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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

“America is back!”

This declaration, made by President Joe Biden, was announced at the Munich Security Conference. After just two months in office, Biden has already been taking on the daunting task of restoring and cementing relationships in Europe. 

In late February, Biden appeared virtually at the Munich Security Conference, an annual international security conference held in Germany. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson came out of the meeting similarly declaring “As you’ve seen and heard earlier, America is unreservedly back as the leader of the free world and that is a fantastic thing.” 

But while things might appear rosy at first glance, the path to restoring American leadership in the European sphere and reestablishing transatlantic diplomacy is not going to be smooth sailing. There are several key issues that will be sure to dominate the future of transatlantic relations in the coming months — and the next four years. 

Up first on the agenda is reestablishing a positive working relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The multilateral security organization, founded in 1942 and headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, was always a sore point for Donald Trump. The former U.S. President was vocal about his dislike of the alliance and questioned its continued use and whether or not other NATO members were pulling their weight. Conversely, Biden sees the recommital of the United States to its NATO allies as one of the most important points on his policy agenda. He made a point of calling NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in the very first week of his presidency. This singular phone call ensured the public, and the world, that America was re-committing itself to the organization — signaling a critical shift away from the previous outlook of the Trump administration. 

He also sought to correct one of the most damaging military decisions that the Trump administration brought onto NATO. During his presidency, Trump started the process of withdrawing nearly 12,000 troops from Germany, a key NATO ally. The move surprised the Germans and even some members of American military leadership. The United States views Germany as a critical strategic partner, which is evident with its 43 different American military bases. 

In the past few decades, the United States has had positive military relations with the Germans, and there has been no reason to change course on the country’s policy. The U.S. Department of Defense faced bipartisan condemnation from this decision because it made NATO look fragmented and weak. 

However, with each change in presidential administrations, the Defense Department carries out a “global force posture review,” which places all military decisions on pause. The Biden Administration has initiated a freeze on pending military action, such as pulling the U.S. forces out of Germany, and the administration will be reevaluating the decision. 

Already with the freeze in place, and no concrete determination to keep American troops in Germany, the German government is pleased and ready to work with Washington. German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said that, “this signal will be noticed and well understood. It is now up to us to take the hand that Washington has reached out with.” 

Germany has a lot to lose if the United States withdraws its presence. Over 100,000 Americans are currently living in Germany — the largest American community outside the United States. Should the government lose the trust of the Biden administration, the loss of 100,000 people in their communities would be incredibly hurtful to their economy. They also lose prestige and abilities to train their German military forces alongside the United States should the Defense Department continue to pull out from the region. 

On the American side, the United States would lose the country’s only hospital capable of treating trauma patients in the region. Landstuhl Regional Medical Center has served as the trauma center for all military personnel wounded in the Middle East, Europe and Africa, since its opening in 1953. It is beneficial for both sides to work out a favorable negotiation that can carry them through the future. The United States’ maintenance of positive relations with Germany is key to its stable presence in the region.

Across the English Channel lies another set of problems for Biden. For Boris Johnson, a solid working relationship with the Biden administration will ensure Britain can resume its “special relationship” with the United States — a historical and cultural relationship that started in Winston Churchill’s era. 

This relationship exists because the heads of state have emphasized the closeness of American and British values culturally, politically, and economically. Both Biden and former President Barack Obama were against the Brexit decision, but now that it has been fully implemented, Biden remains committed to helping America’s ally across the pond. In fact, Johnson was the very first European head of state to receive a call from Biden after his inauguration. 

Going forward, Johnson will be looking to negotiate a free trade agreement for the United Kingdom in a post-Brexit world. Biden has made it clear that he will not be negotiating a large free trade agreement anytime soon, since the U.S. needs to make major investments at home. But, it’s possible that a smaller agreement could be worked out before the U.S. Trade Protection Authority Act expires in April 2021. Any deal made before that point could be easily slipped through Congress, since the Democrats control the U.S. House of Representatives and are tied with Republicans in the Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the tie vote. But after April, it will be more challenging. 

