line with this sharp decline. Since 1990, China alone is responsible for eliminating more than 700 million out of poverty in 30 years, which accounts for over 60% of the global poverty population. 

The numbers sound convincing. However, as China Global Television Network (CGTN), the Chinese Communist Party’s state-owned international media network, stated in the article: “China’s fighting poverty, so why are the media so skeptical?,” the online debate surrounding China’s poverty fight is just as heated as its award ceremony.

One major critique states that China intentionally set the poverty bar too low. Critics argue that China’s adoption of the $2.30 per day threshold, which the Chinese government argues to be a modified version of the 2011 United Nations poverty line of $1.90 per day tailored to its current economic growth, is vastly outdated. China has been among the world’s fastest-growing economies and, according to the World Bank’s widely quoted phrase, is “the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history.” It should then adopt the $5.50 upper-middle-income poverty line for its data to be comparable. By intentionally adopting a poverty line that does not reflect the nation’s current status, according to international analysts, China is essentially politicizing poverty to use it as a propaganda mechanism.

The income gap, another point-of-attack by critics, complicates the situation further. This significant income gap, though slowly improving over the years, is partially because of China’s rapidly developing economy. While actors buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of luxury air villa mansions, farmers can be found living in leaking houses made of “rain-weakened mud-brick walls” and muddy roof timbers before governmental relocations. Many argue that this artificial eradication of extreme poverty only means barely lifting them over the line. In a way, however, this explains the $2.30 poverty line. While individuals by no means can live on that amount in large cities like Shanghai, Beijing, or Guangdong, people in rural areas can start their own businesses through piggybacking on increased income, government loans and improved infrastructure.

There are many other criticisms related to these claims, such as arguments on how Chinese bureaucrats lie about data just to fulfill their goals, on how the central government essentially tosses out loans and grants, and on China’s inefficiency and unsustainability in the allocation of resources. However, what is more important is not what China announced to the world, but how and when China did it. These intentional choices gradually reveal how China is working to improve its reputation in the international arena and its ambitions of standing its own ground as equals to the United States.

China framed poverty alleviation to be a group effort under Chinese Community Party (CCP) tactics. Although government strategies are comprehensive and encompassing, China would not have been able to achieve this goal if not for team work. It focuses on the marriage of individual efforts of rural villagers who are experiencing poverty and urban cadres who are sent on the mission to alleviate that poverty. This internal cooperation between coastal Eastern China and sandy Western China is highlighted by mainstream CCP rhetoric, which states that poverty reduction follows the ancient proverb of “teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” (授人以鱼不如授人以渔) Reports steer any attention on specific poverty alleviation tactics to the government’s focus on regionally-tailored business and the proliferation of e-commerce, and to selfless donations by major corporations to fund basic infrastructure and education. The spirit of collectivity and collaboration is bolded and underlined.

The time of announcement is also no coincidence as the government was particular in building up a major mass media presence. Min’Ning Town, a TV series from the new mandated genre of fupinjv (poverty alleviation dramas), finished on-set shooting on October 25, 2020. It tells the real-life story of villagers from Ningxia, Gansu, which is historically one of the poorest Chinese provinces, who migrated and built a prosperous Minning Town from scratch in the 1990s. As China declared victory on November 23, the series was forced to rush its post-production to meet the deadline. First aired on January 12, on major broadcasting channels in mainland China, the series concluded itself precisely a month before the national commencement meeting. The series proved an unlikely hit with viewers, domestic and international alike, as it did not sugar-coat challenges along the way of poverty alleviation. This rough timeline for just one TV series is evident for China’s efforts in trying to prequel its official announcement and awarding ceremony and to shape its poverty reduction methods through TV series and mass media.

The framing and timing of this announcement delivers a message beyond China’s success in alleviating poverty; it is trying to offer an alternative to the U.S. hegemony. This argument is delivered in two folds.

China seeks to frame itself as collective and united while the United States becomes increasingly polarized. China’s mainstream rhetoric is juxtaposed with U.S. domestic issues. Ranging from the surge in hate crimes against Asian Americans, to increasing political polarization, to civil uproars demanding justice for victims of police violence, recent news marks a nation that is deeply divided. Therefore, China is deliberately trying to strike a contrast between its internal cooperation and the United States’ domestic problems by framing this success in alleviating poverty as the people’s group effort.

