At present, Taiwan is the leader in semiconductor manufacturing. Taiwanese state-owned company Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) is the world’s leading manufacturer by a large margin. TSMC alone produces almost 70% of the world’s microchips and over 90% of the most advanced semiconductors. In America, Congress reports that only 12% of the global market share of semiconductors is manufactured domestically, a decline from 37% in 1990. This results in significant American dependence on Taiwan.

Due to the production of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry, China, which has threatened Taiwan with invasion for decades, has yet to fulfill its threats. This production of microchips has created an impenetrable utilitarian forcefield, making Taiwan untouchable to China, as China needs the advanced chips Taiwan produces. As China continues to make threats of invasion against Taiwan, the United States has stood by Taiwan, promising to protect it from China and pledging U.S. troops to be on Taiwanese soil in the event of an invasion. Through this, the diplomatic bond between Taiwan and the United States has grown significantly, with Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, visiting Taiwan in Aug 2022. 

It is important to note that despite the United States promising military protection to Taiwan, this is not the United States’ official foreign policy stance. Officially, the United States recognizes China’s One-China policy, agreeing that Taiwan is a part of mainland China and that China has sole legal control over Taiwan for geopolitical reasons. Officially, the United States and Taiwan do not have diplomatic relations. 

On May 15, 2022, TSMC announced that it would be building a fab, a semiconductor manufacturing center, in Arizona. This was a big win for the U.S. semiconductor industry. With a $40 billion investment and the expertise that TSMC will bring, U.S. production of semiconductors is expected to increase considerably. Furthermore, the Arizona TSMC fab is projected to produce three-nanometer semiconductors by 2026, the second most advanced type of semiconductor currently available. TSMC’s fabs in Arizona have several implications on a global scale that may only be realized after a period of time.  

The most obvious implication is that creating a fab in Arizona would naturally strengthen the relationship between Taiwan and the United States. With a decreased cost in transportation, increased opportunity for trade and improved connections between business leaders in the United States, TSMC and the United States would be expected to develop closer ties. Closer ties between TSMC and the United States could mean that the United States would be more likely to protect Taiwan from a potential Chinese invasion given the value of the semiconductors to the United States. However, it is doubtful that the United States would change its official foreign policy status.

Second, a less obvious implication of the creation of an Arizona fab would be the negative effect on the Taiwanese-American relationship. The fab in Arizona is expected to mostly influence the American semiconductor industry. With an estimated annual revenue of $10 billion, TSMC would make back its initial $40 billion investment in only about four to five years. Furthermore, the American semiconductor industry would gain invaluable expertise that might take years or decades without TSMC. 

While this sounds like a win-win situation for both TSMC and the United States, one aspect is easily forgotten. One of the main reasons why Taiwan has U.S. protection is due to Taiwan’s unparalleled semiconductor industry which produces a large majority of the semiconductors used around the world. If Taiwan’s semiconductor industry were to stop producing semiconductors, “no other company will be able to fill the gap in the short term” according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

If the U.S. semiconductor industry were to compete with Taiwan’s after the U.S. industry gained expertise and understanding of TSMC’s methods, then the Taiwanese industry would lose some value as consumers could simply buy from the United States instead of Taiwan. If Taiwan loses this global competitive advantage, it might also lose its bargaining power on the world stage. With a producer that could produce a semiconductor competitive with or better than TSMC’s, global consumers would quickly shift their consumption away from TSMC and towards the new producer. 

The potential unravelings of these trends could have negative implications for Taiwan. Without their utilitarian forcefield of the semiconductor industry, the United States may not find a reason to spend resources and risk U.S. lives protecting Taiwan. 

Militarily, Taiwan is severely outmatched against China. China’s military budget of $225 billion in 2023 dwarfs Taiwan’s budget of $19 billion. On water, China’s 86 naval ships and 59 submarines would dominate the Taiwan Strait against Taiwan’s 26 naval ships and four submarines. In the air, China operates almost 3,000 aircraft compared to Taiwan’s 500. On land, China operates over 4,000 tanks more than Taiwan and has two million active military personnel compared to Taiwan’s 200,000. Without the U.S. and allies’ protection, Taiwan would be defenseless to a Chinese invasion. 

Although it is known that China has wanted to forcefully annex Taiwan for decades, it has stopped short of doing so due to the threat of triggering U.S. protection and the destruction of Taiwan’s valuable semiconductor industry.

However, if the United States were to create a competitive semiconductor industry, it may lose some of its incentive to protect Taiwan. Meanwhile, if China were to believe that the United States would not defend Taiwan and that it could successfully invade Taiwan, China would be more likely to invade Taiwan. 

To this end, some experts expect an invasion as soon as 2025. However, Taiwan’s foreign minister predicts conflict in 2027 — marking the 100-year anniversary of the foundation of the People’s Liberation Army with an invasion of Taiwan.

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.

When President Joe Biden took office in January, the United States’ global reputation and global partnerships were falling into disarray. The Trump administration aggravated tensions with numerous countries around the world — both allies and adversaries. But, in particular, the relationship between the U.S. and China suffered greatly, with the economic, trade, and diplomatic relations turning sour and geopolitical tensions increasing.

Biden’s leadership in the White House comes at a pivotal time for the world. When COVID-19 continues to ravage the world; and the development of competing vaccines, the creation of vaccine passports and the race to distribute them to countries in need are fueling U.S.-China tensions. Foreign policy leadership under the new administration undoubtedly has a different outlook on foreign affairs than the previous administration — with engagement, global cooperation and multilateralism at the forefront of decision making. 

The relationship between China and the United States is a nuanced one; the two countries are both rivals and partners in different sectors. And the integrated and globalized economy means that the decisions of one great power undoubtedly impact the fate of the other — and vice versa. This article will provide a brief overview of what those main issue areas are, and how the Biden administration is expected to approach each area in light of U.S.-China relations. 

Navigating Trade and the Global Economy

An increasingly confrontational relationship between the United States and China continues to test global diplomacy and international trade, as the two countries struggle for economic and political power. 

In 2016, former President Donald Trump accused China of being one of the primary reasons for losses in U.S. manufacturing jobs, igniting a complex U.S.-China trade war. In 2018, the United States imposed tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods, causing China to retaliate by imposing tariffs on U.S. products. As tensions grew, the January 2020 $200 billion trade deal between China and the United States failed to solve economic hardship stemming from the multi-year trade war. 

But this tension is built on complex cooperation. China is the United States’ largest supplier of imported goods. Trump’s tariffs policy encouraged U.S. consumers to buy national products, making imported goods rise in prices. This strained the U.S.-China relationship, increasing tensions and making international trade more expensive. 

And currently, large disruptions in global trade resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has provoked executive action in an attempt to reduce U.S. dependence on internationally sourced materials. On February 24, Biden signed a new Executive Order on U.S. a supply chain, requiring his administration to review supply chains and bolster American manufacturing output, beginning long-term efforts to insulate the U.S. economy from future shortages of critical manufacturing goods. The order calls for a yearlong review of six sectors and a 100-day review of four critical manufactured imports: high-capacity batteries, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and critical minerals. Early on in the pandemic, China diverted protective equipment against COVID-19 to local hospitals and proposed bans on critical minerals, leaving international buyers, including the United States, empty handed. Biden’s new executive order began an important step for creating jobs and making the U.S. economy more resilient in the face of ever growing global threats.

