This wouldn't have been published unless that was an explicit goal. But Nike's strategy doesn't seem particularly effective, and the outcome is predictable.
Top CCP brass will be outraged at the insinuation that anything disreputable is going on, will drone on about "how dare Nike try to shame the honorable reputation of the virtuous and hard-working and well-meaning and morally super great Chinese people," will probably accuse Nike of anti-Chinese racism, and then will try to "Cancel Nike" within China and in their New Silk Road sphere of influence (i.e. Economic Sanctions with Chinese Characteristics).
You can't call out a bully that obsesses over appearances and feigns outrage like this. If you've ever had the misfortune of working with someone like this, you'll know that calling bullshit on them doesn't work. They'll take offense, they'll throw a fit, they'll sabotage and self destruct. It's juvenile and exhausting, but they just can't accept that you're not buying their crap. It's the same story here. Antagonizing doesn't work.
We need to find another way to exert pressure on China and the CCP that doesn't immediately trigger this "embarrassed and outraged" response. At work, you might pretend to be this bully's friend, feed them a different idea, convince them that it's their idea, let them champion this idea, make a big show of everybody praising them for how brilliant it is, etc. (and then look for a new job, because that's fucking exhausting too).
The stakes are really high here. A bully like this at work that has power and can't be fired can destroy the company, but this bully has nukes and wants to invade Taiwan. If they really start to feel like the entire world is trying to shame them, it's going to end in disaster.
> ...you might pretend to be this bully's friend, feed them a different idea, convince them that it's their idea...
I thought I'd read somewhere (but can't find the source now) that around the Cold War or thereabouts, trade with China was seen as a way of "exporting capitalism" to undermine support for communism there. If so, that... hasn't worked.
I'm not convinced the west actually has any leverage on China. They own the US's debt, they have access to rare earth metals necessary for computer manufacture, and they're the backbone of worldwide manufacturing. Any pressure applied (trade sanctions?) will just come back the other direction (oh no, actually we need that trade to maintain our way of life).
Currently the world leader in US debt holding is not china, but japan.
> actually we need that trade to maintain our way of life
Currently the number 1 trading partner with the US is Mexico, not china. The US economy is overwhelmingly domestic, too with something like 10% via foreign trade. And china's labor costs no longer make it competitive in terms of "making the average us resident's prices low".
The place that will get screwed is europe, which DOES do a ton of trade with China, as we will see in the upcoming months with the closure of the suez (most us trade does not use the suez, only about 10% of oil from saudia arabia, and most us oil production has shifted to domestic, IIRC it's like 5% foreign or something like that)
Yeah, I think the "pretend you're on their side" strategy might work once or twice before they're onto you, so if you can't get them permanently out of the way by then, you're finished.
> I'm not convinced the west actually has any leverage on China.
Unfortunately, I think I agree. I'm not convinced the debt thing matters very much, but as things stand, we are hosed without China's manufacturing base, and double plus hosed if TSMC is captured or destroyed as a result of a Taiwan attack.
China has been chosen as the manufacturer of the western world.
While it's a big thing they need, I'm not convinced that it is impossible to shift a lot of that influence to India. Who would probably make a better partner ( not sure).
> I thought I'd read somewhere (but can't find the source now) that around the Cold War or thereabouts, trade with China was seen as a way of "exporting capitalism" to undermine support for communism there. If so, that... hasn't worked.
Hasn't it? It has not succeeded in making China an ally, but modern China is communist in name only.
> Top CCP brass will be outraged at the insinuation that anything disreputable is going on, will drone on about "how dare Nike try to shame the honorable reputation of the virtuous and hard-working and well-meaning and morally super great Chinese people,"
Tangential, but can any native Mandarin speaker chime in on whether the translations of CCP communications -- which, like the parent comment's hypothetical example, often read with the screechy yet formal outrage of, like, the king's devoted manservant -- are actually accurate? The only other thing I can think of like that is communications from North Korea. I have to imagine it's deliberate on somebody's part.
This is better translated as "damaged how the Chinese people feel about..." but instead comes off as the Chinese people having the emotional tolerance of a grade schooler. Unfortunately, it seems it was actually first used by state media in 1959 instead of originating from a foreign translation of the Chinese statement.
I find it hilarious that this phrase, of all things, has a Wikipedia article -- I guess that just illustrates how notably ridiculous it sounds outside of China. I wonder how much damage that disconnect has caused over the years.
They are mostly accurate. If not toned down in the translation. People on different forums such as reddit has repeatedly asked the question, why all these passive aggressiveness, did the translator do their job. The answer is they did.
How can anyone doing business with China look the other way on Xinjiang simply by saying "our factory isn't there". Every one of us buying goods made in China is enabling their behaviour by showing that we would rather make more money or would rather have cheaper electronics and plastic crap than standing up for the human rights of the people in Xinjiang who are the focus of the CCPs genocide.
I think it is a pivotal moment for this generation to show what our principles are, if we have any.
