Activists have long attempted to use legal systems to seek accountability for Uyghur forced labor and other potential crimes against humanity in Xinjiang. At the international level, China has effectively used its leverage to block efforts at accountability in the U.N. Some progress has been made at the E.U. level. Over the past few weeks, rights groups have made new gains at the domestic level across several countries.
Last week, the U.S. government added aluminum, seafood, and PVC to its list of priority sectors for the enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, as detailed in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s recent report to Congress. The Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region described the wide-ranging scope and implications of this update:
Companies in these sectors could face a variety of enforcement actions, such as increased scrutiny, inclusion on the UFLPA Entity List, export limitations, economic sanctions, and visa restrictions.
In a clear warning to companies not to focus solely on these sectors, the Department of Homeland Security also suggests that importers focus their due diligence efforts on supply chains that intersect with these sectors. This emphasises the need for companies in all industries to immediately fully trace their supply chains and address any links to the Uyghur Region rather than wait for UFLPA enforcement efforts in specific sectors or against certain entities. [Source]
About one tenth of the world’s aluminum, a key material for car manufacturing, is produced in Xinjiang. Human rights groups have documented how global car companies have failed to do proper due diligence in their supply chains to address their risk of exposure, especially as China has become the world’s leading site for car production and export. After the DHS report, Hélène de Rengervé from Human Rights Watch argued that the E.U. should follow the U.S. example by adding Xinjiang and aluminum to its future forced-labor database:
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. [Source]
In the U.K., the court system has provided a small victory in the fight against forced labor in Xinjiang. As Reuters reported last month, Uyghur rights groups won an appeal over a government investigation into forced-labor-produced cotton from Xinjiang:
British authorities must reconsider whether to open an investigation into imports of cotton allegedly produced by slave labour in the Chinese region of Xinjiang, a London court ruled on Thursday, allowing an appeal by a Uyghur rights group.
The World Uyghur Congress, an international organisation of exiled Uyghur groups, took legal action against Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) after it declined to begin a criminal investigation.
[…] In its legal action, the World Uyghur Congress argued that the NCA wrongly failed to investigate whether cotton from Xinjiang amounts to “criminal property”.
Last year, a judge at London’s High Court ruled there was “clear and undisputed evidence of instances of cotton being manufactured … by the use of detained and prison labour as well as by forced labour”. [Source]
Pressure from government sanctions and activist campaigns has gradually forced Western companies that are complicit in Uyghur forced labor, particularly in the textile industry, to reorganize their supply chains, if not sever ties with the region. But as Shahida Yakub wrote for Global Voices this month, companies’ shift away from Xinjiang cotton has in some cases aggravated environmental and labor issues in cotton production in other areas of Central Asia:
In recent years, many industries including textile and clothing have shifted operations from China to countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Turkey, in order to avoid increased labor costs in China and the West’s heightened regulatory scrutiny for Chinese products. However, paradoxically, in some cases, this increased demand for a more just cotton supply chain is exacerbating local environmental issues and worsening labor rights conditions.
[…] The lifting of the boycott on Uzbek cotton in 2022 coincided with sanctions being imposed on cotton from Xinjiang. Uzbek officials looked to take advantage of this situation, even as many textile brands were wary of partnering with Uzbekistan in light of its unresolved environmental and human rights violations. Brands’ hesitation to move their production chain from Xinjiang to Uzbekistan didn’t stop the Uzbek president from announcing his ambitious plans to turn his country into a textile hub and increase the production of yarn up to 100 percent by 2027. In order to stimulate this strategy, the Uzbek government intends to create textile production zones and release them from taxation until 2027.
[…] China was and still remains one of the key foreign investors in Uzbekistan. Since 2017, the scale of China’s investments in the country increased fivefold and amounts to USD 11.1 billion, according to Uzbek Minister for Trade and Investments, Laziz Kudratov. One of the key areas of China’s investment is textiles and agriculture. Though partnership with China is hailed by the Uzbek government, human rights defenders are concerned about transparency in observing labor rights and care for the environment. [Source]
Another recent legal victory came from Argentina, in a case focused on broader allegations of abuses committed in Xinjiang. As Navya Singh wrote for JURIST last week, Argentina’s Federal Court of Criminal Cassation made a judgment that opens an investigation into claims of the Chinese government’s genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghurs, after a complaint was filed by various Uyghur rights groups:
The Court of Cassation ruled that the Court of Appeal of Buenos Aires’ agreement with prosecutors to archive the complaint lacked sufficient foundation and justification. The appealed ruling failed to provide legal and political reasons for restricting the victims’ rights and refusing to exercise universal jurisdiction. The judgement further stated that Argentina’s judicial system possesses the necessary resources to ensure victims of international crimes can access jurisdiction and achieve reparation for their suffering.
The court ordered the prosecutor to open an investigation, mandating the first-instance judge to commence the investigatory stage of the proceedings.
The criminal complaint was first filed in Buenos Aires on August 16, 2022, under Article 118 of the Argentine Constitution. This article permits the prosecution of international crimes regardless of where they occur. This provision has previously been used to investigate crimes committed against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and the crimes against humanity committed in Venezuela. [Source]
The ruling also grants the victims civil party status, which will allow victims to provide evidence during the investigative stage of the Court of First Instance’s case.This would mark the first time that evidence of the atrocities committed against the Uyghurs would be heard before a criminal court, and it would then present the possibility of a judge indicting defendants and issuing arrest warrants. Uyghur activists hailed the outcome as a major step forward:
Meanwhile, the Canadian Ambassador to China Jennifer May visited Xinjiang from June 19 to 22, the first such visit by a Canadian envoy in a decade, in order to “communicate Canadian concerns about the human rights situation directly to the leadership of Xinjiang.” Here is an excerpt from a statement by the Canadian government upon her return:
“During her visit, Ambassador May met with Xinjiang Party Secretary MA Xingrui and other senior officials of the regional government of Xinjiang.
“Ambassador May raised concerns over credible reports of systematic violations of human rights occurring in Xinjiang affecting Uyghurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities, including those raised by UN experts, and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. She expressed Canada’s concerns over limits on Uyghur-language education and the practice of forcibly placing Uyghur children into residential schools.
“Ambassador May also reiterated Canada’s calls for China to allow UN independent experts unfettered access to all regions of China, including Xinjiang. [Source]