On March 1, the Biden administration released the 2021 Trade Policy Agenda and 2020 Annual Report. The document specifies that the United States will use “all available tools” to address “China’s unfair trade practices that continue to harm U.S. workers and businesses.” The report  reinforces statements previously by the Biden administration in their strategy towards China on trade policy. 

“Addressing the China challenge will require a comprehensive strategy and more systematic approach than the piecemeal approach of the recent past,” the report read. 

Furthermore, the report outlines that it will be a top priority of the Biden administration to work with allies to ensure China fulfills its trade obligations. Although this report does not outline specific steps for trade policy moving forward, it solidifies Biden’s trade stance with China. 

Trump’s U.S.-China trade relationship left the Biden administration with several other economic complications. A December 2020 report from the Center for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) in the United Kingdom indicates that early lockdowns and stability from the COVID-19 pandemic has tipped economic recovery in China’s favor. The report predicts that after a strong economic recovery in 2021, the U.S. economy will grow about 1.9% annually from 2022-2024, and slow to 1.6% in the following years. By contrast, China’s economy is expected to grow 5.7% annually through 2025. 

Although China was the first country hit by COVID-19, aggressive action prevented the country from being affected by the same economic hardship as many others. By contrast, the U.S. economy has been hit hard by COVID-19, as the nation struggles to recover from over 30 million cumulative cases nationwide. The national economic damage has been cushioned by fiscal stimulus, but disagreements and prolonged passage of the $900 billion Consolidated Appropriations Act left millions of Americans struggling into the new year. 

On January 20, the Biden administration announced the American Rescue Plan, which intends to provide immediate economic relief to communities struggling from the effects of COVID-19, send grants and funding to struggling businesses, and assist state and local economies. Signed March 11, this plan will bolster U.S. economic growth and send much-needed relief to Americans and their families. This bill, combined with the American Jobs Plan — which aims to create millions of jobs to rebuild U.S. infrastructure and “position the United States to out-compete China” — will serve as major steps towards repairing the U.S. economy. 

As the United States recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic and begins to determine its trade policies with China moving forward, it will continue to test and enforce trade relations with China. 

The Growing Challenge of Cyber Security

In May 2020, the Trump administration attempted to block American telecommunications firms from installing foreign made equipment that could pose a threat to national security. This included an attempt to restrict the sales of Huawei computer chips within the United States and restrict Huawei from building its 5G wireless networks for fear of global spying. 

Further, hacking concerns in May 2020 caused the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to issue warnings of an imminent threat to U.S. based healthcare, pharmaceutical and research sectors working on COVID-19 response. However, this strategy failed to dissuade further cybertheft. 

In July 2020, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice issued charges to Chinese hackers after an attempt to gain intelligence on U.S. intellectual property, including COVID-19 research. In September 2020, the Center for Strategic and International Studies revealed that Chinese hackers had been monitoring U.S. government and private networks for over a year in search of vulnerabilities. 

Following incidents of intellectual theft from U.S.-based companies and despite U.S. efforts to prevent major companies such as Huawei from dominating the field of telecommunications, China continues to grow as a limitless threat in the cybersphere. The United States’ vulnerability to China’s international cyber reach leaves the Biden administration with several immediate online threats to combat and weaknesses to secure. 

The Trump administration challenged China’s technology industry through sanctions and executive orders. Early actions from the Biden administration indicate Biden will maintain a similar approach. 

In the 2021 Virtual Munich Security Conference, Biden said that “we must shape the rules that will govern the advance of technology and the norms of behavior in cyberspace, artificial intelligence, biotechnology so that they are used to lift people up, not used to pin them down.” Statements like this display the administration’s tough stance on proliferating technology concerns. 

Biden may potentially continue the Trump administration’s efforts to exclude Chinese companies from next-generation 5G mobile networks. Trump’s executive order gives the U.S. government the power to block technology transactions that pose “an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.” 

Only time will tell what the Biden administration will do to tackle cyber security on a global scale. However, one thing is certain: the conversation of technology, global security, and cyber dominance will continue under the Biden administration. 

Emerging Technology and Media Concerns

The technology standoff between the U.S. and Chinese administrations was one item in the laundry list of tensions between the two countries that dominated headlines over the past year. As a staunch proponent of American superiority, Trump seemed determined to undercut any sort of relationship with China that was perceived as a security threat. In February 2020, officials discussed placing restrictions on export licenses of goods from American companies in order to restrict sales to China and reduce their technological advantage. 

American technology companies voiced strong concerns and opposition to any sort of embargo. They insisted that these restrictions would actually undercut American business abroad, as many foreign and American companies were locked into symbiotic business relationships. While these specific restrictions were never enacted, the threat of implementation was enough for some foreign companies to begin cutting ties with American tech corporations. In particular, the semiconductor industry was among one of the most affected industries as the Trump administration placed strict limitations on sales of sensitive microchip technologies to China in January 2020. 

The U.S.-China technology war goes beyond the trade of technological raw materials. In September 2020, as the Chinese app TikTok gained massive global traction, Trump signed an executive order that demanded Bytedance, the app’s parent company, to sell TikTok’s American operations to a U.S.-based company. Trump also banned WeChat, the popular Chinese messaging and communications app, from app stores on Android and iOS platforms. These restrictions were the culmination of U.S. suspicions regarding how these apps utilized personal user information; many in the administration believed the apps were delivering sensitive information directly to Chinese intelligence. As the Trump administration exited the White House, the New York Stock Exchange was ordered to delist the stocks of three Chinese telecommunications companies.

Many believe that the strict hardline stance against Chinese technologies will continue under the Biden administration. The U.S. continues to state that Chinese technologies pose an economic and national security threat to American interests. While many American companies attempted to block such acts from being implemented, the Biden administration is reportedly allowing a Trump-era sanction against Chinese technologies to come into effect later this year. This rule would allow the U.S. Department of Commerce to unilaterally ban any Chinese technologies that it perceives as a threat to national security, paving the way for a great deal of uncertainty among CEOs of American technology giants. However, the Biden administration has taken a step back from Trump’s bans on WeChat and TikTok, allowing the Commerce Department to review these sanctions and determine whether they are necessary. 

Looking Forward

China poses one of the largest long-term threats to U.S. national security. As a growing global influence, China will continue to shape the international sphere through free speech and censorship methods, economic trade policies, and cyber domination.

Tensions regarding trade tariffs and economic recovery will continue as the globe recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic. As China and the United States recover from economic hardship, both countries may aim to improve trade relations. However, this seems increasingly unlikely, as recently passed U.S. legislation aims to outcompete Chinese manufacturing and economic prosperity. 

Cyber security and growing concerns over censorship will continue throughout 2021. Following cases of lapses in cyber security, the U.S. will need to bolster its stability in the cybersphere. The U.S.-China technology war will likely continue under the Biden administration — as the U.S. looks to secure its position as a global hegemonic power. Over the course of the trade war with China, the U.S. administration seeks to also become less reliant on Chinese manufacturing and more self-sufficient. 