China’s ability to hold massive in-person gatherings is also indirectly mocking the U.S. incompetency in managing the pandemic. When the rest of the world is still struggling through the pandemic, China, hit first and hard by COVID, is able to solve the poverty crisis that has troubled the world for decades.

The World Bank concludes that “[they’re] pretty sure China’s eradication of absolute poverty in rural areas has been successful,” and, even as a first step, China has shown the world how serious it is when dealing with collective welfare of the country. But, undeniably, the alleviation of poverty is politicized and turned into a major propaganda campaign aimed directly at the U.S. political hegemony. It should come as no surprise that it is then perceived as a threat by the U.S. government since its economy is barely, if at all, recovering from the COVID hit.

The post Did China Eradicate Poverty? Depends On Who You Ask appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Anytime someone logs onto the internet and uses a search engine or social media platform, that individual gives up personal data in exchange for access to the platform. In an unorthodox economic transaction, the 21st century has seen personal data replace traditional currencies — serving as the basis for our emerging digital economy. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple collect, process and use personal data for monetary gain. Analyzing personal data allows companies to create targeted ads and feedback loops that cater to personal preferences. 

But Americans seriously undervalue their personal data, especially when it comes to national security. Despite Edward Snowden’s 2013 publications which revealed that service providers like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook handed over user data to the National Security Agency for surveillance purposes, little has been done to strengthen personal data protection in the United States. Beyond its value as a means of government intelligence efforts, personal data inherently possesses commercial value. Companies that collect personal data (nearly any online service provider) have the ability to use that information largely at their own discretion. 

Personal data might seem like an unusual currency; however, it demands just as much attention and regulation as more traditional currencies like the U.S. dollar. The U.S. government must expand its ability to protect American consumers and internet users, beginning with the establishment of data localization laws. 

In the realm of personal data collection, one structure in particular garners special attention when it comes to the government’s ability to protect citizens: the cloud. In theory the cloud is a network of software and services that does not run locally on a computer. However, in practice, the cloud is a structure grounded in many physical locations and servers. Most consumers do not stress about information stored on iCloud or Google Drive because like their names suggest, this information lives in some non-geographic location. 

Therein lies the problem facing America today: How do we promote a cloud that simultaneously protects personal data and U.S. national security? 

It might make the most sense for large tech companies to tackle this issue. After all, they are the ones that created this issue in the first place. However, countries are not waiting for the private sector to take the lead on personal data protection when it comes to the cloud. The European Union, China, and Russia have already developed frameworks for handling personal data collection and cloud storage within their respective borders. In the European Union, regulators argue that large technology companies use data collection to monopolize the market and create unfair competition. Officials in China and Russia argue that data localization laws are necessary for proper law enforcement practices.

At present, the United States refuses to engage on this issue based on the principle that limiting the free flow of information and data across the internet would be “undemocratic.” But this logic is flawed primarily because the idea of a global free flow is cosmopolitan, but not necessarily democratic. Furthermore, some countries have already established laws on this issue thereby limiting free flow of data across the world. The United States is fooling itself if it believes it can maintain such a free flow of data and information. The U.S. government must abandon “data exceptionalism” or the notion that data is “incompatible with existing territorial notions of jurisdiction” and instead begin developing the American framework for cloud data localization. 

Data localization laws protect American interests by ensuring that American data cannot become subject to abuse abroad. For example, under current U.S. law, if the Russian government demanded that Google hand over all of its data about a certain American under investigation, Google would have to hand over all of the data located on that individual stored on servers in Russia. 

Likewise, if the U.S. government wanted a company to hand over personal data for an individual in question, and that data was located outside of the United States, there is no guarantee that the U.S. would be able to locate the data regardless of the individual’s nationality. 

While it might seem nice in theory for the United States to stay out of debates about data localization, other countries are forcing the issue. If the United States does not establish its own framework for data localization, we may find ourselves adhering to standards and regulations put forth by people and governments in faraway countries. 

The post A Fear of Being Fenced In: It’s Time for the United States to Tackle Data Localization appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Who makes up the internet?

India’s internet penetration rate stands at ~50% ‒ one of the poorest statistics in the world. Access has long been consolidated in urban, richer locations, though it is increasing in rural India due to affordable data plans and smartphones (even then, there are concerns about whether usage is being calculated appropriately). According to a 2020 UNICEF report, only 24% of Indian households have internet connections with which they can access remote learning.