Another hot topic for the United States and the European Union, in particular, is the China debacle. The EU struck an important investment deal with China less than a month before Biden came into office. Biden’s transition team privately lobbied the EU to wait, and China capitalized on this brief window of opportunity and signed the deal before Biden could be sworn in; even though they conceded some positions to the EU to make it happen. Amid growing economic competition, an ongoing trade war and a increased tension between the United States and China, Europe has a precarious role to play — a delicate balance between economic opportunity and historical allyship.

It is helpful for transatlantic relations, however, that both the Trump and Biden administrations have declared the offenses against the Uyghur Muslim minority in China a genocide, especially since the EU and UK have made similar declarations. Going forward, Biden and his team will be looking to sort out their positions on China and will eventually need to converse with the EU to see where they overlap on policy. A strong policy on China will most likely need to be accepted by the United States’ allies in order for meaningful change to happen.

Yet another complicating issue for Biden and the Europeans is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline set to deliver Russian gas to Germany. Germany has built this pipeline with hopes of diversifying their energy resources, but it leaves the EU vulnerable to more Russian influence within the energy and economic sectors. The deal has been highly controversial in Brussels, and within Washington D.C. EU member states are unable to agree on a common position on the pipeline. Most notably, some countries are worried about Russia’s growing involvement in Europe. The public criticism of Russia has been intensified since the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny by the Kremlin in September 2020. France has publicly said they are against the pipeline, but will let the Germans make the final decision on its outcome. The United States is expected to release sanctions on the Russians soon, but the Germans are expected to remain unscathed for the time being. 

Biden certainly has his work cut out for him across the Atlantic. Biden is entering a pivotal era of transatlantic relations, especially after the last four years, and his decisions over the next few months will dictate how the rest of his presidency transpires. Recommitment to NATO, dealing with a post-Brexit UK, relations with China, and the Nord Stream 2 will all pose tough challenges for the administration to conquer. 

Now, a year later and just five months from the rescheduled start date, the nation languishes in a state of emergency with over 1,000 COVID-19 cases per day. Public support for the Olympics has also plummeted; one poll showed that 80% of the Japanese public think that the Games should be canceled or further delayed, while others fear it will become a super spreader. In the face of all of this, why is the Japanese government still so adamant that the Games must go on? 

A key concern is the economic repercussions. Organizers have said that the cost of postponing the Games run up to $15 billion, though audits by the Japanese government show that they are at least $25 billion. It is understandable that the country, which was grappling with a declining economy even before the pandemic, would try at any expense to recoup its sunk costs. 

The Olympics was thought to be the sweet swan song of former prime minister Shinzo Abe. It was supposed to reinvigorate the economy by increasing jobs, tourism and consumer spending under his brand of “Abenomics.” Now that tourism seems unlikely for the time being, Japan would want to at least hold on to the billions of sponsorship revenue from the Games. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), which earns almost three-quarters of its income selling broadcasting rights, would likewise be pressuring Japan to continue the Games, with spectators or without. 

More than just an economic revival, Tokyo 2020 was meant to be Japan’s resurgence in the global arena. The first time Japan played host was in 1964, a roaring comeback after the cancelation of the 1940 Tokyo Games due to World War II. Tokyo wowed the world with bullet trains and shiny new stadiums, signaling the nation’s post-war recovery and boosting national pride and its global image. 

In a similar vein, the 2020 Tokyo Games were dubbed the “Reconstruction Olympics” after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. One may say that in a broader sense, reconstruction now carries a double meaning: reconstructing national confidence, especially in the pandemic era, and reconstructing Japan’s image. 

Another consideration is the East Asian cultural concept of “losing face”. Losing face is when one’s reputation is tarnished, incurring public shame. The Japanese government would “lose face” among its people if they canceled the Games now, especially after the resolute tone the country has adopted. But if the Games turn out to be successful, this accomplishment pulled off by the government would surely go down in history. 