Another point of contention that gained international traction last year is the treatment of the Muslim Uighur population in China. The issue attracted massive media coverage when reports of camps filled with Uighurs in the north-western Xinjiang region of China were leaked to international media. While the Chinese government was openly criticized for its actions, President Trump supposedly voiced approval of the treatment — news that became public following the release of former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s memoir. President Trump also delayed sanctions against China’s treatment of the Uighurs in order to facilitate a trade deal. Shortly before leaving the White House, the Trump administration changed course and publicly denounced the treatment of the Uighurs. The Biden campaign was vehemently opposed to the issue but it remains to be seen whether the administration will pursue a more hardline stance against this particular humanitarian issue.

The U.S.-China relationship will continue to evolve over the next four years under the Biden administration. As tensions continue to rise, only time will tell if the United States and China will be able to resolve hegemonic conflicts and improve diplomatic relations. 

However, with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic disrupting international travel and tourism, these remote countries have suffered greatly from the repercussions of a lack of tourism dollars being injected into their economies. 

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the usual percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP,  from tourism for developing countries is 5%; however, for SIDS, the average share stands at over 20%. This over-reliance on the tourism industry has proven to be a highly fragile aspect of the SIDS economy, as tourism numbers decreased drastically during the pandemic, and so did the revenue. 

The Maldives is an illustrative example of this phenomenon. According to the World Bank, the tourism industry accounts for about 25% of the small Indian Ocean country’s GDP. Combining this factor with the steep decline in tourism due to the pandemic — from around 1.7 million visitors in 2019 to approximately 560,000 in 2020, or about a 66% decline — the country’s GDP contracted an estimated 28% by the end of 2020. 

“As an economy heavily dependent on international tourism, the restrictions on global travel and other protective measures against the Covid-19 pandemic have had a significant impact on the Maldives,” President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih told CNBC in a March 2021 interview. 

The Maldives had to close its borders to foreign tourists from March to July of last year. Not only did this trigger the firing of thousands of workers, as tourism revenue quickly declined , but it also directly affected the cash flow of foreign currency that helped the Maldivian Government pay for imports.

According to the Michigan State University, around 60% of the Maldives’ foreign exchange receipts are acquired through foreign tourism spending. These funds are used to buy imports such as petroleum, building materials and around 90% of the country’s food supplies.

According to a recent United Nations Development Program report on the Maldives’ state during the pandemic cited that these imports were drastically affected by the decline in tourism and foreign money being exchanged and used in the country. The same report highlights how the country went from importing around $45 million worth of petroleum in January 2020 to only about less than $10 million by May of the same year. 

This drastic fall in imports, economic activity, employment and overall quality of life in the Maldives highlights how fragile the tourism industry can be if a country is overly reliant on it. As the industry depends on several foreign factors that SIDS, like the Maldives, have virtually no control over, they have found this pandemic to be a “wake up” call to start looking into economic and industry diversification efforts. 

In the Maldives, this led the government to develop diversification plans for investing more in education and youth programs, as well as investment in foreign markets and better worker preparation for Maldivian citizens to incorporate them into the workforce outside of tourism. 

Luckily for the Maldives, its government has managed to keep a steady path towards recovery. The Maldivian authorities managed to cut down on their government spending and swap their monetary arrangements with foreign government banks like the Reserve Bank of India for a value of $400 million. Although tourist numbers are still below average – with around 200,000 foreign visitors arriving at the small nation between January and February 2021, which only accounts for 42% of last year’s numbers during the same period – the country expects to have about 1,000,000 tourist arrivals in 2021, which would lead to an approximate 17% rise in GDP by the end of the year. 

Nonetheless, this ideal scenario that the Maldives has managed to achieve is not the de facto outcome for every SIDS county. Other small island nations around the world have not been as fortunate to have a big enough monetary reserve and quick tourism recovery, such as the Maldives. 

This is the case of Fiji. This Pacific island country depends heavily on the tourism industry, accounting for 40% of its GDP and being directly responsible for employing 150,000 people, or 17% of the population of 880 thousand people. 

According to the Reserve Bank of Fiji, the country’s GDP shrunk by about 21.7% by the end of 2020, highlighting the worst contraction in the nation’s history. This is mostly because the number of tourists who visited the country in 2020 was 75% lower than in 2019. Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama said that this also led to 115,000 Fijians, or one-third of the Fijian workforce to be laid off from jobs or have hour cuts due to the failing tourism industry. 

“You can’t suddenly work from home when you earn your paycheck as a scuba instructor, or as a handicraft maker who usually sells to tourists,” said Bainimarama in a press conference in July 2020. “With borders shut around the world, Fijian tourism has come to a halt. Many jobs have still not returned; some may never.”

However, he has a different approach regarding future recovery for his country’s economy. Based on a survey and report by the IFC, diversification might still be in the picture, with efforts to improve education and workforce training programs in sight. However, plans like these are yet to be made official. Ultimately, Bainimarama still sees the tourism industry as Fiji’s main, and arguably, only choice for total recovery. 

“When it comes to COVID, SIDS need resources, not regulations better suited to larger level markets,”  Bainimarama said. “Let’s find opportunity in this crisis, by recognizing how the international community can better support employers and employees who rely on the stewards of small island economies, like tourism, and target support accordingly.”

His primary approach is to increase resources for the country’s development and its tourism industry, rather than veer towards more globalized forms of growth such as the Maldives plans to do with foreign investments. With this current strategy, the Reserve Bank of Fiji estimates that the Fijian economy might return to  pre-pandemic levels until 2023 with a GDP increase of around 14% in 2021, as long as tourism starts to increase steadily to 2019 levels. 

The IFC survey report also highlights that regardless of some financial intervention from the Fijian government, around 74% of businesses surveyed expected to close within five months. This emphasizes how the government’s strategy, although reliable in the long term, has not provided much relief to the Fijian people. Moreover, the report also shows that if no diversification efforts are promptly implemented, the Fijian economy will remain vulnerable to other external factors such as climate change or other financial crashes.

Overall, these two countries pose two fairly different approaches towards economic recovery. While the Maldives has taken a more immediate diversification approach, Fiji — although potentially aiming to diversify, bets more on revitalizing- its tourism sector to regain economic normality. 

In this comparative analysis, it is important to highlight that although Fiji has 360,000 more people than the Maldives, both countries have comparable GDPs of around $5.5 billion each. This gives the Maldives the comparative advantage in GDP per capita, having around $10,600 per person, while Fiji has $6,200. 

This GDP to population ratio is one of the factors that has allowed the Maldives to have a smoother path to recovery, aided by the fact that they have taken more active monetary and fiscal policies to stabilize the economy. 

However, the long-term recovery effects are yet to be seen entering the second quarter and the summer. This will be one of the main challenges for all the SIDS worldwide as they scramble to return to their pre-pandemic tourism levels.

Although a major part of the success of each country’s recovery will ultimately depend on the state of Covid restrictions within it as well as within its main tourism providing countries, the influence of fiscal and monetary policy as well as leadership in creating a sustainable strategy for recovery cannot be ignored. 