Significant rural-urban and gender divides in internet access are obvious, but there is little data on the role of caste. Generally speaking, the Indian caste system consists of four castes. In order of precedence, these are the Brahmins (priests and teachers), the Kshatriyas (rulers and soldiers), the Vaisyas (merchants and traders), and the Shudras (laborers and artisans) These make up the upper castes of the Indian caste system. A fifth category falls outside the varna system and consists of those known as “untouchables” or Dalits. One 2019 study by the CSDS found that 29% of the people in India’s Dalit communities have used social media (compared to 46% in caste-privileged communities). High usage was seen only in 8% of Dalit communities, and 9% of OBC communities. Smartphone ownership too was found to be much lower. 

“Social media usage data suggests that the social media space has always been upper-caste dominated and continues to be so.”

The internet, of course, exists beyond social media. For many, a lack of access to the internet, rooted in their social and economic marginalization, hinders their ability to work, receive an education, and survive in an increasingly digitized world. India’s BharatNet program aims to connect 250,000 gram panchayats (village level grassroots organizations that make up the local self-governance system in India) via optical fiber by 2023, but the implementation of this program has been slow. Aditi Agrawal from MediaNama writes, “1,07,260 gram panchayats are still not connected and if work continues at the pace it did in January-August 2020, the project would take 6 years and 8 months to complete.”

How can narratives about the democratizing power of the internet be considered true when massive caste-related access gaps still exist? These statistics ‒ and the ones we don’t see ‒ reiterate the fact that social dynamics don’t cease to exist on the internet. In fact, the internet becomes an extension of our physical lives right from the moment of access. 

Even where there there is access, there is inequality

This July, Dilip Mandal, an expert on media and sociology, wrote about how India’s subaltern ‒ Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and other backward classes ‒ have not been able to challenge oppressive powers as effectively as once thought possible. This is attributed to the replication of social hierarchies ‒ the domination of privileged castes ‒ in the digital space. The internet is widely considered to be a public sphere, a realm of politics where strangers come together to engage in the free exchange of ideas. However, Mandal rightly asserts that India’s public sphere itself is hegemonic and distorted thus resulting in a similarly distorted online realm.

Here are the key highlights from a 2019 Oxfam and Newslaundry report on the representation of people from different caste groups in Indian media:

• Of the 121 newsroom leadership positions, 106 are occupied by journalists from the upper castes and none by those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 
• Three out of every four anchors of flagship debates are upper caste. Not one is Dalit, Adivasi, or OBC. 
• For over 70% of their flagship debate shows, news channels draw the majority of the panelists from the upper castes. 
• No more than 5% of all articles in English newspapers are written by Dalits and Adivasis. Hindi newspapers fare slightly better at around 10%. 
• Over half of those writing on issues related to caste in Hindi and English newspapers are upper caste. 
• Around 72% of bylined articles on news websites are written by people from the upper castes. 
• Only 10 of the 972 articles featured on the cover pages of the 12 magazines under study are about issues related to caste.

The threat of the Internet

The internet has brought with it a new set of potential issues, including the looming threat of state surveillance, privacy concerns, and the seemingly inevitable rise of technology-enabled state power. These are novel concerns for many and their rise terrifies me, but that is partly because my privilege has shielded me from an experience of life where surveillance is the norm. This is one of the many functions of caste. These concerns are only heightened under the current hyper-nationalist government.

Surveillance is a part of the process through which the dominant castes uphold their power over the oppressed castes. Privacy is the privilege of the oppressors, as has been reiterated by many Dalit-Bahujan writers and activists.

Examples of tech’s rising role in enforcing the caste system are plenty: GPS-enabled trackers tagged on Swachh Bharat (translation: Clean India) sanitation workers, the leakage of Aadhaar numbers of scheduled caste students by the Andhra Pradesh government website and the broader concern of caste-based geolocation, the surveillance and resulting criminalization of Dalits’ rights defenders, the internet shutdown in Saharanpur after a fatal caste atrocity, COVID-related personal data leaks that reveal people’s names and caste locations and hence carry the potential for abuse, the many instances of the exploitation of personal wants, needs and identity by big tech and many more instances.