On a personal level, current Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga might feel obliged to honor his predecessor’s wish to host the Olympics. Described by Japanese media as Abe’s “loyal right-hand man,” Suga worked under the former prime minister as the chief cabinet secretary for eight years before Abe resigned. “I will carry on former Prime Minister Abe’s policies and push them forward in order to overcome this national crisis,” Suga said in his first speech as the new prime minister. Tokyo 2021 would realize Abe’s dream and help Suga avoid losing face to Abe and the rest of his political party. 

Canceling the Olympics will also mean losing face to China. Like their last Olympics, Japan intended to use Tokyo 2020 to indicate recovery and reassert their dominance in Asia. It was to be the nation’s dramatic bounce back from the economic stagnation that has plagued them over the past decades, stimulating investment and confidence from abroad. Instead, with the 2022 Winter Olympics slated to take place in Beijing, conservatives would undoubtedly see it as shameful if the title of hosting the first post-pandemic Olympics goes to their regional rival. 

Most recently, Japan managed to secure unanimous support for the Olympics from its allies in the G7. The G7 communique stated that the Games, which are to be held in a “safe and secure manner”, will serve as a “symbol of global unity in overcoming COVID-19.” This puts even more pressure on the country to not just carry out the Games, but do so in a safe manner to prevent competing international athletes from opting out. 

Transcending the personal, the national, and the international is the very spirit of the Olympics, a mark of humanity’s extraordinary resilience. Suga likes to frame Tokyo 2020 as “proof that humanity has defeated the virus.” Regardless of whether that’s just talk, it is undeniable that these Games will set a precedent for all Olympic Games to follow, as well as the broader “new normal”. It seems, then, the “Reconstruction Olympics” is not just about reconstructing Japan but the whole post-pandemic world. 

Despite Japan’s bravado, the future remains as unpredictable as ever. Nobody will be able to tell for certain how the pandemic will develop in a few months, or if sporting unions will boycott the Games out of health concerns. While there may be a light at the end of the tunnel with the increased global rollout of vaccines, the process is slow in Japan, where many citizens are wary of getting vaccinated. Nevertheless, even as new strains and public health challenges continue to develop, we can be sure that Japan will try, at all costs, to keep the Olympic flame alive. 

The deal has several implications for the future of the two regions and the global balance of power. After being ratified by both sides, it will be the first trade agreement ever established between the EU and China. The CAI will replace several bilateral trade deals China has with the 27 EU member states, and provide a uniform agreement for China and the EU as a whole. 

The CAI strives to liberalize trade between two of the world’s most significant economies. This will grant investors in China and throughout the EU greater access to foreign markets, thereby increasing bilateral investment and boosting their economies amid COVID-19 and an eventual post-pandemic world. Additionally, the CAI also encourages cooperation in the field of sustainable development and addresses ongoing economic issues including environmental protection, labor, and the transfer of technology across borders.

Though the jury is still out, the CAI is likely to be an enduring commitment made by the EU and China. Prior to reaching the final agreement, the two sides had already spent seven years and 35 rounds of talks to thoroughly discuss every aspect of what a direct trade agreement would look like. The increasingly interconnected nature of the EU and China’s trade and financial systems explains both sides’ determination to achieve a bilateral deal. 

China is currently the EU’s largest trading partner, and the EU has also been China’s largest trade partner for the last 16 years, only to be replaced by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) earlier in 2020. Last year, the EU’s direct investment in the Chinese market had reached almost $118 billion, while the amount of Chinese investment in the EU topped $80 billion. Even though China has only recently achieved “superpower” status (in recent decades, that is) it has long been an economic powerhouse. Its implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative, a series of economic infrastructure and development projects throughout South, East and Central Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa, and its active role in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP), the largest international trade pact, has revealed its strong economic potential and blooming political influence. 

China’s growing influence in Europe is also evidenced by European leaders’ enthusiasm toward deepening ties with the country. Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron are proponents of the CAI and visited China in 2019 on separate occasions to discuss business and trade between their countries. 

