[vc_text_separator text_in_box="no" title = "Sample Blog" text_position = "center" line_color = "#ffffff" line_width = "700" line_thickness = "1" line_border_style = "solid" box_margin = "60" line_dots = "no"]

The US-China Trade War, the Huawei Battle, and its Effects on the World

By Corinn Schmieg

1Author Affiliation: School of Diplomacy & International Relations, Pôle Universitaire Euclide (Euclid  University),  Bangui  (Central African Republic) and Greater Banjul (Republic of the Gambia) / EUCLID Global Institute, Washington DC (United States)

*Minnesota, USA

Keywords: China, United States, Trade War, Huawei Battle, Tariffs

IGOs: World Trade Organization (WTO)

Abstract:

After decades of trying to create positive diplomatic relations, a trade war broke out between the United States and China. After tariffs placed on Chinese imports in the US, China retaliated with their own tariffs. A year into the trade war, US President Donald Trump placed sanctions on Chinese-made Huawei phones. This changed the trade war, and the future of trade wars forever. By specifically targeting an international company, the trade war went from being a primarily bilateral issue into a much larger problem affecting all other countries that sold Huawei phones. The World Trade Organization has been working with both countries to attempt to find a way to end the trade war with limited success. While the trade war may continue, the Huawei battle shows that trade wars have the capacity to quickly affect the entire world.


1. Introduction

The United States and China have spent decades attempting to cultivate a prosperous relationship. Through major political events, agreements, and many trade deals, the US and China had eventually created a working relationship. In the past two decades, China has rapidly grown and expanding economically, making it difficult for any nation to keep up with trade policies that continuously fit the needs of both nations. The World Trade Organization has worked to keep up with these changes, and until the trade war, they have been successful in avoiding any major conflicts. After US President Donald Trump was elected, a trade war broke out between the two nations. This led to incredibly high tariffs being put on imported Chinese products in the US. It also caused some Chinese leaders to begin to rethink their position on US-Chinese relations. In the spring of 2019, President Trump signed an executive order and declared a national emergency. He stated that certain electronic telecommunication devices were posing a major security threat to the United States. He then stated that Huawei, a Chinese phone brand, was one of the biggest potential security threats with their new 5G networks. This started the ‘Huawei Battle.’ During this battle, many governments, companies, and political leaders weighed in on the significance of essentially banning a Chinese product in the US. This battle led up to the G-20 Summit and would trigger the start of talks that would end the trade war. The final major battle of the US-China trade war, the ‘Huawei Battle,’ may signify the end of the war after US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to renegotiate economic and trade between the two nations.  While the trade war may come to an end after negotiations commence, the Huawei battle shows how a trade war that begins between two-countries can quickly affect the entire world.

2.      History of US-China Relations

China and the United States have had a tumultuous history. From a time when Americans were not able to enter into China, to a booming trade industry, there were many obstacles and roadblocks the US and China had to face in order to create positive diplomatic relations. After China officially became the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China and the United States disagreed on many things. These disagreements caused China to declare that Americans were not allowed inside of China for any reason. At this time, the Us was working harder to maintain positive relations with Taiwan. This caused many conflicts with China. In 1979,  the year the United States and China began to establish diplomatic relations.[1]  Finally, in April of 1979, China invited US ping pong players to visit. This visit was the first time Americans were allowed in China since 1949 and has since been referred to as ‘Ping Pong Diplomacy.’ Then, after a decade of slowly working to improve relations, the US committed to the One China policy.[2] The One China policy stated that China (including Taiwan) is one singular state, and the US must treat them as such. In a time when the US-Taiwan relations were important, this was a significant step in creating positive relations between the US and China. It also meant that the US would need to stop trading directly with Taiwan. The next ten years were spent improving diplomatic relations between the US and China.