This violence and violation, alongside political harassment, hyper-nationalism and the disproportionate representation of dominant castes on the internet, are a grave cause of concern, and conversations surrounding it deserve more space in the mainstream.

Mulling on social media

Recently, as #DalitLivesMatter trended online in light of caste-based violence in Hathras and systemic oppression, I wondered whether my opinion — as a woman from a dominant caste — urgently required space on social media. My conclusion was that it didn’t. 

Caste-privileged proclamations of allyship overwhelm conversations, leverage virality, and are celebrated — despite, or perhaps due to, their mediocrity. All of what is said has already been said before by people from Dalit and Bahujan communities, and I feel acutely aware of having taken up space similarly, now and in the past. 

Our proclamations are transient and fleeting, yet we are convinced that our opinions are entitled to space. This is a function of both what Dilip Mandal called replicated social hierarchies as well as the neoliberal rooting of Instagram and the social currency it demands.

Anti-caste activism and identity

Professor Mandal said that his once-held assumption that social media will allow India’s voiceless underclass to express themselves has been proven both right and wrong. The wrong is illustrated above ‒ but the right holds immense power.

Tejas Harad, journalist and founder of The Satyashodhak, writes about the sense of community that Twitter has given Dalit youngsters, and how “social media was, finally, a platform where lower-caste individuals could come together to overcome geographic and cultural boundaries”.

Even six years ago, Sunil Gangavane, working on PUKAR’s research on caste identities on social media, spoke of how students in urban cities are more likely to seek out caste-related communities online than to talk about caste in physical spaces. 

There is the power of archiving and sharing, through platforms and blogs like RTI, Velivada, and Dalit Camera. There is art, music, community, and discourse, and the best memes on the internet. The internet has aided this process of creativity, self-empowerment, solidarity and emancipation.

While the internet is not inherently democratic, and privacy concerns are rising, it’s up to all of us ‒ technologists, researchers, allies, students, and people who love️ the internet ‒ to work collaboratively to create a healthier cyberspace that prioritizes the safety of vulnerable communities. This, especially in the Indian context, requires a critical anti-caste lens on all of the things that make up our digital realities. 

It is imperative to think about ‒ and act on ‒ how systems of oppression enter and influence this space we call home. We must remember that the internet is what we make of it ‒ it has the potential to reproduce caste dynamics, exacerbate them, or challenge them.

The post Understanding Caste in the Indian Cyberspace appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As personal and face-to-face services have declined in favor of digital user engagement, online purchases have grown exponentially — contributing to the growth of one company in particular: Amazon, a tech giant that has already altered the way countries engage with global markets.

Amazon’s model perfectly aligns with the conditions set by the pandemic. As an e-commerce corporation, Amazon has managed to dominate industries ranging from electronics and books to movies and video games — and recently, groceries. Today, Amazon boasts a 38% share of the e-commerce market but only retains a 5% share of total retail. However, with the pandemic and a growing number of consumers who are reluctant to commute to stores, it is predicted that company revenue in 2023 will be at $88 billion — double what it is now in 2020. 

As a primarily data-driven company that has relied heavily on a digital shopping base and the extensive transportation of its products, Amazon’s success has only been accelerated by a pandemic that has forced millions of individuals to rely on e-commerce as an expedient and trustworthy method of purchasing products. 

Additionally, if we take a magnifying glass to Amazon’s business model, we can further understand how this company thrives amid the pandemic. The company is built as a conglomerate of separate independent units. Each unit makes its own decisions and has enough latitude to operate without the need for a rigid central base. Although Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO, makes executive decisions, the company’s decentralized structure allows units to conduct their own operations and achieve success independently.

To the outsider, it may seem that this company would face difficulty functioning at such a transnational level. However, Bezos provided the business units with three key principles to operate under: long-term management, intense innovation and a specified focus on customer satisfaction. Amazon uses these principles to ensure its employees integrate customer approval as the number one priority — a key standout from other e-commerce competitors. Additionally, Amazon’s lower costs help drive user traffic, which attracts more independent sellers and further contributes to the company’s growing revenue. As more revenue is generated with output increasing on a growing scale of production, costs decrease over time. This leads to a downward push on the prices of products and services, which attracts more customers and propels Amazon’s optimization of business and customer satisfaction.  