The EU and China’s intertwined economies and their strong need for closer cooperation are rather evident. Yet, there are also controversies threatening the long-term endurance and resilience of the CAI. In Brussels, there are rising voices at the European Parliament that are calling attention to labor and human rights issues in China, which may present obstacles to the agreement’s ratification. European Commission officials have made clear that they will require China’s commitment to ratifying the International Labour Organization’s conventions, and will continue to follow up on the issue until this is achieved. Apart from this, the CAI is also raising questions about the balance of power on the world stage and whether the agreement will have negative implications for the transatlantic partnership between the EU and the United States.

The CAI’s progress has already raised doubts about the EU’s loyalty to the United States, and several American media outlets have reported on growing opposition to the agreement. Viewing China as a threat, some experts within U.S. media and analysts hold a rather pessimistic view toward the CAI, claiming that the Chinese government is unlikely to adhere to its commitments and break its promises. Some perceive that, in ratifying the agreement, the EU would be ignoring human rights problems in China and harming its alliance with the U.S. by cooperating with one of the country’s biggest rivals.

However, opposition from the EU’s American ally is still far from hindering the CAI’s progress, as the EU’s relationship with the United States has deteriorated due to the intense trade war started by the previous Trump administration. The EU and the United States continue to have disputes over billions of dollars worth of tariffs on automobiles and metals, digital taxes for U.S. tech companies, and airplane subsidies. Although the United States announced its intention to repair relationships with traditional allies, considering that the Biden administration has shown no commitment to ending the trade war, the transatlantic relationship remains strained. In fact, icy EU-U.S. relations may actually be propelling the CAI forward, as the EU must look to other states for economic allies. 

Moreover, the agreement will provide a significant boost to European businesses in China and bring unignorable economic benefits to its member states, a needed boost amid the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the European Commission, China will provide an “unprecedented” level of access to foreign investors, as it is opening up its sectors including financial services, construction, telecommunications services, transport, environmental services and automotive. China has also promised to open up more of its manufacturing sectors to its trade partner for the first time. 

This is an important accomplishment for the EU, which already has more than half of its investments in the Chinese manufacturing sector. The CAI also has incredible political significance, serving as a proclamation of the EU’s strategic autonomy and independence from the American influence. By securing the deal, the EU may be able to obtain a more advantageous position in future trade negotiations with the United States. One reason for this is that the current Phase One trade deal between the United States and China only benefits U.S. companies and potentially puts EU investors at a disadvantage in the Chinese market. The CAI’s ratification may serve to minimize the negative impact of this. 

On the other side, China is optimistic in establishing closer trade relations with the EU. The CAI for China will level the playing field for its investors in Europe, and potentially enable companies to receive greater regulatory approval for investments in the European market. Additionally, the CAI could create a closer political bond between China and the EU, giving China leverage against the United States in their trade war. 

However, China also understands that Europe’s slow pivot to the East is not necessarily permanent and is subject to certain conditions.  In order to foster the trust and cooperation necessary to make the CAI an enduring commitment, China needs to assure the EU of its determination to protect labor and human rights. Nevertheless, China’s enthusiasm for the CAI sends a signal to the world that it is willing to open up more of its domestic market to foreign investment. It also proves that China is able to establish multilateral trade deals with Western economies and set a standard for future negotiations with other trade partners. 

Though there are some factors that may hinder the ratification of the final deal, the future of the CAI and the future of EU-China relations, for now, seems bright. 

The coup occurred in reaction to the most recent parliamentary election. On November 8, 2020, one of the leading parties, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won over 80% of the available parliamentary seats. The vote was seen as a popular endorsement of the NLD, which Aung San Suu Kyi has led since 2015. Ms. Suu Kyi has been hailed as a beacon of democracy and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.  However, her international reputation has suffered following her refusal to condemn crackdowns on the Muslim Rohingya minority in Myanmar, and the subsequent human rights crisis, genocide and migration that has followed.