Tourism is a very fragile industry, and through these two examples, it is clear that there can be different approaches to addressing its fragility. With very different kinds of SIDS around the world, from the very rich like Singapore to the small and humble like Tuvalu, each country will have to develop their own personalized approach to recovery. 

Nonetheless, the fact that diversification is one of the main goals for SIDS still remains, as they look to make their economy more resilient to possible threats such as global warming and tourism crashes like the one that the pandemic originated. 

But as human waste piles up in landfills and covers coastal waters, the crisis of single-use plastics has been illuminated vividly. For a population of 7.8 billion, there has been a monthly estimated use of 65 billion gloves and 129 billion face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Incorrect disposal of used personal protective equipment (PPE) can be found all over the world littering public spaces. Assuming PPE equipment is used at this rate for 18 months, that would result in two trillion three hundred twenty-two billion masks of plastic waste. Since 91% of plastics are never recycled, this litter will persist in the environment for hundreds of years, igniting a crisis of plastic consumption and waste products. The single-use plastic problem is the global environmental crisis we continue to ignore, and if not careful, short-term solutions to protect humans from the coronavirus pandemic may bring large environmental and public health crises in the future. 

Plastic Initiatives Prior to the Pandemic

Prior to the pandemic, many countries took action to prevent single-use plastic employment. In 2018, Indian Prime Minister Modi announced the country’s intent to eliminate all single-use plastic in the country by 2022. In July 2018, Chile’s congress approved a ban on retail use of plastic bags, with steps to phase out plastic bag usage over the following two years. In October 2018, the United States amended the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Debris Act, funding the program through 2022. In January 2019, Peru banned visitors from bringing single-use plastics into it’s 76 natural and cultural protected areas. In early 2019, the European Parliament voted to ban single-use plastic items, such as straws and food containers, by 2021. Even major global companies have come together to help mitigate the plastic crisis. The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, including companies such as Coca-Cola, L’oreal, and H&M, has worked to reuse and repurpose plastic to promote a more sustainable economy for plastics. 

These efforts supported larger global initiatives such as the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN SDGs are a set of 17 goals with 169 targets attempting to create a global agenda for sustainable development through economic, social, and environmental action. Goal 12 targets primarily focus on implementing sustainable management of natural resources, reducing waste generation, adopting sustainability practices, and creating tools to monitor waste production. Government’s actions on mitigating plastic waste by banning single-use plastic helped support this goal and have created actionable plans to ensure sustainable consumption and production. 

However, increased consumption of single-use plastics, including personal protective equipment, has increased poor environmental practices and works contrary to global efforts for environmental sustainability. 

Some positives for global sustainability have emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has indirectly contributed to SDG goal 13 through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering outdoor air pollution. SDG goals 13 aims to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” However, this progress is not the solution to stopping climate change, and this progress is a short term gain. Global efforts to mitigate climate change will still need to occur to meet goal 13’s target. 

The Growing Crisis of Single-Use Plastic

Since December 2019, the world has felt the ever-growing effects of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. In an attempt to ‘flatten the curve,’ governments worldwide implemented precautionary measures to protect citizens through guidelines such as social distancing. What started as a health crisis has also morphed into a global economic and environmental threat, particularly regarding the consumption of plastics. 

Cities with high COVID-19 infection rates have struggled to manage large increases in medical waste. In Barcelona, medical waste, which includes gloves and face masks, increased by 350%, generating approximately 1,200 tons of medical waste compared to the usual average of 275 tons. The drastic increases in medical waste are leaving countries with inadequate waste management systems, resulting in masks, gloves, sanitizer bottles, and other protective equipment piling up on coastal shores. 

“With a lifespan of 450 years, these [disposable surgical]masks are an ecological timebomb given their lasting environmental consequences for our planet,” wrote Éric Pauget, a French politician, in a letter to French President Emmanual Macron. 

In an effort to dispose of medical waste, some municipalities in India have relied on the incineration of medical waste. However, this only further contributes to the releasing of greenhouse gases and other potentially harmful toxins. This style of waste management can cause future health problems by impacting air quality and increasing risks related to climate change mitigation. 

During the pandemic, increased demand for single-use plastics has caused some countries, such as the United States, to delay single-use plastic bans amid COVID-19 concerns. In October 2020, following over 6 months in delay, New York implemented a plastic bag ban. Plastic bag bans in Maine and Oregon were postponed. In California, a single use plastic bag ban that had been in place since 2016, was suspended. Postponements, suspensions, and failed implementation of plastic bag bans have only hurt global consumption of single-use plastic bags. 

Growing consumption of single-use plastic and poor disposal of the amassing waste is a concerning global problem not only for humans, but for wildlife and the environment as well. 

The Effects of Single-Use Plastic on the Environment 

According to the UN Environment Program (UNEP), more than 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced since the early 1950s, with about 60% of that plastic landing in landfills or the natural environment. 

More than 99% of plastics are produced from non-renewable sources, such as oil and coal. Moreover, only 9% of all plastic waste produced is recycled, with 12% being incinerated and the remaining 79% accumulating across the globe in cities, oceans, and landfills. The current increase of single-use plastics from large-scale global production of single-use protective equipment and a 6-10% increase in online shopping, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. This will lead to millions of tons of plastic being thrown out, with unclear solutions to mitigate the growing crisis. 

According to the UNEP, eight million tons of plastic end up in the world’s oceans each year, with the Chang Jiang River in China carrying over 1 million tons of plastic alone. Rivers can serve as easy pathways for plastic to travel into oceans and impact wildlife. Properties that make plastic useful, such as its resilience to degradation, make it nearly impossible for nature to break down. As plastic is broken into smaller pieces by natural weathering, the resulting microplastics can be consumed by marine life and enter the human food chain through fish consumption. Over 170 marine species have been recorded as having ingested human-made plastics. A study from the International Journal of Molecular Sciences found that in fish, microplastics have been found to cause major adverse effects including oxidative stress and intestinal damage. Beyond ingestion, marine wildlife can get entangled in plastics. Moreover, the accumulation of debris can disrupt marine ecosystems such as damaging coral reefs and affecting the feeding habits of marine life. 

There has been minimal research on the effects of human marine wildlife consumption of plastics. It is still unknown what potential risks microplastic consumption may have for humans and wildlife in the long-term. However, adverse effects in marine ecosystems illuminate concerns for the health effects of plastic consumption in humans. 

The Economic Impact

From an economic standpoint, plastic waste landing on shorelines can have serious economic consequences for communities reliant on tourism and fishing. In 2014, the United Nations estimated that plastic waste causes $13 billion in annual damage to marine ecosystems. 

Besides consequences on marine life and communities which rely on marine sustainability, single-use plastics are harmful for the economy. Plastics are workhorse materials in today’s economy. Able to be created at low and efficient rates which have versatile function, plastic is integral to everyday life. However, plastic usually has a very linear lifespan of make, use, dispose. This is problematic because most of the material ends up as waste. Large organizations, such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which launched the New Plastic Economy initiative in 2016, have suggested that the best way to economically benefit from plastic is to shift to a circular economy for plastics. The circular economy is an economic system in which from the outset, materials are designed to ensure they are not used up. 

