The EconomistJune 27th 2020 China 312 barely been exposed to the virus.
Just before and at the outset of the pan-
demic, three reports—by the Centre for
Strategic and International Studies in
Washington, the Australian Strategic Poli-
cy Institute (aspi) in Canberra, and Adrian
Zenz, a German scholar—detailed official
schemes to send many of the Uighurs in
the camps to perform forced labour in fac-
tories in Xinjiang and across China. aspi’s
gave what it said was a conservative esti-
mate that, between 2017 and 2019, at least
80,000 Uighurs had been sent to do such
work outside Xinjiang. The factories are
given bounties by the government for each
worker taken. Many of the Uighurs endure
miserable conditions: ethnically segregat-
ed dormitories in compounds with watch-
towers, indoctrination sessions and sala-
ries that are often far below the minimum
wage (if they get paid anything at all).
The three reports have made some for-
eign companies wake up. Dozens of them
have examined their supply chains for evi-
dence of forced labour (or at least, they
have said they are doing so). aspi’s report
named 83 firms as possibly being complicit
in using such labour, but a number of them
have disputed this. Adidas said a factory
cited in the report, which displayed the
Adidas logo on-site, was not one of its sup-
pliers. Nike, also named in the report, is-
sued a statement disavowing forced labour
while suggesting that conditions at the fac-
tories named may not have been as coer-
cive as reported.
American groups representing apparel
and tech firms say they are trying to do
more, but have limited leverage in their
dealings with China’s government. How-
ever, they appear reluctant to use whatever
clout they have, or even to say publicly
what specific action they are taking. Xin-
jiang grows more than 80% of China’s cot-
ton, and about 20% of the world’s. China is
also a manufacturing hub and large market
for most of the world’s biggest consumer
brands. Companies are terrified to cross
China’s ruling party in public. Corporate
lobbyists argue that firms need America
and the European Union to work with them
to push it to change its behaviour.
With Mr Trump reluctant to impose
sanctions, hawks in Congress have taken
the lead. In March Marco Rubio, a Republi-
can senator from Florida, introduced the
Uighur Forced Labour Protection Act. This
bill would establish a “rebuttable pre-
sumption” that any goods from Xinjiang
are made with forced labour, and thus may
not be imported. It would also require com-
panies publicly listed in America to dis-
close any links to forced labour in Xinjiang
or other atrocities there. America’s cus-
toms authorities can already block imports
of products made with forced labour, but
they have limited resources to help them
investigate whether a shipment merits sei-
zure on such grounds.
However, the pandemic has dramatical-
ly slowed the work of Congress. Any recent-
ly introduced bill that is not related to es-
sential government business has almost
no chance of being adopted this year. And
there is little hope that leaders in Europe
will do much, either. Jewher Ilham, the
daughter of Mr Tohti, the jailed academic,
says a high-ranking European official sug-
gested to her that, concerning Uighurs, Eu-
rope would rather deal with China “under
the table” than in public.
Many activists doubt whether such qui-et diplomacy will work. Some would prefer
a boycott similar to the campaign against
apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s. It
would name and shame companies that
benefit from forced labour and call on
sovereign-wealth funds, pension funds
and the like to divest from any firms linked
to abuses in Xinjiang.
But rallying public, let alone govern-
ment, enthusiasm for this would be diffi-
cult, and such a movement probably would
not change China’s behaviour. China is the
world’s second-largest economy; South Af-
rica ranked 26th in 1985. For consumers,
goods wholly or partly made in China are
all-but-impossible to avoid. One Uighur
activist says Mr Trump’s reported remarks
about the camps being a good thing could
have useful shock-value, by drawing atten-
tion to the plight of Uighurs. Such is the
tragic state of their cause that even bad
news is better than no news at all. 7H
ongkongershavefrettedforyears
about when and how national-
security law might be applied in the
territory. They will soon find out. In May
China announced it would enact a bill for
Hong Kong concerning crimes such as
subversion and secession, without re-
ferring to the city’s legislature. Lawmak-
ers in Beijing are now drafting the act in
hugger-mugger. On June 20th they re-
leased an outline. Worrying seems right.
Already Hong Kong is plastered with
billboards hailing the new law, even
though senior officials in the city have
yet to see the bill. It is possible that it will
not be made public before the law is
promulgated. China may want to enact it
by July 1st, the anniversary of Hong
Kong’s handover to China in 1997. That is
traditionally an occasion for protests.Thepointofthenewlawisclearlyto
deter the kind of unrest that has roiled
Hong Kong since last year.
The official description of it stresses
that the bill will comply with “important
principles of the rule of law” and interna-
tional human-rights legislation. But it
will take precedence should a conflict
arise between the new law and existing
ones. The legislature in Beijing will be
able to overrule any verdict. There may
be little need for that: Hong Kong’s gov-
ernment will decide which judges can
handle national-security cases.
Hong Kong’s police will investigate
such crimes. But, in a “tiny” number of
important cases, central-government
agencies will be allowed to step in. Hong
Kong’s chief executive will head a new
national-security commission, with one
seat reserved for a central-government
“adviser”. A new body will be set up in
Hong Kong for mainland spooks to “col-
lect and analyse national-security in-
telligence”. That is likely to mean they
will name targets, even if arrests will be
made by a new branch of the local police
that will focus on national security.
A senior adviser in Hong Kong to the
central government, Lau Siu-kai, says the
aim is to “kill a few chickens to frighten
the monkeys”—to deter people with a
few high-profile sentencings rather than
carry out sweeping arrests. That is just
how the party likes to crush dissent on
the mainland. One country, one system
creeps ever closer.Sightunseen
Civil liberties in Hong KongHONG KONG
China has outlined its new national-security law for Hong Kong. It looks alarmingCorrection:In “China’s next move in the South
China Sea” ( June 20th) we said that Japan had
extended its Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ)
to cover a Japanese-held island claimed by Taiwan,
which Taiwan had included in its own ADIZ. In fact
the island, Yonaguni, is not claimed by Taiwan and
Taiwan’s ADIZhad included only part of Yonaguni’s
airspace. Sorry.