The election was expected to be ratified in a parliamentary session this week. The Tatmadaw, led by General Min Aung Hlaing, did not endorse the results.

In Myanmar, the Tatmadaw’s influence is felt in all aspects of society, a relic of its multi-decade long rule. It has its own schools, hospitals and food production systems. Its elite are married into the business world and high-ranking members of the NLD. The party also controls the two largest conglomerates with interests in resources, banking, infrastructure, insurance, media and more.

The democratic constitution did little to disentangle the military’s power and in some instances, reinforced it within the new political institutions.

Prior to the coup, the Tatmadaw was constitutionally guaranteed control of the ministries of defense, home affairs and border affairs. It reserves 25% of seats in national and regional assemblies. Also, it has veto authorities over certain amendments to the constitution. 

The Tatmadaw invoked some of these provisions to declare a state of emergency as a justification for the coup, claiming allegations of voter fraud. Under the constitution however, only the civilian leader can claim a state of emergency which lasts for one year. Independent rights groups have criticized the election for excluding ethnic minorities, however, the nation’s election committee accepted the results and found no evidence of voter fraud.

Because of the constitution’s structure guaranteeing certain roles to the military, the Tatmadaw’s power fundamentally does not change with the coup, rather the appearance of power does. Experts have claimed that the military’s actions are still characteristic of the country’s democratic backsliding because the institutions allowing for a people’s voice have been ignored.

While the motives for the coup have not been made public, some suspect the coup provides a means for the military’s leader, Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing, to stay in power. He was scheduled to retire this year upon reaching the Defense Service Act’s mandatory retirement age of 65. The elected civilian president would have chosen a successor, meaning that the NLD likely would have chosen a more reform minded leader.

The citizens of Myanmar have not reacted kindly to the coup. This past week, tens of thousands of people have protested the Tatmadaw’s actions in Yangon, Myanmar’s largest city. Chants of “We don’t want military dictatorship, we want democracy” could be heard throughout the city, and many protesters held posters of Aung San Suu Kyi and other detained officials. The Tatmadaw claims it will hold free and fair elections after reconstituting the election commission, although did not specify when elections would take place.

The Tatmadaw has attempted to prevent the protest through a series of measures, including internet blackouts and false news reports of detained officials’ release.

But protests have spilled over into neighboring Bangladesh, where Myanmar national Rohingya Muslims have taken refuge following previous violent crackdowns on ethnic-minorities by the Tatmadaw.

Few reports of violence have come as a result of the protests, with one instance of gunshots and one report of police authorities using rubber bullets to break up a rally. The Saffron Revolution of 2007, a prior protest movement of similar scale, resulted in at least 13 dead and hundreds injured and arrested. The protests began in response to a state-sponsored jump in fuel prices, but turned against the military rule. The Saffron revolution was considered an important stepping stone in Myanmar’s shift to democracy in 2011. The Tatmadaw has remained largely silent over the public’s opposition to the coup.

Throughout the West, governments quickly condemned the actions of the Tatmadaw, although defining the takeover has been a bit more nuanced. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and President of the European Council Charles Michel denounced the coup and called for the detained officials’ immediate release. U.S. President Joe Biden, however, has criticized the military’s “assault on the country’s transition to democracy” and threatened sanctions, but stopped short of calling the actions a coup.

Nearby countries in Southeast Asia have had more mixed reactions to the recent events. Cambodian leader Hun Sen refused to comment on the “internal affairs of another country;” whereas Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia expressed concern over the Tatmadaw’s actions.

China, the region’s most powerful country, blocked a United Nations Security Council statement condemning the Tatmadaw. China claims that sanctions or international pressure may make the situation worse in Myanmar.

As the events in Myanmar unfold, key things to look out for include the development of protests, the international community’s actions, and the military’s response to each respective interest.