However, the company must continuously innovate in order to further attract customers. Technological innovations, such as the Alexa artificial intelligence assistant and the Kindle, as well as lower membership subscription costs, have driven Amazon to the top of the e-commerce market. Even when these innovations don’t succeed, they serve as valuable lessons that often benefit the company in the long term. For example, the failed Amazon Fire Phone Product ultimately paved the way for Amazon Echo, one of Amazon’s most successful and popular products. 

Additionally, an area of Amazon’s success to note is the company’s global expansion strategy. Amazon has just built a new office in Hyderabad, India, a region that is cleverly nicknamed Asia’s Silicon Valley. This office will serve as the base of operations in India, a country with the world’s fastest-growing pool of internet users. Aiming to take advantage of the rich software technology mecca in Hyderabad, Amazon has entered this gigantic market on the front line of this developing country’s flourishing technology sector. However, there have been several setbacks created by Indian officials and local politicians, including an antitrust lawsuit charged by Indian trade regulators. Nevertheless, after four years of planning and negotiation, Amazon’s new office has finally come to life.

Despite concerns of India’s attachment to foreign investment, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has worked to increase the attractiveness of India as a lucrative place for business, allowing Bezos to invest $1 billion in small and medium-sized businesses. In fact, many Indian businesses are collaborating with major e-commerce companies such as Amazon and Flipkart, which is India’s largest online retailer. With the devastating effects of the ongoing pandemic, e-commerce has become the only option for many small and medium-sized businesses.

However, in a comparative approach to the e-commerce boom, the European Union, and countries like Sweden, may not be able to successfully adopt this model of lowering costs and prices. Though Amazon plans to launch its Swedish website within a year, Sweden’s strict worker protection laws present a significant challenge for the tech giant. Sweden possesses an attractive market for internet retailers such as Amazon, as it lacks heavy competition in the e-commerce sector. And, like India, Sweden’s local businesses must adapt to incorporate internet retailing because of the ongoing pandemic. Thus, the current socially-distanced climate could serve to facilitate the rise of e-commerce in Sweden and further cement Amazon’s entrance into the Swedish marketplace. 

But, as a country, Sweden has a strategic focus on sustainability and has strong labor unions, which both pose a challenge because of Amazon’s rap for its controversial anti-union work environment and culture. Therefore, if Amazon decides to fully commit, it has to successfully negotiate a compromise that conforms with Sweden’s workplace regulations and political culture.

Amazon’s global strategy does not flourish everywhere. Amazon has suffered from the curse of quality control as European consumer rights groups have criticized the tech giant for selling illegal items and not providing enough information about sellers. Additionally, Amazon is already in trouble with EU officials as the company faces antitrust charges for abusing its growing control over domestic markets to drive out smaller companies or rivals. Even though Amazon, along with other tech giants like Google and Apple, promises to work with the EU’s lawmakers, their lobbying efforts have fallen short. European officials are currently drafting new regulations that would prevent preferential treatment for Amazon products over European ones in an attempt to stem the anti-competitive agenda of these tech and e-commerce corporations.

While Amazon has faced incredible growth and expanded into several new countries, its global engagement model is not a path to victory void of opposition. The e-commerce giant will have to transform the very essence of its anti-union work culture and learn how to control its own growth before it completely overshadows domestic industries resulting in strict governmental regulations. The future of Amazon rests in the hands of the company’s ability to amend its business practices, as well as governments’ tech reform and antitrust policies.

Amazon continues to utilize its innovation and expansion agenda as its main tool to maintain relevancy and acquire power. Meanwhile, other companies struggling in the face of COVID-19 must develop their own unique strategies to prevent their services from being rendered obsolete by this new reality. While it is obvious that tech companies have benefitted from the pandemic, it is not clear whether this economic growth will continue after the pandemic ends. In particular, the fate of video chat and messaging companies might not fare well when human interaction resumes, especially in the education and business sectors. Only time will tell once the situation improves, restrictions end, and the global community gradually reverts back to their pre-pandemic lifestyles. 

The post Amazon and the Power of Global Digital Consumers in the Age of COVID-19 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

This move has large implications for the tech industry. While TikTok, a social media and entertainment platform, is very popular in the United States, with over 80 million American users, WeChat is a messaging service, payment platform, and social network all in one. Not only does it serve as a way for the Chinese diaspora around the world to communicate with their relatives in China, but it is also important for Americans to do business with China. 