Essentially, the maximum value of every product is used systematically to support reusable solutions while benefiting the environment and the economy. If done correctly, a circular economy should bolster productivity in society, such as incorporating new jobs, help the environment by producing less waste, and help the economy through less spending on waste management and clean up while preventing economic losses. 

After a first-use cycle, 95% of plastic packaging material value – equivalent to about $80 to $120 billion annually — is lost. These economic losses are further compounded by the 32% of plastic packaging which escapes collection systems, resulting in economic cleanup costs. Furthermore, approximately $40 billion is spent on clean-up externalities for plastic packaging materials, which “exceeds the plastic packaging industry’s profit pool.” 

In the future, countries around the world will need to pay for these costs. By improving the plastic lifecycle and creating a circular economy system, governments and nations around the world can achieve better economic and environmental outcomes. A transition like this would require a coordinated effort among governments, policy makers, and financial investors. Some critical steps are being taken to begin this process, but many countries still need to address mitigating current plastic waste and usage. 

Efforts to Combat Single-Use Plastic Usage

According to the UNEP, 99 countries have introduced measures to mitigate plastic bag usage. For example, In 2020, China announced plans to ban single-use plastics across the country by 2022. This legislation could immensely reduce single-use plastic waste globally because, as of 2020, China is the world’s largest producer and one of the largest users of plastics. 

However, the continued strategy of many countries to export plastic waste abroad is concerning for plastic waste reduction. As of 2020, the United States is the world’s largest plastic waste producer, with the United Kingdom as a close second. Data from 2016 shows that half of the plastic collected for recycling in the U.S. was sent abroad. In 2019, data from the European Environment Agency showed that the European Union exported 150,000 tons of plastic waste per month, with approximately double the rate in 2015 and 2016. Majority of this waste was shipped to China and Hong Kong. 

In 2018, China banned the import of plastic waste, with some other countries such as Indonesia and Thailand placing restrictions as well. A Guardian investigation from 2019 found that U.S. plastic was being sent to countries in which environmental regulations are limited and labor is cheap. Many of the countries the United States is shipping its plastic waste to are poorly ranked on how they handle their country’s internal plastic waste. One study found that Malaysia, the biggest recipient of U.S. plastic recycling since the China ban, mismanaged over half of its plastic waste. 

The practice of larger and economically stronger nations exporting plastic waste to other countries with laxer regulations does nothing to mitigate the effects of plastic waste. Rather, plastic waste still ends up impacting the environment and biodiversity, just in different parts of the globe. 

Global awareness and cooperation have begun to emerge as the plastic consumption and waste crisis continues to grow. Efforts, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals were created to help increase global sustainability. Goals 12, 13 and 14 tie directly into the plastic conversation. Goal 12 aims to implement sustainability practices and monitor waste production, goal 13 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 14 aims to reduce marine pollution of all kinds and address ocean resilience to marine debris and pollution. Reduction of plastic usage can have major impacts on wildlife, and can help reduce environmental degradation. Working in tandem these goals can have a major impact on the mitigation of single-use plastics waste. With 193 countries formally adopting the UN SDGs, economic and environmental legislation focused on these targets are likely to grow further as 2030 approaches.

Another global strategy to help mitigate plastic waste is being explored by the World Trade Organization (WTO). In November 2020, as part of the WTO’s Trade and Environment Week, multiple countries initiated the ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade.’ This week of WTO member-led events and workshops was prompted by efforts to build a greener and more sustainable global trade system as global trade recovers form COVID-19. The dialogue aims to “explore how improved trade cooperation, within the rules and mechanisms of the WTO, could contribute to domestic, regional, and global efforts to reduce plastic pollution and transition to a more circular and environmentally sustainable global plastics economy.” 

Efforts to create a more circular economy for plastic consumption have the potential to make major environmental impacts. Although efforts are still in the early stages, a structured conversation and statement on trade and environmental sustainability was backed by 49 WTO members. Informal discussions are expected to begin in 2021, indicating a fast timeline to begin reassessing global plastic consumption and its environmental impacts. The WTO’s ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue’ hosted by China and Fiji received strong early support from Australia, Barbados, Canada, and Morocco, suggesting multiple countries’ interest in creating sustainable trade around plastic. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership — organized by the World Economic Forum — has advocated for a transformation of the global plastic industry. The aim is to move towards a circular model of plastic consumption, in which waste moves from disposal back to repurposing, which will require lots of transparency and global efforts to monitor the plastic industry.  It is unclear how feasible this effort to change the global plastic will be. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership is in early stages of building and growing public-private partnerships to create tangible plastic pollution strategies. The partnership has developed a list of 10 calls to action, which it aims to tackle through it’s growing partnerships. Some of these actions include agreeing on plastics to be eliminated and preparing markets to phase those plastics out, making the recycled plastics market competitive economically, and stimulating consumer adoption of plastic reuse. World collaborative interest in creating global policy solutions for plastic action is crucial for global sustainability efforts. 

Beyond this, there is potential to implement extended producer responsibility measures, which would reduce the burden of municipalities to financially and physically reckon with the build up of plastic waste management. Additionally, it would provide incentives for manufacturers to design more low impact and reusable products, rather than single-use plastic materials. 

Actions to create a circular economy and minimize the effects of single-use plastic are essential to sustain our environment and global biodiversity. Only time will tell if global collaboration on minimizing plastic consumption will be able to overcome the years of plastic neglect and affect future environmental sustainability. Global alliances on this issue are providing hope that the single-use plastic problem can be solved. 

This 14-year long plan was announced in 2016 by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and aims to reduce Saudi Arabia’s dependency on the oil industry. This plan includes several infrastructure, education and renewable energy projects, but by far the most ambitious project within this 2030 vision is the city of Neom. 

The city of Neom is the prince’s crown jewel and he expects that it will put the country on the international stage and not only manage to be the face of sustainable development, city building and living, but also a major hub for travel, tourism and transportation. 

The city is planned to be developed in the Tabuk province, which is located in the northwest part of the country. The area borders the Red Sea to the south, Jordan to the north and the Gulf of Aqaba to the west, across from which is Egypt’s Sinai peninsula. 

Construction has already begun after Neom’s announcement at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh on October 24, 2017. Neom Bay, which includes some resorts and luxury apartments, has already begun construction. Additionally, Neom Bay Airport was inaugurated in 2019 and will serve as a temporary hub until the main airport is finished. 

The project has been estimated to cost around $500 billion dollars and set to open the first stage by 2025 with the main attraction being The Line, a city shaped in a straight line that will run 170km from the coast towards the inland desert and would take up $200 billion from the budget. The city is planned to be a fully sustainable project that would rely 100% on renewable energies to run. The project would also, according to the Saudi government, create 380,000 jobs and increase its GDP by $48 billion. 

“Why should we sacrifice nature for the sake of development?” Prince Mohammed said in the televised announcement of The Line in January. “We need to transform the concept of a conventional city into that of a futuristic one.”

According to the Saudi government, The Line would consist of three different levels. On the ground floor there would be an uninterrupted pedestrian walkway with parks. The second level would have the services, stores and other commercial spaces. And the third level would be what is being called The Spine. 