The past year was a game changer for Hollywood. The COVID-19 pandemic forced theaters to close, drastically affecting profits from ticket sales, and many distributors decided to either delay their release of films or make the daring move to premiere blockbusters on streaming services. But as Hollywood continues to adapt to a new era of movie-making distribution, for the first time in its history, China has officially overtaken the United States as the largest box office in the world.

Prior to the pandemic however, China’s box office revenue was already poised to surpass the American box office in 2020. PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the largest global accounting firms, predicted in a 2016 report that the following years, “…are set to see the United States lose the dominant position that it has held in global box office revenue since the silent movie era began more than a century ago”, indicating that projections pre-pandemic already favored the Chinese. In the first quarter of 2018, the film industry caught a glimpse of this phenomenon when Chinese box office revenue held a brief lead in front of the U.S. box office for the first time. 

Chinese competition in an industry that has been dominated by the U.S. for over 100 years poses a challenge to America’s ability to exert soft power in this particular sector. In an arena where both countries use film as a tool to promote their respective ideas and values, whoever is the leader of the industry is more desirable to production companies. Hollywood needs the resources that both China and the United States have: massive audiences and massive opportunities for revenue.

Box office numbers and the global film industry matter from a political perspective as movies capture the attention of foreign publics and can be highly influential tools of media. Essentially, film is a tool of public diplomacy.

Disney’s Marvel franchise, for instance, is full of pro-American and pro-military themes. While production is not state funded, it has recently become publicized that the U.S. Department of Defense has consulted on hundreds of feature films and even shows for television. When production companies approach defense agencies looking for accurate insight into how different arms of the military or government function, the U.S. government gets to manage how they are portrayed to the American and foreign public, an important controlling tool of soft power.

While Marvel movies are only a recent example, Hollywood has a long standing relationship with the Pentagon that traces back to World War I. The first ever Academy Award for Best Picture in 1927 was given to the silent film “Wings,” which centered around World War I pilots. The U.S. Army helped with the production of “Wings” with full support in the form of men and staging areas, and by the end of World War II, the army had an official Hollywood office and liaison. The Central Intelligence Agency also established a similar office in 1996.

Conscious or not, Hollywood became an unofficial propaganda machine for Washington throughout the 20th century. Movies were the perfect medium for promoting American militarism, capitalism, and way of life, both domestically and internationally. This idea soared during the Cold War. In the age of Mccarthyism, purging communist sentiments within the United States was a critical objective of the United States. Under the threat of communism, American military movies were essential for portraying the country as the hero, creating the popular narrative of the United States as the quintessential “good guy.” Sources of entertainment, thus, were used as some of the strongest tools in the ideological battle over the hearts and minds of global publics.

A real turning point in the relationship between Hollywood and Washington was after 9/11. The War on Terror began and a new wave of American war movies were filmed and produced, in large part in coordination with the Pentagon. According to many critics, films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” were used to sell the War on Terror to American audiences and garner support for the military and its actions. The film was criticized for portraying torture as valuable for finding Osama Bin Laden. A 2014 study even found results that 25% of viewers changed their opinions about the government and its actions after seeing the films “Argo” and “Zero Dark Thirty.”

As Tanner Mirrlees, associate professor at Ontario Tech University, told CBC Radio: “No country in the world churns out as many images of itself as the military hero… like the United States does. That is a unique cultural phenomenon.” 

In the 21st century, Washington’s role in the media has gone much further than one would expect. In television, over 1,100 titles received Pentagon backing. Files released in 2017 under the Freedom of Information Act verified that between 1911 and 2017 more than 800 feature films were supported by the Department of Defense.

But Washington is not the only major political influence vying for influence in the world’s film industry; Hollywood has also been considerate of Beijing’s interests and has catered to its censorship as its market has expanded in recent years. The Chinese government is explicit about its intentions to release films that are propaganda for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), a decision made in order to control what the Chinese consumer digests. Despite the censorship, there is seemingly little resistance by Hollywood filmmakers to challenge the popularization of biased, pro-CCP narrative in the movies as they seek the approval of the Chinese government to release their films in the country. The reason for this is the increasing dependency Hollywood has on China’s movie industry. 