As a Canadian I wish our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would more directly speak out against China's poor behaviour and offer some temporary support for businesses that would be impacted. Sell the grain and pork to someone else for less and I would gladly see part of my tax dollars go to make up the loss for the Canadian farmers.
edit: responses with counter points to help me understand your point of view, or if I am out of line, would be more helpful than downvotes.
> I think it is a pivotal moment for this generation to show what our principles are, if we have any.
It's already known that this (political) generation doesn't have these principles. Government contracts rarely consider anything beyond the cheapest offer. Corporations are obligated to maximise their profit above all other considerations.
It's the West's (including Canada's) morals that have got us here - we simply export our bad behaviour to other countries, so that we don't have to see it.
Overall, nobody is going to stop importing clothes made in China, because there isn't sufficient industry elsewhere in the world. We closed it, and exported it to China, because it was cheaper.
I think of my grandfathers, one who was in world war 1 and 2, and the other in world war 2, and their whole generation marching off to war to put their lives on the line to stand up for what is right, and I can't imagine anybody I know doing that unless they joined the military out of high school because they didn't have any better options.
edit: I can't reply for some reason. (oh it's because parent is flagged). If there was resistance in Canada to going to war in world war 1 and 2 it isn't part of the history that is taught to us. I imagine since there was no draft in Canada only the willing went.
Did a whole generation really just "march off to war to put their lives on the line"? While of course there were people who volunteered, in the USA the majority of soldiers fighting in World War II were conscripted – they went because the state told them they had to go. And there was still a lot of isolationist sentiment and reluctance to get involved in the war in Europe even after Pearl Harbor. Are the figures not similar for Canada?
It doesn't matter, because history is probably one of the most effective forms of social control. Think about how complicated modern day events are and how difficult it is to shift through the mountains of perspectives to understand the whole picture. Now throw in decades of time difference with fragmented and hard to decipher primary documents, and you end up with a story that has to be interpreted by expert historians/storytellers, installed into the self-identity of generations of students, and used to shame individuals into matching the mythical sacrifices their ancestors supposedly took without any complaint. It's miles ahead of organized religion in terms of persuasiveness because any grain of truth in the historical story is magnified into the only possible truth without nuance or uncertainty. To go against the stories we tell ourselves is to go against all of society itself. If the body tells you to die in stomach acid because that is your role as an epithelium cell, and it's what generations of your ancestors have done, what can you do but die doing your job?
There was a point where I really enjoyed reading histories. Then I dug too deep and found too many inconsistencies, and I realized that if I were to track down every detail to the end I would go mad or worse, be a history PhD. The only way I could recover that original enjoyment was to treat every historical book as a work of fiction and marvel at how well they're able to hack its way into the social subsystem in our brain that allows us to form societies.
The war was pitched in Canada as "a duty to defend England, the throne and the motherland". This did not sit well with French Canadians, who inhabited the country since the 1500's and were heavily discriminated against by the British[0][1].
The rest of the world didn't join world war 2 because of the atrocities being committed by Nazi Germany, they joined because Germany started invading neighboring countries.
>A major turning point in Nazi policy toward Jews was the coordinated attacks by the Sturmabteilung (or SA, the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party) against Jews and Jewish institutions and businesses throughout Germany and Austria on November 9-10, 1938 – an event known as Kristallnacht or the Night of the Broken Glass, due to the large amount of shattered windows at Jewish properties in its aftermath. At least 91 Jews were killed in the violence, and 30,000 were arrested and interned in concentration camps (but not extermination camps). Over 900 synagogues and 7,000 Jewish businesses were severely damaged or destroyed.
In Canada, the term to search for is not "draft", but "conscription". You will see that there is resistance to conscription regularly through the nation's history. (And it certainly used to be part of the history that was taught to us in Ontario.)
absolutely there is a resistance to conscription in Canada, but was there a resistance to going to war or did everyone sign up due to duty and social pressure to "do the right thing"?
It indeed is very interesting. I still wonder when the news came out that Europe received wigs sourced from Uyghur hair, how lax the response actually was. Here in the Netherlands the then minister announced they were unable to provide any more transparancy on the whereabouts of packaging because they argument was made that it would be in conflict with the duty of confidentiality of the customs. Sure the wigs reached some traction, but nothing was done.
Can you imagine how the world would respond if someone was selling wigs sourced from Jews from concentration camps? No way that the confidentiality of customs would be weighing heavier than.
I too wish Europe would take a stronger stance against China, but unfortunately the immense dependency of consumerism made possible by China's cheap labor makes that a very unpopular move. I find the analogy with climate change rather strong as well: To make the actual change necessary, people will have to change some habits. To hold your moral ground against China you will have to accept that prices of products will rise, similarly that if you want to stop polluting everything, you have to accept that stuff will become more expensive as not polluting everything simply just costs more. Dumping whatever toxins you have on your hands is cheaper than actually getting rid of it in the right way, and so on.
I believe that whatever succesful strategy to combat climate change en masse will be the same strategy to combat these moral blindfolds for economic gains, and in the end I believe it's tackling the problem at the source: lower prices of production in the local environment to lesser the dependency on China.
I'm in the market for new flat screen TV. Hopefully I can find one made in South Korea or even Japen, and will pay a premium for it. A pitiful sacrifice to make from someone who can easily afford it.