In the same announcement made by bin Salman, he mentioned that the city is being built with a future population of one million people in mind. He further stated that all of these people would be just five minutes away from any good or service they would need for their day to day lives. 

The Neom project and more recently The Line have been heavily promoted online and are widely seeking additional foreign investment to help develop the city. Several YouTube advertisements and videos as well as viral explanatory videos have been key to the growing awareness of the project abroad. 

This ambitious project, however, has also raised some questions and concerns surrounding the true intentions behind its construction, as well as the ethical aspects that surround the city building as well as the country as a whole. 

One major controversy surrounding Neom is the current and future displacement of the Al-Huwaitat tribe. With around 20,000 people facing eviction and many Al-Huwaitat advocates being killed in the past years, the project has faced international backlash from several NGOs across the world. On April 13, 2020, Abdul Rahim al-Huwaiti, one of the main advocates from the tribe, was killed by Saudi security forces in what they allege was self defence as Al-Huwaiti had fired first. Al-Huwaiti was a major critic of the Neom project, and many suspect that this could have been the reason for his death. 

“They have begun the process of removing people, beginning with surveying homes with the intent of removing people and deporting them from their land,” said Al-Huwaiti on a video recorded on the day of his death referring to the Saudi forces reaching his hometown. “They arrested anyone who said they’re against deportation, they don’t want to leave, they want to remain [in]their homes, that they don’t want money.”

Despite highlighting on the promotional website that the city will be built on “virgin land,” the testimonies from local tribes say otherwise. This is one of the major controversies that the Neom project faces, but with the recent announcement of The Line it seems like the Saudi government will continue the city’s development. 

This project is also very important for Saudi Arabia, not only due to its potential revenue in tourism and investment, but it will also allow for Saudi Arabia to assume strategic control of trade and transit within the region and beyond. 

The area where Neom will be developed is adjacent to the Strait of Tiran, where the Saudi administered islands of Tiran and Sanafir lie just off Egypt’s beach resort city Sharm El Sheikh on the Sinai peninsula. Alongside the plan to build the city, there is a plan to build a bridge connecting both countries by land. 

This bridge would completely change the way the region works as transporting goods through land from Egypt to Saudi Arabia would become possible, completely bypassing the current need to go through Israel. The bridge would also give Saudi Arabia control over the Strait as well, which could potentially increase the country’s influence over Asian exports to Israel. 

This would also help Saudi Arabia become one of the main hubs for travel and transportation, although the development would face fierce competition from neighbouring Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, two countries which have established themselves as powerhouses in the aviation industry with their major airlines Qatar Airways and Emirates respectively. 

The government wants to incentivise investors by establishing Neom as a free trade zone with its own tax and legal system, the latter supposedly being structured around more open and progressive ideals. This contrasts the strict Sharia law that prevails within the rest of the country which has been criticized for numerous human rights violations. This is something similar to what the UAE has already done with Dubai since 2006, where the Emirati government established an international court system to better appeal to the international investors. 

The project as a whole is Prince bin Salman’s attempt at creating a place that can serve as a major source of revenue and international influence for the Saudi government, and which can put the country on the international stage to not only help diversify the economy, but to also extend the reach of the Saudi influence within the global community. 

The positive, progressive and innovative prospects that the city is set to have, however, must be looked at through a critical lens, as the Crown Prince has proved that he may disregard locals or other people that stand in the way of his projects, even when they are within their right to protest the development. 

It remains to be seen if the Saudi government is up to the task of constructing this massive and ambitious project, and if they will be able to deliver on all of their sustainability promises while bettering their efforts to secure an ethical development. 

NEW YORK — The Biden administration has expressed an interest in reinvigorating U.S.-Canada relations following a virtual meeting between President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau early February. The meeting, which was the first between the then newly-inaugurated president and a foreign head of state, focused on each country’s response to COVID-19, economic cooperation during the pandemic and moving forward, as well as other shared interests among the two close allies. As the White House begins forming its foreign policy objectives and global leadership, it is essential to consider the current state of U.S.-Canada relations and where the two countries may be headed moving forward.

“Generally in world politics, there are no permanent friends, but permanent interests. But, there is supposed to be a special exception for some countries,” said Brian Bow, director at the Center for the Study of Security and Development at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, in an exclusive interview with Glimpse from the Globe. “It is not unique to the U.S.-Canada relationship, but Canada has a special relationship with the U.S. and Canadians were happy with that in the first half of the Cold War.”

When former President Richard Nixon reformed the United States’ economic policy in 1971, which is often referred to as the “Nixon Shock,” along with leaving the Gold Standard, Nixon began putting tariffs on products leaving the United States.

“Most countries reacted with hostility, but no one was more surprised than the Canadians,” Bow said. “They assumed it was a mistake that they weren’t on the list of countries that wouldn’t need to pay these surcharges.”

Following the change invoked by Nixon in U.S. international economic foreign policy, Canada had to do some “soul-searching,” as Bow said. Canada began realizing that they needed to have other partners rather than just entirely relying on the United States. Canada tried to diversify its economic partners, but ultimately failed, as penetrating new markets, especially in Asia, can be pricey and full of uncertainty. As a result, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1989, signaling that economic relations would return to normal. This agreement; which eliminated all tariffs on trade, was a precursor to NAFTA, which was then enacted in 1994. 

“Even since then, there have been these recurring periods where Canada hasn’t liked the direction the U.S. has been going in,” Bow said. “The controversy with the Bush administration over the war in Iraq in 2003 was a big one, and the election of the Trump administration in 2016 was another one.”

Bow believes that the current administration in Ottawa is better aligned with President Biden than it was with Trump. That said, he believes there is a possibility of Trump-like rhetoric making its way into Canadian politics in the future. 

“When I was a teenager in Canada, stylish clothing would make its way about five years after it appeared in America,” Bow said. “The same thing can happen with policies and parties in Canada trying on Trump-style rhetoric.” 

The possibility of conservative politicians in Canada imitating the populist and often provocative language of Trump will certainly impact relations between the two neighbors. While this style of rhetoric is not prominent in Canada yet, Canadians, including Bow, are worried this could occur in the future. The next federal election in Canada could see a tight race between liberals and conservatives. Current polls show Prime Minister Trudeau with a narrow five-point lead, but Biden’s win may have an effect on Canadian elections. Many politically engaged Canadians are happy that the Biden administration will be holding office for the next four years; a recent poll showed that four in five Canadians hoped for a Biden win. 

Canadians are excited and hopeful about the Biden administration’s position on various issues, namely climate change. Undoubtedly, the Biden administration is taking the threat of climate change more seriously than the previous administration. Already, Biden has appointed former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, a new position within the cabinet. Additionally, the U.S., as of February 19, has rejoined the Paris Agreement with the international goal of keeping global warming below two degrees celsius, needed to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. Canada is also a signatory of this agreement and has fiercely advocated for its importance. Most recently, on February 25th, Biden and Treadau announced that they would be coming together to reach their goal of net zero emissions by 2050 with their “U.S.-Canada Partnership Roadmap.” 