This dependency results from the dominating lead China currently holds in the sector. The Asian movie industry consultancy firm, Artisan Gateway, announced that China’s box office closed 2020 with $1.99 billion in revenue. The North American box office earnings were surpassed by $50 million dollars. With the desire to expand its audience and, as a result, its profit, Hollywood turns to China in an attempt to take advantage of those opportunities.

The most recent and highly publicized case of Chinese investment in American films can be found in the Disney+ digital release of the live-action Mulan film in 2020. The movie faced controversy due to its percieved complicitness with the CCP’s persecution of the Uighurs — a primarily Muslim Turkic ethnicity populated in the Xinjiang region of China and surrounding areas. Disney shot a number of scenes from the film in this region and faced criticism from U.S. leaders for allowing the Chinese government to mislead the public by brushing over issues of genocide in the province. Although these concerns were raised about Mulan, the desire to be approved by the Chinese review board in order to profit seemed to be enough for Disney to overlook the social ramifications. 

Appealing to foreign film markets isn’t a new phenomenon for Hollywood; the industry has been negotiating deals with film-classification boards around the world for nearly 100 years. It is, however, much more difficult for Hollywood to appeal to a country that restricts media consumption to a dangerous degree, while simultaneously being the largest movie industry in the world. Film production studios have to compete for a slot in the CCP’s limited release of foreign films every year, and companies who do not choose to comply with China’s restrictions miss the opportunity of reaching an audience of nearly 1.4 billion customers.

This results in movie adjustments and plot changes like the ones that occurred in Rian Johnson’s 2012 science fiction action film Looper, where the portrayal of time travel, a concept usually frowned upon by the Chinese government, was approved after a script change framing the future China as “powerful and the center of the world.” Similar occurrences can be found with movies like Red Dawn (2012), The Great Wall (2016), and Doctor Strange (2016), all three of which had storylines that were changed or scenes censored in order to be released in China.

Whoever has control over the dominant narrative in the entertainment industry will in turn be able to impact the focus group they desire to influence. In this era of globalization, particularly within this sect of the entertainment industry, the focus group isn’t just the average American, nor just the average Chinese; it’s the global media consumer. Whether it’s the Department of Defense or the CCP, the investments being made into blockbuster films in Hollywood are setting an agenda. If the consumer isn’t aware of this, they play into the propaganda. The U.S. has long enjoyed using Hollywood as a tool of soft power to promote patriotic messages of America to its base at home and around the world. Now, the country faces a real challenge as the CCP vies for the same global cultural influence with the economic incentives needed to draw Hollywood into the agenda. 

Whether or not the average movie goer is aware, two of the strongest governments in the world are in a conflict that is taking place on their screens, and there’s not much they can do about it except grab some popcorn and watch the show.

The past four years of an “America First” agenda have hurt the United States’ credibility and capacity to accomplish overseas policy goals. An American grand strategy focused on nationalism — as opposed to multilateralism — has severely hampered U.S. engagement on humanitarian issues. Namely, federal foreign policy and foreign aid bureaus such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have been severely impacted. 

On January 13, then President-elect Joe Biden nominated Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, to the role of Administrator of the USAID. Though her nomination is currently awaiting Senate confirmation, it’s important to know what type of organization she is inheriting in the post-Trump era, and the deep problems that need to be addressed.

In contrast with other federal agencies under Trump political appointees, USAID remained somewhat unscathed until mid-2020. For the first three years of the Trump presidency, USAID was directed by former Republican Congressman Mark Green. His leadership was met with respect from both sides of the aisle and was one of the very few Trump political appointees with broad bipartisan support. However, when Green left USAID in April 2020, things started to go downhill. 

