cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/687442
On Tuesday, the United States government added aluminum to its list of priority sectors for the enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The law aims to block any good made in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region tainted by state-imposed forced labor from entering the US market.
The US decision aligns with the findings of Human Rights Watch’s 2024 report “Asleep at the Wheel,” which documented the forced labor risks associated with sourcing aluminum from Xinjiang and informed the US Senate inquiry this May. Aluminum is key in dozens of automotive parts and the decision will have a huge impact on car companies’ human rights due diligence.
In recent years the European Union has shied away from meaningfully addressing human rights violations in China, notably forced labor in Xinjiang. Instead it has focused on economic security measures, such as imposing tariffs on imported Chinese electric vehicles. But the EU’s upcoming adoption of its Forced Labor Regulation (FLR) presents the EU an opportunity to set up an encompassing and rights-based approach to its relations with Chinese authorities.
The proposed FLR seeks to prevent EU consumers from buying goods produced with forced labor anywhere in the world. Once formally adopted, the European Commission will publish an online database on specific geographic areas and sectors at risk of forced labor, including regions where state authorities impose forced labor. A comprehensive database will be an important resource for companies, regulators, workers’ rights groups, and consumers alike.
Listing Xinjiang and the aluminum sector in the FLR database is crucial for the regulation to have concrete impact on state-imposed forced labor in China. The European Commission should also include other sectors among more than 17 industries associated with state-imposed forced labor that the Coalition to End Forced Labor in the Uyghur Region, including Human Rights Watch, has identified.
Though it seems simple, this action demands political courage, as China’s past retaliatory practices have created a climate of fear. It will doubtlessly also face resistance from those EU countries, Germany among them, that have strong economic dependencies on China. Finding that courage would add considerable strength to the global response, along with the US, Canada, Mexico, and other governments considering forced labor import bans, to address state-imposed forced labor, and more broadly, the Chinese government’s grave international crimes in Xinjiang.
The US has straight up slavery in its prisons, producing a not insignificant part of all industrial output of the country, and not even a peep.
Still 0 evidence of any forced labor in Xinjiang, after several inspections by several organisations from the west, global south etc.
Forced labour and other severe human rights abuses are evident in China's Xinjiang region, even though there is no full supply chain transparency in China. Your remarks regarding the US are true, but here this apparently is a blatant whataboutism.
You say it’s evident, but where is the evidence? Were the observers from Muslim countries, from the west, all secretly Chinese spies?
What a rubbish. Even Turkey, a country whose government is not exactly a role model for democracy itself, has long called out China's treatment of its Muslim ethnic Uighur minority "a great cause of shame for humanity". Volkswagen closed its Xinjiang-plant it ran with joint venture partner SAIC as "no full supply chain transparency exists".
Markus Löning, Germany’s former commissioner for human rights who oversaw an audit on forced labour for Volkswagen last year (this the one report that is often cited in this ignorant communities where wumaos and ziganwus have given up their own personal developments just for parroting propaganda that is out of touch with world) conceded that the basis for the audit had been a review of documentation rather than interviews with workers, which he said could be “dangerous.” He also said that “even if they [workers] would be aware of something, they cannot say that in an interview.” And when asked about potential links between SAIC-Volkswagen and an aluminum producer in Xinjiang, Volkswagen responded: “We have no transparency about the supplier relationships of the non-controlled shareholding SAIC-Volkswagen.”
In addition, there are numerous Uyguhr people who survived the so-called 're-education camps' who spoke out. A 10 seconds search has found this and that.
This is a VERY TINY sample of what's wrong with Chinese supply chains and the country's stance against human rights, and it's no limited to cars but spans practically all industry sectors. There is ample evidence.
I hope you give the same validity to these sources (xinjiangahr.carrd.co) as to those you shared.
You can go to Xinjiang. Freely. Just go, walk around, talk to people.
No, you cannot walk around freely. This exactly is the point. There is no full supply chain transparency. Company executives and auditors say that, human rights experts, even some politicians who visited the country. Audits are just based on interviews, and these are useless, as even if workers would be aware of human rights violations, they cannot say that in an interview. This is said by those who have been there and conducted the audits. Read the sources.
At the start of this years, the Chinese government itself has -once again- openly rejected critical calls for human-rights reforms at the U.N. meeting, just to name another example, including a call for an end to persecutions of Uyghurs. It also rejected all recommendations calling on the government to end reprisals against individuals engaging with the international human rights system, even a message of disdain on the ten-year anniversary of the death of Cao Shunli in detention, a former Chinese human rights defender taken into custody on her way to Geneva for China’s 2014 UPR (Universal Periodical Review).
Prior to the U.N. meeting this year, China had even lobbied non-Western countries to praise its record by asking them to make "constructive recommendations", which were essentially bland questions, make vague recommendations, and use their platform to praise the Chinese government’s rights record. And China has been blocking any domestic civil society groups from participating in the preparation of the state report or from making contributions to the review by the U.N. for decades, very much as it does with supply chain audits.
And, again, these additional examples are a VERY TINY sample of what is evident.