The Partnership works to align the goals and climate policies of each country so that they can cooperate more efficiently. In addition to aligning policies, the plan hopes to create more policies and projects that will promote job growth, address inequality and combat the effects of climate change. Advocating for the creation of clean-energy infrastructure and ensuring that cross-border energy is renewable is at the core of this partnership. Biden and Trudeau also committed to having polluters take responsibility for their damages.

In addition to the announcement of the plan, Trudeau said that “U.S. leadership has been sorely missed over the past years… [it is]nice when the Americans are not pulling out all references to climate change and instead adding them.” 

While both countries must implement long-term goals for climate change to protect our planet, the issue of COVID-19 has taken precedent this past year as over 500,000 people have died of COVID-19 in the U.S. alone as of February 2021. 

During the initial meeting between Biden and Trudeau, COVID-19 was the primary focus. Both leaders agreed that cooperation in combating the virus was essential. Canada has struggled to vaccinate its population due to supplies being bought up by larger economies like the United States and United Kingdom. As part of his statement, Trudeau raised the idea of buying vaccines produced in the United States. Canada is currently receiving vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna plants in Europe and Biden’s team reportedly said that it was the administration’s priority to “ensure every American is vaccinated.” 

It is unlikely, however, that the United States would sell vaccines produced domestically to Canada until late summer at the earliest. As of February 20th, 2021, only 2.43% of Canadians had received at least one dose of the vaccine compared to about 14% of the U.S. population. 

Despite the challenges associated with vaccine distribution, the United States and Canada have committed to keeping trade as open as possible. The Prime Minister’s office emphasized “the importance of avoiding measures that may constrain the critical trade and supply-chain security between our countries” in a public statement. Economically, it is in the best interest of both nations to keep borders open and encourage trade to avoid unemployment and increase GDP.   

Although Canadian and U.S. interests are more aligned than in previous years, on his first day in office, Biden signed an executive order to end the expansion of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project supported by the Government of Alberta, a provincial government of Canada. The Keystone XL pipeline, which began planning and construction in 2008, travels from Canada through Texas. The pipeline, which began operating in 2010, was scheduled for an expansion to be able to carry even more oil. Despite the pipeline providing economic benefits to both countries, Biden canceled the project in order to protect the environment and indigenous communities. A January statement from the White House said that “the President acknowledged Prime Minister Trudeau’s disappointment regarding the decision to rescind the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.” 

Bow said that the pipeline will hurt domestic relations between the local governments and the federal government in Canada, rather than hurting diplomatic relations between Ottawa and Washington. Given that Trudeau is substantially worried about political support in his country, this may be why he showed disdain for the cancellation of the project. 

“The prairie provinces who are the major oil exporters in Canada are the ones who really desperately wanted Keystone to go through, and people in other parts of Canada don’t really care that much about it,” Bow said. “There are real differences between Canadians on those issues.” 

While the Trudeau administration did not express as much distress about the cancellation of the project, in a statement released by the Government of Alberta, Premier Jason Kenney expressed his disturbance with Biden’s actions to cancel the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. He highlighted the 2,000 jobs that would be lost due to the cancellation of the project. The statement also said, “That’s not how you treat a friend and ally.”

Even though some of the provincial governments may not support President Biden, there is no reason to believe that the Trudeau administration, which will be in office for at least the majority of Biden’s stay in the White House, will become hostile with the U.S. over this issue, especially as, since the cancellation of the project, Trudeau and Biden have already begun working on several projects together. 

The future of U.S.-Canada relations looks hopeful as the two countries are already working together to tackle global issues such as climate change and COVID-19. However, the  relationship between the two countries can change depending on the issues at hand and the administration holding office. 

With the popularity of Trumpism in the United States and growing support of populism in Canada, both countries could experience major political shifts once the two leaders are up for re-election. However, until then, the neighbors will most likely continue to work cooperatively together and advance the two countries’ unique historical, cultural and geographical relationship.

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 past four years resulted in weak and volatile U.S.-North Korea relations; but, Biden’s outward-oriented posture starkly contrasts with that of Trump. As North Korea proliferated their nuclear weapons program, Trump responded to every nuclear threat staunchly, signaling a potential war if need be. 

With a new administration in the White House, the United States now has a chance to ease tensions with North Korea and encourage dialogue with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. 

Under President Obama’s administration, the approach towards Pyongyang focused on incremental change. In 2008 and 2009, Obama emphasized the need to interact and engage with North Korea “without preconditions.” He affirmed that while difficult, working with communist governments, like those in Cuba and North Korea, would be beneficial for the entire international community. Obama’s willingness to meet with strongman Kim Jong-Un was met with harsh criticism, particularly from conservatives and human rights groups. Some viewed his efforts as weak. Conservatives expressed that meeting with enemies would “lower the prestige of the office of the president.” After Obama, Trump reversed course and deeply strained the progress Obama had made with Kim Jong-Un, resulting in several instances of nuclear threats toward the United States. 

In contrast, conservatives applauded Trump as he met with Kim Jong-un during his presidency, praising his efforts to aggressively denuclearize North Korea. Unlike Obama’s “strategic patience,” Trump demanded a top-down approach to North Korea’s complete denuclearization, offering the incremental removal of financial sanctions. To Trump’s dismay, the Hanoi Summit in 2019 ended in Kim’s refusal to accept any form of denuclearization. Still, Trump garnered conservative support as the false potential for North Korean disarmament led to the expression: “If North Korea disarms, President Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize would be well deserved.” 

Even Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said a full-fledged war would be “worth it in terms of long-term stability and national security.” Many argue that Trump’s business mindset might have aided in dismantling Kim’s nuclear weapons program. However, soft power and traditionally diplomatic skills from the Biden administration will likely prove to advance U.S.-North Korea relations. 

Biden’s plans to reverse many of Trump’s foreign policies suggest that relations with North Korea will progress. The Obama administration did not have a weak approach toward Kim, despite partisan criticism, and emphasized that military involvement may be necessary if North Korea does not cooperate. Obama’s plan of North Korean denuclearization before easing restrictions should be followed through during Biden’s presidency, but with a bottom-up approach. Before any high-level summit is held, Washington must establish high-level methods of private communication with Pyongyang. 

Already, however, a challenge is clear. In early January 2021,North Korea labeled the United States as its primary enemy. The Biden administration should not plan to host a large summit in an official manner, but in private discussions. In the past, the United States has made deals with North Korea which were misconstrued as simply improving America’s reputation. 

In addition to dealing with North Korean denuclearization, the United States must repair relations with South Korea. Coordination with South Korea will further pressure Kim to accept incremental disarmament. Pursuing peace on the Korean peninsula can incentivize North Korea to change its alignment towards cooperation in exchange for sanction removal, economic advancement and an enhanced reputation. As detailed in the 2018 Singapore Declaration, the United States should work towards normalizing relations on the Korean peninsula. To do so, Biden must eradicate the hostile atmosphere that Trump exacerbated during his presidency. Building military preparedness along the Demilitarized Zone, dividing the north and south, is vital to protecting their citizens. Peace on the peninsula will never be achieved with an aggressive attitude. 