Even so, there's a limit to how much the consumer can do, given how interconnected supply chains are. Your TV may ultimately be assembled in SK, but it will definitely be sending revenue to China for myriad internal components. A boycott is a challenging thing to implement at the consumer level with modern supply chains. It's unclear what the best mechanism to apply moral shame should be, especially when political action is only interpreted cynically as economic competition.
(...And I'm being silently downvoted just as you are.)
Most of us _don't have any choice_ but to do business with China at one point or another during the day, especially if we're poor. Especially if we want to own a piece of electronics, necessary if you want to (for example) apply for unemployment insurance. (it's all electronic in this state, and they _shut down_ all the local unemployment offices). Or make a phone call. (Maybe I'll get lucky and wind up with the cheap cell phone brand made in Vietnam instead of China. Woo hoo, they haven't ethnically cleansed people in thirty years, and it was a lot less than China did in the same time period. So moral superiority!)
This isn't meant as a response to you, I'm just stating the situation as I see it.
I haven't downvoted you but there are a couple of problems here.
> How can anyone doing business with China look the other way on Xinjiang simply by saying "our factory isn't there".
In many industries not doing business with China is synonymous with not doing business. Many supply chains go through China, this is not something you can easily change.
Additionally capitalism incentives companies to focus on profit over ethics. You can't expect companies to act against that. That's why regulation is important to limit what companies can do to what is acceptable.
Your expectation here is just not realistic.
> Every one of us buying goods made in China is enabling their behaviour by showing that we would rather make more money or would rather have cheaper electronics and plastic crap than standing up for the human rights of the people in Xinjiang who are the focus of the CCPs genocide.
Placing blame on consumers is extremely problematic because it assumes people can make a choice here. That is not a reasonable assumption. Consumers probably don't have the necessary information about the product (and supply chain!), so they can't make an informed decision not to buy a product on this basis. Even if they had this information, they also may not have the financial means to afford making a choice on that basis.
We have effective mechanisms to define and enforce rules, it involves governments taking action through creating and enforcing laws. Putting blame on consumers ultimately shifts responsibility away from people who could do something meaningful about the problem to people who cannot.
> As a Canadian I wish our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would more directly speak out against China's poor behaviour and offer some temporary support for businesses that would be impacted.
Trudeau merely speaking out against China, also wouldn't help. Sanctions might help and Canada is actually one of several countries that has created sanctions over the treatment of Uighurs.
I'm sure this is not your intention but effectively you're arguing for actions that have no chance of actually solving the problem. This is also a common political strategy by neoliberals who are opposed to government intervention on ideological grounds. So one might be inclined, to think that you pretend to be offended because it's unacceptable not to but don't really want it solved either.
The pandemic has highlighted the fragility of global supply chains and the downside of being dependent on others for critical goods. They are cheap when they are plentiful but they become unobtainable when they are desperately needed. That, China's beligerent diplomats, and their decision to ignore the Hong Kong treaty will hopefully be the impetus to reduce reliance on China's supply chains by developing and supporting other sources even if they are more expensive. Perhaps even local sources given that friendly faces seem to be able to to turn on you once they have some leverage, and it is difficult to re-start an industry once that know-how is lost forever.
As the son of an economics professor I never thought I would argue for subsidies for uncompetitive natioanlized industry but it turns out there is some additional benefit other than the goods produced on a given day.
Politicians need support for hardships they may bring upon us, such as reduced profits, more expensive goods, and subsidies for local industry, that may be the result of sanctions and moral high ground.
I think "vote with your wallet" campaigns and boycotts can be a good indicator to politicians that their voters have the stomach for the sanctions, just like a demonstration or march in support of the Uighurs would.
Even ineffective measures that show your support for a cause, such as wrapping a t-shirt around your face to avoid spreading covid-19 particles that are the same size as asbestos fibres and can sail right through, sends a message that you are willing to make some sacrifice for the greater good at the cost of some personal discomfort.
I support goverment intervention, but I think the government needs to see they have the will of the voters behind them.
Thanks again for your thoughts!
They didn't fraud the US, they allegedly frauded HSBC, a UK bank. There isn't a legal obligation to extradite either, extradition could be prevented through numerous legal mechanisms - for example, there is no guarantee that Meng Wenzhou will actually be tried for minor fraud instead of the mucher harsher crime of violating sanctions, for which there is no analogy in Canadian law, but in addition US courts are not fully transparent and independent in matters of national security, nor is the penalty of up to 20 years analogous in Canadian law, nor is there any actual damages in the crime of fraud that could be recognized to any party besides the US Government, and so on, but there were also violations of due process during discovery as evidence was illegally obtained by the prosecution, and more. There is ample material for the extradition to be throw out, but it isn't because the US is trying to use it to extract strategic advantages over Canada.
More importantly, allies mean nothing to the US, which refuses to back Canada in any of its international disputes (most of which are against the US), so I see no reason why we shouldn't return the favour.
