Nike Statement on Xinjiang
purpose.nike.com
purpose.nike.com
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2021: Nike cancelled by China
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.
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.