Amid Biden’s new presidency, North Korea plans to hone its military power in an effort to hinder American power. Kim’s attempts to modernize its weapons system include a 15,000 km range missile. North Korea’s military development can serve as bait to convince the United States to slowly lift sanctions in exchange for minuscule denuclearization. To avoid military aggression, the Biden administration must arrange working-level negotiations to effectively mitigate tensions and the destruction of an entire population. Trump’s staunch approach towards denuclearization can be implemented, but with cautious language and private negotiations. Trump’s style of riling up allies to attack the enemy is not the approach Biden can continue. By amassing the collective hatred of many allies, North Korea has even more reason to pursue nuclear aggression and refuse any negotiation. 

Incremental denuclearization in exchange for sanction relief is the most effective route for the Biden administration. Conducting these negotiations in a private setting will allow both parties to not put on a “show” and instead discuss what they truly need in order to repair relations. 

Biden must not accept Pyongyang as a nuclear power, but grant concessions and offer greater market access to North Korea. However, these concessions may only be offered if Kim feels inclined to denuclearize in any capacity. 

Ultimately, Biden’s presidency will likely improve U.S.-North Korean relations exponentially — but it will take some time. Regardless, there is hope for a more peaceful international community. 

Boba, the soft and chewy tapioca pearls that make up the “bubble” in “bubble tea,” was invented in Taiwan in the late 1980s. While boba’s origins are technically unclear, as many shops have claimed ownership of its invention, the drink’s positive global reception closely parallels Taiwan’s reputation on the international stage. 

In late 2020, Taiwan’s New Power Party announced new passport designs as part of the political initiative to reinvent Taiwan’s identity. One passport design that garnered the most attention for its striking combination was of a blue bird with a cup of bubble tea perched atop its head. The novelty of the design gained widespread attention, with international media outlets from Quartz to CNN Travel covering and commenting on its unique creativity. 

In the end, the bubble tea design did not take first place and consequently, was not selected as the final passport. Yet according to Quartz, the design competition itself is representative of larger conversations about Taiwan and its place in debates about mainland China. This is because the competition, which originally began as an initiative to remove the term “Republic of China” from the Taiwan passport, involves Taiwan’s desire to rebrand themselves as quirky and creative — and separate from mainland China. 

Since the onset of the pandemic, the Taiwanese people have aimed to promote a positive image of their home, viewing the negative rhetoric about mainland China as an opportunity to define themselves as a separate entity altogether. For many residents of Taiwan, this has meant affirming a distinctly Taiwanese identity and sharing this distinct identity and unique values with the outside world. Representing that identity involves a concerted publicity campaign, strategic nation branding and public diplomacy efforts to market the island to the world. To start, Taiwan has sought to market boba as a popular global consumer good, representative of the island’s most prized cultural icons.

Bubble tea, in that regard, is an effective choice to best represent Taiwan. As a form of gastrodiplomacy, the drink has come to symbolize Taiwan’s innovation in not only food, but also culture. In addition to the bubble tea shops found on almost every block, bubble tea has taken on a new life of its own abroad. 

The real agents of Taiwan’s soft power, however, are the Taiwanese people who are bringing boba out of Taiwan and into an increasingly globalized world. Wanpo, for example, is a famous milk tea chain in Taiwan that recently opened its first U.S. location in Palo Alto, California, near Stanford University. Other famous Taiwanese milk tea chains like Tiger Sugar — best known for its brown sugar drinks — have taken the lead in opening shops all over the world, from Europe to Oceania. 

Yet, bubble tea is more than a purely commercial venture. Al Jazeera reports that bubble tea has become a prominent driving force for Asian American communities, particularly in the San Gabriel Valley near Los Angeles, where nearly 525,000 Asian Americans reside. For Asian American youth, in particular, consuming the drink serves as a bonding experience and a means of establishing unity through cultural affiliation. 

Boba’s popularity within Asian American enclaves is largely attributed to the Taiwanese immigrant communities that first brought it to the United States. Since the early 1990s, it was Taiwanese immigrants who opened the first shops dedicated to bubble tea. According to Clarissa Wei in LA Weekly, decades-old Taiwanese-run bubble tea shops like Tapioca Express, Quickly and Ten Ren can be credited with originating the bubble tea culture. 

TPumps, which has shops located all throughout the Bay Area, has created their own spin on traditional bubble tea by adding a unique range of flavors to the mix, including peppermint, gingerbread and guava. Boba Guys, too, is no stranger to innovation. The milk tea chain boasts relatively never-before-seen creations such as espresso milk tea and black sugar hojicha. 

Both of these chains, originally inspired by the traditional drinks of Taiwanese shops, are created and run by Asians in the United States. In the United States especially, bubble tea has evolved beyond merely a “Taiwanese” drink to its own type of international cuisine, one that incorporates a variety of flavors. It’s a testament to the global reach and widespread acceptance of Taiwan’s gastrodiplomacy.

The evolution and proliferation of bubble tea in other countries demonstrates its status as a drink with its own individualized international appeal. In that way, bubble tea indirectly symbolizes what Taiwan aspires to represent to the international community: innovation, adaptability to global interests and accessibility. Through economic and cultural means, bubble tea has achieved an international reach and fanbase. 

Even as its popularity has become an international phenomenon, bubble tea is fundamentally Taiwanese. This is evidenced by its origins and the perpetuation of its iconography in the Taiwanese political and cultural collective consciousness. From Taiwanese diplomats posing for photos with bubble tea to the creation of a “milk tea alliance” in promotion of Taiwanese democracy, bubble tea has become a political force to be reckoned with and a source of pride. 

Bubble tea’s cultural popularity has come to represent what Taiwan’s government desires for the nation as a whole. Conceptually, bubble tea represents a Taiwanese identity, primarily because only Taiwan can claim ownership of its creation. 

For that reason, Taiwan has launched bubble tea-related advertising campaigns and has stressed its association with the world-famous drink through Taiwan tourism guides. These endeavors in branding have contributed to the positive association between Taiwan and bubble tea culture.

Bubble tea has become part of a fundamental soft power campaign, and its role in Taiwanese gastrodiplomacy is based on the assumption that bubble tea wasn’t just created in Taiwan, but that at its core, it is Taiwan. In terms of future international endeavors, it’s unlikely that bubble tea on its own can lead to any concrete political upheaval. However, it’s worth paying attention to as a form of Taiwanese marketing. 

Taiwan’s positive image abroad as a democracy is correlated with the popularity of its gastrodiplomacy, as seen in the aforementioned “Milk Tea Alliance,” a digital solidarity movement with participants from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Myanmar and Thailand. The movement derives its name from the idea that despite the differences in how the drink is made from region to region, the regions all share the same core democratic values. Since its founding, participants have rallied supporters online to retaliate against Chinese nationalist bots asserting Chinese authoritarianism. 

According to the Atlantic, with the work of the Milk Tea Alliance, milk tea has become an “anti-China” symbol. Moreover, it has become an advocacy platform for democracy worldwide. It’s an example of how bubble tea is more than just a cultural tool, but has become emblematic of a larger geopolitical movement. 

The closest bubble tea shop doesn’t just sell bubble tea. For Taiwan, it sells a national image.