As far as genocide, I wish you wouldn't throw that around so lightly, it's an insult to the millions of actual victims of genocide, which weren't in a group where their population increased. If you mean cultural genocide, or racist repression, say that - it's already a grave enough offense. That being said, if you think any geopolitical actor cares about it, you're being misled - sanctions only serve to make the situation worse, and the United States has been funding the terrorists in Xinjiang for decades to attempt to create the conditions for repression. Put simply, no one actually cares, they're just trying to use you to achieve their goals. Otherwise Canada/US/EU wouldn't support all the other genocidal countries, or would at least recognize their own (cultural) genocides, which they haven't.
Apparently I’m taking genocide lightly and your the one that compared extradition (legal or bot) of one person to it
If I have to pick China or USA who both are rife with human rights abuses its a wise choice to go with one we share a border with and is our largest trading partner by far even if every 4 years they can turn on a dime unpredictability
The wise choice is to not choose either - both countries don't care about killing a million people, and we have a lot more leverage over the US than we have over China.
As far as comparisons, I didn't make any. You're free to quote if you disagree.
It's an entirely reasonable question, but I just can't quite get on board with the consequence of collectively punishing the Chinese people for Xinjiang. I won't do business with the Chinese government, certainly. But if a team of Shanghai developers makes a game I really like, I'm not comfortable boycotting them for their government's sins; it seems both unfair to them and unlikely to help anyone.
For a blanket refusal to transact with any Chinese business? I don't know if there's anything it would "take" as such. What's happening in Xinjiang is already about as bad as a domestic issue can get. I just don't agree that it's a good lever to push.
Here in Canada is I found out I was losing sales because people were upset with the way Canada was treating the first nations people here it would certainly be an eye opener and probably would make me want my government to stop doing what it was doing to make me lose business.
Even accepting the underlying logic, aren't Chinese citizens also generally victims of their government, not equal partners who could effectively shift its policies? If a random businessperson started raising a fuss about Xinjiang, I expect they would find themselves quickly disappeared or jailed on fabricated charges.
I understand there are 100 million members of the CCP. if society as a whole is quietly unhappy with the result of actions by their government I think they would have the influence to change the course. Maybe some are loud and disappeared but all of the institutions are made up of people. Just like the "adults are in the room" editorial when Trump was president there can be quiet dissenters who just don't work as hard to get the officially desired outcomes and then they don't occur.
Particularly since ETIM, the terrorist group responsible for a string of deadly attacks in China, has links to both Saudi Arabia and the NED (a CIA front). The same group sent thousands of fighters to Syria to fight on the side of ISIS.
Correct. To be clear, I don't support genocide (as if that needs to be said) but the US media demonization of China is obviously geopolitical motivated and if its as successful at convincing the American public as Iraq's "WMDs" were, it could eventually be used as a causus beli.
The US doesn't want war with China. Especially not for the human rights of muslims. US and China both reap the majority of the rewards of the current system of trade. Why would either country want hell on earth as opposed to the status quo?
The US’s domination is based on the petrodollar. China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela (and in the past Libya, Afghanistan, etc.) started to trade (particularly oil) using other currencies. Even the EU is headed that way with both Iran and Russia.
It is in the interests of US and allied monopolies (especially oil) to prevent this at all costs, since it would remove the main tool for extracting disproportionate profit from the impoverished world and enforcing sanctions on anyone that resists.
I don’t think that’s true. Sure the petrodollar might be a small boost but it’s hardly what’s propping up the super power status. The US has a ton of soft and hard power still.
Military, internal market, businesses, banks, the justice system, etc are all orders of magnitude more important for the hegemony
And yet countries get sanctioned, coup-ed or invaded when they threaten the petrodollar.
The military enforces the petrodollar, which makes the USD the world’s reserve currency. That means the US can take advantage of extremely low prices on all imports to placate a large portion of the population, while still extracting vast profits from the rest of the world through export of capital at extortionate interest rates.
US domestic production besides military, oil or banks is almost negligible.
No jobs for 13 million Uygurs, hoping that they will overthrow the government. The same thing US is hoping to achieve in NK and Iran.
I don't trust these NGOs, especially after watched the Netflix documentary about fishing. It is just another way for someone from a well connected family to make money and fell good.
Or even if they can't overthrow their government, at least destabilize the province enough to be a thorn in China's side as they try to push their belt and road initiative. It'll be hard for China to require increased security out of their partner countries when they don't have their own house in order, with Xinjiang being the entry point for the road in China.
In the past, seasonal migrate workers from Sichuan&Qinghai province would travel to work in Xinjiang. With the poverty alleviation scheme set out by government, companies would hire locals first, not only that, they also asked all kinds of companies to set up factories to provide factories in Xinjiang to provide more jobs. One of them was actually Apple supplier, then got banned by Apple due to having Uygur workers. Any company hires Uygurs will not be able to sell to the US now. That's the reality. the idea is to have 13 million people cannot work in any factory.
Yes, workers' condition is not as good as in US. And yes, there is a world outside US.
Yes, China wants to use economic development to stablize the region (1/5 of China) and eliminate separates movement. I am Chinese, so I am biased to say no to separation. And I want a stable China.