For TikTok, the Trump Administration has extended the original 45-day deadline to 90 days. TikTok now has 90 days to sell the U.S. operations of the app or risk a ban on all of their transactions with the United States. The new restrictions on TikTok increase the chance of a sale to Microsoft, who is one of the companies in talks acquiring TikTok. With regards to WeChat, the wording of the executive order appears to cover not just the app itself, but includes all transactions with WeChat’s owner, Tencent, which is among one of the largest social media, video game, and investment corporations in the world. This would mean that the ban would not just apply to apps that Tencent owns, but any company that Tencent has a stake in. The list of these companies is long, and includes Epic Games, which produces the popular game, Fortnite, along with other major companies like Reddit, Tesla, and Spotify.

The Trump Administration presented the TikTok and WeChat ban as an issue of national security. According to a recent paper from the Brookings Institution, the administration’s concern is that the Chinese government will be able to access data through these apps and exploit it for espionage or blackmail. This new focus on data privacy and security marks a shift from traditional national security issues, such as those related to intelligence systems or weaponry, toward technological and cybersecurity threats. Both TikTok and WeChat collect an immense amount of data from its users. According to the Wall Street Journal, the data Tiktok, for example, collects includes your phone and social network contacts, age, GPS location and phone number, along with the photos and videos you post. The apps also store your payment information. 

However, this is a common practice carried out by American social media apps like Facebook and Twitter, as well. Interestingly, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson condemned the United States “for using national security as an excuse and using state power to oppress non-American businesses” despite its own ban on American social media apps, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, that has been in place since the early 2010s. 

These bans have brought further tension to an already strained U.S.-China relationship. Within the Trump Administration, there are two factions that hold differing stances on the United States’ relationship with China. The “China Hawks,” composed of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro, want to confront China. They argue that China presents a strategic threat to the United States., particularly in trade and national security. On the other side, there are those who want a more cooperative relationship with China, like Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who believes that a positive U.S.-China relationship is necessary to stabilize the global economy. 

Although the United States was headed down a more cooperative route with the trade deal signed this past January, the global pandemic soon drove a wedge between Washington and Beijing. In the first weeks of the virus’ global spread, Trump was praising Chinese President Xi Jinping publicly to protect the trade deal. By spring, Trump blatantly criticized China for its handling of the pandemic, calling COVID-19 the “kung flu.” The Trump Administration was determined to not only hold China accountable for the pandemic, but also to fight back against China on numerous fronts. Specifically, they criticized the country for its latest national security law in Hong Kong, which cracks down on any and all pro-democracy and anti-Chinese activity and allows the Chinese government to set up its own agency to enforce “national security” without any local checks and balances. Soon after, in late July, the United States abruptly asked China to close its consulate in Houston, declaring it a hub of trade secrets and espionage. 

Leading up to the TikTok and WeChat executive orders, the United States took hostile actions against several Chinese industries. In the technology industries, the State Department sought to convince other countries to exclude the Chinese tech giant, Huawei, from their 5G systems. Additionally, at the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, Trump encouraged U.S. stock exchanges to set new rules that could trigger the delisting of Chinese companies. 

The TikTok and WeChat bans, however, present a new and more serious threat to global business. As mentioned previously, Tencent, the owner of WeChat, has significant stakes in companies critical to the American market and could affect the United States’ ability to conduct business with them. Apple and Google have already removed Fortnite from their app stores and as a result, Epic Games has threatened legal action against Apple and Google. Due to WeChat’s widespread usage in China, U.S. firms utilized the platform to advertise and importantly, to accept payments. Trump’s new policies could be very troubling for American companies, like Starbucks, Walmart, and Nike, who rely on WeChat to connect with the Chinese market and Chinese consumers. The WeChat ban could prove particularly disastrous for Apple, which made $44 billion in China last year. Without WeChat in their app stores, there might be a significant drop in iPhone sales in China. 

When analyzing the evolution of U.S.-China relations over the past few months, it is clear that the TikTok and WeChat shifts in policy are not isolated incidents. Rather, they are only a part of the Trump Administration’s strategy to push back against China. In this era of tension between these two superpowers, the executive orders regarding TikTok and WeChat have proven how difficult it will be for any global company to work across the U.S.-China divide. 

The post TikTok — A National Security Threat? A Glimpse into U.S.-China Relations appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.