Bonnie Glick, Green’s deputy, was expected to take the helm after his departure. Glick was a Republican appointee who received Senate confirmation for her role in USAID in 2019. She had experience in the organization and her fellow USAID employees were confident in her ability to lead. Her progression to the head of the agency seemed like a natural choice. But President Trump had other ideas. In came John Barsa, a political appointee that served at USAID’s Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean for only nine months prior to his promotion to Acting Administrator. And before that, he served on Trump’s 2016 campaign team. This was the start to what an anonymous senior-level USAID official branded a “dumpster fire” of Trump’s legacy at USAID.  

Barsa wasted no time making his mark on the organization and sent a letter, without proper clearances or vetting, to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres claiming that “the U.N.’s global humanitarian response for the COVID-19 pandemic was being used to advance a pro-abortion agenda around the world.” 

In June 2020, in wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, he refused to acknowledge requests from 2,400 employees to address racial equality and discrimination in the organization. He also greenlighted appointees with prejudice against the LGBTQ community, women, and Muslims and defended their discriminatory comments. Additionally, since Barsa was an interim director, he could only serve for 210 days unless confirmed by the Senate — which he wasn’t. Instead, Bonnie Glick was forced out. This created another vacancy and restarted Barsa’s 210-day clock. Multiple anonymous USAID officials told newspapers that Barsa’s agenda and coziness with the White House was an attempt for him to get a better position at the Department of Homeland Security during President Trump’s second term. Which proved to be a political gamble. But with a new administration now in office, a new chapter for USAID has begun. 

Samantha Power, a former war correspondent in Yugoslavia, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN was nominated by President-elect Biden to salvage the reputation of USAID. Biden acknowledged the shortcomings of the previous administration in his speech to nominate Power. He said: “I know firsthand the unparalleled knowledge and tireless commitment to principled American engagement [Samantha Power] brings to the table, and her expertise and perspective will be essential as our country reasserts its role as a leader on the world stage.” 

Along with his nomination of Power, Biden has elevated the standing of Director of USAID to be a Cabinet-level position. Samantha Power has been a reputable force in the past and she is expected to be no different with her role in USAID. She defined her time as UN Ambassador by championing genocide prevention and the expansion of human rights for women and LGBTQ-identifying people. She also had the unique challenge of building an international coalition to fight the Ebola outbreak in 2013 and 2014, which makes her extremely well-suited for overseeing foreign aid during the coronavirus pandemic. 

But Power is not without her faults. She was involved in orchestrating the American intervention in Libya in 2011 — a decision that former President Obama views as the worst of his presidency. The UN Security Council supported the intervention in order to “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack” and our European Allies were for it as well. 

But the main issues and controversies are what came after the invasion. When NATO and the Western coalition came rushing into Libya, they toppled Muammar Qaddafi’s regime and promptly left. The decision to leave without creating democratic reform or any semblance of help for the post-Qaddafi era left Libya unstable and vulnerable to ISIS.  

Regardless, Power’s new role within the organization creates a new opportunity for a fresh start following the Trump era. There is no doubt that the first few months of her role as USAID director will be focused on helping disadvantaged countries with vaccine distribution and pandemic management. Power has said that pandemic management is her “top-line concern.” 

One challenge Power will face in her new role is returning USAID to its international commitments. Many policies and programs of the previous administration cut funding to women’s health — specifically reproductive health. Every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has instituted what is known as the Mexico City Policy. This policy cuts off funding to any NGO that funds abortions or advocates for the practice. Under the Trump Administration, it was expanded even further to limit funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), maternal and child health, malaria, nutrition, and other programs. These cuts rendered $7.3 billion in funding gone just in FY 2020. Because of the stoppage of U.S. funds to these programs, USAID expects that four years without funding for family planning and women’s health measures will have created a domino effect for other family and health issues. 

Not only will Power need to make sure these programs start back up and are funded, but she will also have to be prepared for the incredible influx of problems that have arisen as a result of these programs not having been functioning in recent years. 

Power has a daunting future ahead of her. Taking over an organization with a credibility problem during a pandemic and with dozens of policies to reverse is an incredible task, but she seems up for the challenge.