Fk sake, I remember how my family lived when I was small, I maybe had one meat dish a year. To see how people's life has improved so far, and it is getting better every year. I want people to live better next year and the year after.
If you care about people in Iran, why should you push for sanction? Wouldn't it be better when people don't have to worry about bread, they can think about what they want for live? They may not want the same thing you want, isn't it still nice?
It's not whataboutism to show that these sorts of claims when coming from the US tend be from a dishonest perspective, with larger geopolitical goals and outright fabrications in the claims themselves.
It’s easy to make excuses like “we don’t source from the forced labor part of the country” or “the whole world’s supply chain is tied to China.” Both statements are true but when we consider how we’re indirectly supporting a country that is actively committing crimes against humanity it has to make us stop and do some serious soul searching.
When it was obvious China’s wages were below minimum wage in the US I said that’s free markets at work. But what’s happening in Xinjiang isn’t anywhere close to free market labor. It’s the opposite and I keep trying to but can’t think of any excuse for it.
That's the thing, it is hard to disengage. I know that the China sanctions seem to have helped move that along economically, but it's hard to even know where every little thing is sourced from and so much is done in China.
But I do know that, at least for my shoes, they were made by Tim & Mary, not by someone toiling in a factory with nets to keep them from jumping out the window. It's not much, but it's something.
Nike should clarify their statement so they don't run afoul of anti-discrimination laws. One consequence of their action may be that their suppliers refuse to hire any ethnic minorities, as shown in their statement.
Like are we really buying into an issue that’s been around in the open since 2012 - suddenly it’s unbearable and how can we do business with evil folk like this!?
This just so happens to come up during US-China talks. The US is by no means clean here either...
Frustrating that we all fall for these clearly geopolitical driven narratives
Skechers report - no forced labour in Xinjiang
MUJI - no forced labour in Xinjiang
nike - no forced labour in Xinjiang
adidas - no forced labour in Xinjiang
At the same time this whole Xinjiang stuff reminds me of dozens of destibalization operations by the Americans in countless contries.
I went to Hong Kong in 2019 during the protests to join them and to see with my own eyes what was going on. I met with the protesters and spoke with many of them.
It was NOT the same what the media was reporting here.
Once covid is over, I will travel to Xinjiang and also see for myself, because I started to believe that this entire anti-China movement is a very smart way of setting up of a new cold war.
China has not restricted access to Xinjiang. You can visit if you like. Most western visitors report that security is high in some areas, but foreigners are allowed to visit.
Just walking around won't necessarily tell you the whole story obviously, but the notion that you can't visit is false.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-xinjiang/wary-of-xi...
By take a look I was really thinking going to talk to people in these concentration camps we hear about and have in monitored conversations, not just visit that region.
And what an interesting article! It does not paint a happy or free picture and actually solidified my view that it’s more likely to be true then not
When the same accusations happened a few years ago China did invite the EU to take a look, but the EU never went there. In addition, several muslim countries went and did not find any shred of evidence. At this point you'll have to start wondering what the NGO/EU's ulterior motives are.
I mean it's one of those nebulous things where sure you can go there take a look, but if the entire government is doing their best to hide it/threaten everyone who stays there after you leave will you see anything? would you be on a tour taking you only to approve spots or would you have complete and free access?
I assume US/EU/China all have their own motives and the truth is somewhere in the middle and we'll either never really know or not know for a very long time. But its super clear at the very least they are doing their best to wipe out the culture.... and then they go after canada for doing the same except decades ago with residential schools lol its all hypocritical on all sides as always
> they are doing their best to wipe out the culture....
This is a dubious claim at least to me. There are videos of tourists in Xinjiang showcasing many many mosques. In fact their mosques are a major tourist attraction. If you have reliable non-western sources for this information do tell.
This is not an open and shut case. The organizations reporting this, The Australian Strategic Policy Institute(Aussie defense department), and The Victims Of Communism Foundation(!), are not unbiased nor are their methodologies uncontroversial.
Neither the US State Department nor CIA have claimed there is genocide so I think there is still an open question. The groups claiming genocide are NGOs and a fake university, The Newline Institute https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/17/report-uyghur-genocide-sh...
Strange how these billion dollar companies keep getting tricked into innocently profiting from slave labor.
It seems to me like the only way for a company to know if forced labor is used in the production of the goods they sell is for someone else to catch them red-handed.
Its time to make a choice between more profits or taking a stand against a regime that uses slave labour, forcible sterlization of women, mass surveilance, "re-education".
We'll see how many companies chose the former option and the type of reaction they get in the rest of the world for it. It will color the actions of other repressive regimes.
When they post a rainbow flag to support Pride or make a statement of support for MeToo or BLM, you feel they're doing something they think will have no effect on them except score them virtue points, but when it come to doing something that has a tangible impact on profits, well...the inaction is noticable.
87 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadTop CCP brass will be outraged at the insinuation that anything disreputable is going on, will drone on about "how dare Nike try to shame the honorable reputation of the virtuous and hard-working and well-meaning and morally super great Chinese people," will probably accuse Nike of anti-Chinese racism, and then will try to "Cancel Nike" within China and in their New Silk Road sphere of influence (i.e. Economic Sanctions with Chinese Characteristics).