While relations seemed to be continuously improving, the Tiananmen Square Massacre occurred in June of 1989, creating a major rift between the US and China.[3] After months of student protests, the government ended the protest by force. The United States’ government did not agree with …

Performance Comparison between Push and Pull Health Logistics Systems in Katsina State, Nigeria

Laurent Cleenewerck1, Devender Bhalla2, and Kabiru Abubakar Gulma3

1Pôle Universitaire Euclide, Bangui, Central African Republic

2Sudan League of Epilepsy and Neurology, Khartoum, Sudan

3EUCLID (Euclid University), Banjul, The Gambia


Keywords: Push system, pull system, emergency order, lead time, stock out incidence, duration of stock out

Abstract: Logistics systems of public health programs generally employ either a push or pull system to supply commodities to health facilities. The objective of this study was to compare the systems on key performance indicators related to supply methods. One each of push and pull logistics systems were selected, and sample sizes for both systems were determined by assuming that 50.0% facilities would have a “gold-standard situation,” 95% confidence interval, 3.5% variance between groups, and 10.0% total width of the confidence interval. Eleven personnel recruited, trained, and deployed for the exercise collected data using a validated tool. A total of 442 health facilities were visited comprising of 319 and 123 facilities that receive commodities through a push and pull systems respectively. Mann-Whitney tests were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Findings showed that the pull system is a statistically better option than the push system regarding the frequency of stockouts (p=0.000), days of stock out (p=0.000), the number of products stocked out (p=0.000), products expiry (p=0.004), and lead time (p=0.000). However, the rates of emergency orders between the systems are statistically indifferent (p=0.481).


1.      Introduction

Stockout of essential public health commodities in Nigeria is widespread.[1] This is worse, particularly in Northern Nigeria, where many challenges contribute to the overwhelming shortage of health commodities.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] Part of these challenges are inadequate funding, increase in population density, environmental factors that harbor vectors and facilitate transmission of diseases, and inefficient logistics systems that respond poorly to requisitions from health facilities.[7],[8]

In studying the effectiveness of logistics systems in their response to public health needs, it has been noted that diseases alone have worse indices in Nigeria. Logistics systems have two principal ways of responding (supplying) to commodity needs of service centers to combat the public health diseases in question; these are the push and pull systems. The push system (allocation system) refers to a method of determining the amount of products to deliver to a facility often by another higher-level facility such as the district level store or a central store.[9] This is not the best form of determining what goes to a facility. However, if commodities are not enough to service all orders by the lower-level facilities, this appears to be the only option. On the other hand, in the pull system (requisition system), the personnel at the Service Delivery Point (SDP) determines (by formula) how much of the products are required.9 This is regarded as the best practice because it factors the average monthly consumption of products at the facility, therefore, stock out of commodities while using this method is less likely.

Katsina State, a northwestern state of Nigeria with a population of 7,831,300 people and 34 Local Governments Areas (LGAs), there are up to eleven supply chains running parallel to each other.[10][11] One robust program from each of push and pull systems was selected for this study. The choices arose as a result of similarity in funding, maximum stock level (6 months each), minimum stock level (3 months each), same emergency order points (2 months) and same lead times (2 weeks). The push system selected was a malaria program that supplies 1,718 health facilities across Katsina State. The pull system chosen was the Tuberculosis and Leprosy Control Program (TBLCP), which supplies 173 Directly Observed Treatment Short Course (DOTS), centers across the state. Table I below provides a summary of the systems.

Table 1: The Push and Pull Systems to be Compared

S/N Supply Chain System Funder (Procurement & Logistics) Min-Max Stock Levels at SDP

(Months)

Emergency Order Point (Months) Lead Time (Months)
1 Malaria Global Fund (GF) 3 – 6 2 2
2 TBLCP Global Fund (GF) 3 – 6 2 2

 

The choice of malaria and tuberculosis (TB) has coincided with the fact that the two programs deal with the two most threatening public health diseases in Nigeria and both are funded by the same donor. In the whole world, the highest burden of malaria is suffered by Nigeria (about 30% of malaria burden in Africa) which has approximately 51 million cases and deaths up to 207,000 annually; again, nearly 173 million people (97% of the Nigerian population) are at risk of malaria.[12]

About 30% child mortality (mostly children under five years), 11% maternal deaths, and 60% of outpatient visits to health facilities in Nigeria are the result of malaria infection.[13] With this prevalence …