You can't call out a bully that obsesses over appearances and feigns outrage like this. If you've ever had the misfortune of working with someone like this, you'll know that calling bullshit on them doesn't work. They'll take offense, they'll throw a fit, they'll sabotage and self destruct. It's juvenile and exhausting, but they just can't accept that you're not buying their crap. It's the same story here. Antagonizing doesn't work.
We need to find another way to exert pressure on China and the CCP that doesn't immediately trigger this "embarrassed and outraged" response. At work, you might pretend to be this bully's friend, feed them a different idea, convince them that it's their idea, let them champion this idea, make a big show of everybody praising them for how brilliant it is, etc. (and then look for a new job, because that's fucking exhausting too).
The stakes are really high here. A bully like this at work that has power and can't be fired can destroy the company, but this bully has nukes and wants to invade Taiwan. If they really start to feel like the entire world is trying to shame them, it's going to end in disaster.
I thought I'd read somewhere (but can't find the source now) that around the Cold War or thereabouts, trade with China was seen as a way of "exporting capitalism" to undermine support for communism there. If so, that... hasn't worked.
I'm not convinced the west actually has any leverage on China. They own the US's debt, they have access to rare earth metals necessary for computer manufacture, and they're the backbone of worldwide manufacturing. Any pressure applied (trade sanctions?) will just come back the other direction (oh no, actually we need that trade to maintain our way of life).
Currently the world leader in US debt holding is not china, but japan.
> actually we need that trade to maintain our way of life
Currently the number 1 trading partner with the US is Mexico, not china. The US economy is overwhelmingly domestic, too with something like 10% via foreign trade. And china's labor costs no longer make it competitive in terms of "making the average us resident's prices low".
The place that will get screwed is europe, which DOES do a ton of trade with China, as we will see in the upcoming months with the closure of the suez (most us trade does not use the suez, only about 10% of oil from saudia arabia, and most us oil production has shifted to domestic, IIRC it's like 5% foreign or something like that)
Yeah, I think the "pretend you're on their side" strategy might work once or twice before they're onto you, so if you can't get them permanently out of the way by then, you're finished.
> I'm not convinced the west actually has any leverage on China.
Unfortunately, I think I agree. I'm not convinced the debt thing matters very much, but as things stand, we are hosed without China's manufacturing base, and double plus hosed if TSMC is captured or destroyed as a result of a Taiwan attack.
While it's a big thing they need, I'm not convinced that it is impossible to shift a lot of that influence to India. Who would probably make a better partner ( not sure).
Other than that, I don't see much options.
Hasn't it? It has not succeeded in making China an ally, but modern China is communist in name only.
Tangential, but can any native Mandarin speaker chime in on whether the translations of CCP communications -- which, like the parent comment's hypothetical example, often read with the screechy yet formal outrage of, like, the king's devoted manservant -- are actually accurate? The only other thing I can think of like that is communications from North Korea. I have to imagine it's deliberate on somebody's part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurting_the_feelings_of_the_Ch...
This is better translated as "damaged how the Chinese people feel about..." but instead comes off as the Chinese people having the emotional tolerance of a grade schooler. Unfortunately, it seems it was actually first used by state media in 1959 instead of originating from a foreign translation of the Chinese statement.
I find it hilarious that this phrase, of all things, has a Wikipedia article -- I guess that just illustrates how notably ridiculous it sounds outside of China. I wonder how much damage that disconnect has caused over the years.
They are mostly accurate. If not toned down in the translation. People on different forums such as reddit has repeatedly asked the question, why all these passive aggressiveness, did the translator do their job. The answer is they did.
I think it is a pivotal moment for this generation to show what our principles are, if we have any.
As a Canadian I wish our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would more directly speak out against China's poor behaviour and offer some temporary support for businesses that would be impacted. Sell the grain and pork to someone else for less and I would gladly see part of my tax dollars go to make up the loss for the Canadian farmers.
edit: responses with counter points to help me understand your point of view, or if I am out of line, would be more helpful than downvotes.
It's already known that this (political) generation doesn't have these principles. Government contracts rarely consider anything beyond the cheapest offer. Corporations are obligated to maximise their profit above all other considerations.
It's the West's (including Canada's) morals that have got us here - we simply export our bad behaviour to other countries, so that we don't have to see it.
Overall, nobody is going to stop importing clothes made in China, because there isn't sufficient industry elsewhere in the world. We closed it, and exported it to China, because it was cheaper.
edit: I can't reply for some reason. (oh it's because parent is flagged). If there was resistance in Canada to going to war in world war 1 and 2 it isn't part of the history that is taught to us. I imagine since there was no draft in Canada only the willing went.
There was a point where I really enjoyed reading histories. Then I dug too deep and found too many inconsistencies, and I realized that if I were to track down every detail to the end I would go mad or worse, be a history PhD. The only way I could recover that original enjoyment was to treat every historical book as a work of fiction and marvel at how well they're able to hack its way into the social subsystem in our brain that allows us to form societies.
Still that didn't stop heroes like Léo Major[3]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_the_Parliament_Buil....
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians#:~:t....
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9o_Major
>A major turning point in Nazi policy toward Jews was the coordinated attacks by the Sturmabteilung (or SA, the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party) against Jews and Jewish institutions and businesses throughout Germany and Austria on November 9-10, 1938 – an event known as Kristallnacht or the Night of the Broken Glass, due to the large amount of shattered windows at Jewish properties in its aftermath. At least 91 Jews were killed in the violence, and 30,000 were arrested and interned in concentration camps (but not extermination camps). Over 900 synagogues and 7,000 Jewish businesses were severely damaged or destroyed.
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/holocaust-remembrance-day/whe...
Can you imagine how the world would respond if someone was selling wigs sourced from Jews from concentration camps? No way that the confidentiality of customs would be weighing heavier than.
I too wish Europe would take a stronger stance against China, but unfortunately the immense dependency of consumerism made possible by China's cheap labor makes that a very unpopular move. I find the analogy with climate change rather strong as well: To make the actual change necessary, people will have to change some habits. To hold your moral ground against China you will have to accept that prices of products will rise, similarly that if you want to stop polluting everything, you have to accept that stuff will become more expensive as not polluting everything simply just costs more. Dumping whatever toxins you have on your hands is cheaper than actually getting rid of it in the right way, and so on.
I believe that whatever succesful strategy to combat climate change en masse will be the same strategy to combat these moral blindfolds for economic gains, and in the end I believe it's tackling the problem at the source: lower prices of production in the local environment to lesser the dependency on China.
(...And I'm being silently downvoted just as you are.)
This isn't meant as a response to you, I'm just stating the situation as I see it.
> How can anyone doing business with China look the other way on Xinjiang simply by saying "our factory isn't there".
In many industries not doing business with China is synonymous with not doing business. Many supply chains go through China, this is not something you can easily change.
Additionally capitalism incentives companies to focus on profit over ethics. You can't expect companies to act against that. That's why regulation is important to limit what companies can do to what is acceptable.
Your expectation here is just not realistic.
> Every one of us buying goods made in China is enabling their behaviour by showing that we would rather make more money or would rather have cheaper electronics and plastic crap than standing up for the human rights of the people in Xinjiang who are the focus of the CCPs genocide.
Placing blame on consumers is extremely problematic because it assumes people can make a choice here. That is not a reasonable assumption. Consumers probably don't have the necessary information about the product (and supply chain!), so they can't make an informed decision not to buy a product on this basis. Even if they had this information, they also may not have the financial means to afford making a choice on that basis.
We have effective mechanisms to define and enforce rules, it involves governments taking action through creating and enforcing laws. Putting blame on consumers ultimately shifts responsibility away from people who could do something meaningful about the problem to people who cannot.
> As a Canadian I wish our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would more directly speak out against China's poor behaviour and offer some temporary support for businesses that would be impacted.
Trudeau merely speaking out against China, also wouldn't help. Sanctions might help and Canada is actually one of several countries that has created sanctions over the treatment of Uighurs.
I'm sure this is not your intention but effectively you're arguing for actions that have no chance of actually solving the problem. This is also a common political strategy by neoliberals who are opposed to government intervention on ideological grounds. So one might be inclined, to think that you pretend to be offended because it's unacceptable not to but don't really want it solved either.
The pandemic has highlighted the fragility of global supply chains and the downside of being dependent on others for critical goods. They are cheap when they are plentiful but they become unobtainable when they are desperately needed. That, China's beligerent diplomats, and their decision to ignore the Hong Kong treaty will hopefully be the impetus to reduce reliance on China's supply chains by developing and supporting other sources even if they are more expensive. Perhaps even local sources given that friendly faces seem to be able to to turn on you once they have some leverage, and it is difficult to re-start an industry once that know-how is lost forever.
As the son of an economics professor I never thought I would argue for subsidies for uncompetitive natioanlized industry but it turns out there is some additional benefit other than the goods produced on a given day.
Politicians need support for hardships they may bring upon us, such as reduced profits, more expensive goods, and subsidies for local industry, that may be the result of sanctions and moral high ground.
I think "vote with your wallet" campaigns and boycotts can be a good indicator to politicians that their voters have the stomach for the sanctions, just like a demonstration or march in support of the Uighurs would.
Even ineffective measures that show your support for a cause, such as wrapping a t-shirt around your face to avoid spreading covid-19 particles that are the same size as asbestos fibres and can sail right through, sends a message that you are willing to make some sacrifice for the greater good at the cost of some personal discomfort.
I support goverment intervention, but I think the government needs to see they have the will of the voters behind them. Thanks again for your thoughts!
Detaining Meng Wanzhou is something.
More importantly, allies mean nothing to the US, which refuses to back Canada in any of its international disputes (most of which are against the US), so I see no reason why we shouldn't return the favour.
As far as genocide, I wish you wouldn't throw that around so lightly, it's an insult to the millions of actual victims of genocide, which weren't in a group where their population increased. If you mean cultural genocide, or racist repression, say that - it's already a grave enough offense. That being said, if you think any geopolitical actor cares about it, you're being misled - sanctions only serve to make the situation worse, and the United States has been funding the terrorists in Xinjiang for decades to attempt to create the conditions for repression. Put simply, no one actually cares, they're just trying to use you to achieve their goals. Otherwise Canada/US/EU wouldn't support all the other genocidal countries, or would at least recognize their own (cultural) genocides, which they haven't.
If I have to pick China or USA who both are rife with human rights abuses its a wise choice to go with one we share a border with and is our largest trading partner by far even if every 4 years they can turn on a dime unpredictability
As far as comparisons, I didn't make any. You're free to quote if you disagree.
http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2021/3/7/how-americ...
Or when the US backed Sunni extremists in Syria to destabilize Bashar Al Assad and provoke regime change?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
Or when the US provided air support for Sunni extremists in Libya (the "No Fly Zone") to topple the government of Colonel Ghadafi?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack
Why is the US media so concerned with Uygur rights and so unconcerned with Palestinian rights?
https://ifamericansknew.org/
It is in the interests of US and allied monopolies (especially oil) to prevent this at all costs, since it would remove the main tool for extracting disproportionate profit from the impoverished world and enforcing sanctions on anyone that resists.
Military, internal market, businesses, banks, the justice system, etc are all orders of magnitude more important for the hegemony
The military enforces the petrodollar, which makes the USD the world’s reserve currency. That means the US can take advantage of extremely low prices on all imports to placate a large portion of the population, while still extracting vast profits from the rest of the world through export of capital at extortionate interest rates.
US domestic production besides military, oil or banks is almost negligible.
This is false.
The US REALLY doesn't want to lose hegemony. If you read between the lines of what Pompeo or Blinken this is a great fear of the US.
This is why the status quo is not acceptable for the US. The US will not let go of the very enviable position as global top dog easily.
I don't trust these NGOs, especially after watched the Netflix documentary about fishing. It is just another way for someone from a well connected family to make money and fell good.
Yes, workers' condition is not as good as in US. And yes, there is a world outside US.
Yes, China wants to use economic development to stablize the region (1/5 of China) and eliminate separates movement. I am Chinese, so I am biased to say no to separation. And I want a stable China.
Fk sake, I remember how my family lived when I was small, I maybe had one meat dish a year. To see how people's life has improved so far, and it is getting better every year. I want people to live better next year and the year after.
If you care about people in Iran, why should you push for sanction? Wouldn't it be better when people don't have to worry about bread, they can think about what they want for live? They may not want the same thing you want, isn't it still nice?
When it was obvious China’s wages were below minimum wage in the US I said that’s free markets at work. But what’s happening in Xinjiang isn’t anywhere close to free market labor. It’s the opposite and I keep trying to but can’t think of any excuse for it.
But no one seems to care about that.
But I do know that, at least for my shoes, they were made by Tim & Mary, not by someone toiling in a factory with nets to keep them from jumping out the window. It's not much, but it's something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace
Like are we really buying into an issue that’s been around in the open since 2012 - suddenly it’s unbearable and how can we do business with evil folk like this!?
This just so happens to come up during US-China talks. The US is by no means clean here either...
Frustrating that we all fall for these clearly geopolitical driven narratives
2021: Nike cancelled by China
At the same time this whole Xinjiang stuff reminds me of dozens of destibalization operations by the Americans in countless contries.
I went to Hong Kong in 2019 during the protests to join them and to see with my own eyes what was going on. I met with the protesters and spoke with many of them.
It was NOT the same what the media was reporting here.
Once covid is over, I will travel to Xinjiang and also see for myself, because I started to believe that this entire anti-China movement is a very smart way of setting up of a new cold war.
Edit: I searched "visit Xinjiang" and found this from 2021 https://www.lostwithpurpose.com/why-we-didnt-like-traveling-...
And what an interesting article! It does not paint a happy or free picture and actually solidified my view that it’s more likely to be true then not
EU rejects China’s offer of Xinjiang tour, but says it’s open to one later https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3003217/eu...
Xinjiang: From the eyes of an Australian British who cycled across China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jlUy2DR8TQ
I assume US/EU/China all have their own motives and the truth is somewhere in the middle and we'll either never really know or not know for a very long time. But its super clear at the very least they are doing their best to wipe out the culture.... and then they go after canada for doing the same except decades ago with residential schools lol its all hypocritical on all sides as always
This is a dubious claim at least to me. There are videos of tourists in Xinjiang showcasing many many mosques. In fact their mosques are a major tourist attraction. If you have reliable non-western sources for this information do tell.
Also, go watch the brit video.
I don't doubt there is genocide and repression in Xinjiang but propaganda from propaganda outlets muddies the water.
It seems to me like the only way for a company to know if forced labor is used in the production of the goods they sell is for someone else to catch them red-handed.
We'll see how many companies chose the former option and the type of reaction they get in the rest of the world for it. It will color the actions of other repressive regimes.
When they post a rainbow flag to support Pride or make a statement of support for MeToo or BLM, you feel they're doing something they think will have no effect on them except score them virtue points, but when it come to doing something that has a tangible impact on profits, well...the inaction is noticable.