Latest news with #ChinaLaborWatch
Asia Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Asia Times
Marco Rubio's and Miles Yu's war on Chinese students is misguided
In an age of escalating geopolitical rivalry, democracy's strongest foundations — press freedom, civic trust and public accountability — are being eroded by a perfect storm of surveillance, suspicion, and systemic misinformation. This is especially visible in US-China relations, where bipartisan hawkishness has led to sweeping proposals like Senator Marco Rubio's latest effort to revoke visas from Chinese students and researchers — treating them as national security risks by default. Joining the chorus is Miles Yu, a former Chinese international student who became a top China policy adviser in the first Trump administration. In his widely cited essay, 'Enabling the Dragon,' published in November 2024 the week after Donald Trump had won the election, Yu argues that US universities have become naive enablers of the Chinese Communist Party, serving as academic outposts vulnerable to intellectual theft and ideological infiltration. Yu urges that the United States should sharply restrict academic engagement with China, calling such cooperation a national security threat. His claim is sweeping: that China has 'outsourced' its academic system to exploit American openness, and that the US must respond by severing intellectual ties. Both Rubio and Yu are also ignoring the data: Chinese nationals make up the largest share of foreign students in STEM fields — computer science, engineering, math and the physical sciences. According to the National Science Foundation, more than 80% of Chinese PhD recipients in these fields stay and work in the US after graduation, contributing directly to American innovation, entrepreneurship, and research leadership. Many have founded startups, filed patents and worked in cutting-edge labs at US universities and tech companies. The idea that they are 'outsourcing' American prosperity to China is not only false — it's self-destructive. If these students are forced out, the US will not only lose a competitive advantage in global talent — it will damage its innovation ecosystem at its roots. Immigration-driven innovation has been one of the few consistent engines of American prosperity in a polarized and gridlocked political climate. Treating every foreign-born talent as a potential spy will only drive them into the arms of competitors. Moreover, this zero-sum framing misrepresents how education actually works. American universities are not ideological weaklings — they are spaces where critical thinking, civic inquiry and pluralistic values are cultivated. Chinese students are not arriving with monolithic loyalties — they are shaped by their experiences here, often becoming some of the most perceptive critics of authoritarianism and some of the strongest defenders of democratic ideals. Diaspora students and scholars, such as the founders of China Labor Watch and Human Rights in China, have often been at the forefront of documenting abuses, challenging both Chinese state narratives and the overreach of US suspicion. They are not security liabilities — they are civic actors. And yet, they are increasingly caught in the middle. Media outlets rush to publish stories about alleged espionage long before there's due process. Federal task forces pressure universities to cut off collaborations without context. On social media, platforms like X — once Twitter — amplify xenophobic paranoia while silencing legitimate voices. The result is a digital public sphere poisoned by fear and disinformation, where nuance disappears and policy becomes a blunt instrument of exclusion. In my research — China's Emerging Inter-network Society — I explore how diaspora communities and digital platforms are reshaping political consciousness. Platforms like WeChat and TikTok are indeed double-edged: they can be used for surveillance, but also for storytelling, mutual aid, and grassroots advocacy. What Yu fails to mention is this: He was once 'the dragon' he now seeks to shut out. To presume otherwise is to vastly underestimate the power of American education — something Yu himself should know firsthand. Yet there's a glaring irony: Yu himself is living proof that American education works — not just as a system of knowledge transmission, but as a transformative force of values, perspective and civic engagement. Yu came to the US in the 1980s as an international student from China. He benefited from the very system he now decries — one that welcomed global talent, nurtured individual potential and allowed a Chinese-born scholar to rise to the highest levels of US policymaking. If America had treated him then the way he now proposes treating others, Miles Yu might still be teaching Maoist doctrine in Anhui, not advising presidents in Washington. If Miles Yu truly believed Chinese students couldn't be trusted, one wonders why he chose to stay and serve in the US government rather than return to China after pursuing his PhD degree. Doesn't his own life prove the power of American education to transform, inspire, and integrate? If we now assume every Chinese student is a CCP foot soldier, does that include him too? Or is he the exception who proves the value — not the danger — of keeping the door open? He chose to stay in the United States not because he was coerced but because the openness and meritocracy of American institutions resonated with him. If we now claim that every Chinese student is a sleeper agent for Beijing, then Yu's own journey becomes an inconvenient contradiction. Isn't he the evidence that America's democratic model can win hearts and minds? That contradiction isn't just ironic. It's emblematic of a dangerous drift in US national security thinking in which suspicion has replaced strategy and identity has replaced evidence. If the US blocks Chinese students while maintaining that it wants to 'compete' with China, Beijing will likely frame the move as hypocritical — claiming it reveals American insecurity rather than confidence in its democratic model. The retaliatory measures may not just hurt bilateral relations but also signal to other countries the risks of aligning too closely with US policy on China. Yu's central claim is that Chinese students and scholars serve as covert extensions of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), sent not to learn but to spy, steal, and subvert. This argument has gained traction in parts of Washington, where fears of intellectual property theft and technological competition are real and justified. But let's be clear: there is a vast difference between targeted counterintelligence and collective suspicion. To reduce an entire population of students — numbering over 270,000 annually — to latent threats is both empirically unfounded and strategically foolish. Chinese students are not a monolith. Many come precisely because they seek an alternative to the CCP's control. Some become critics of the regime. Others stay, contribute to US innovation, or build bridges that serve American interests abroad. Treating them as presumed agents of espionage doesn't protect US security — it undercuts America's greatest soft power asset: its openness. We are now witnessing the consequences of this worldview hardening into law. In May 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, citing security risks, announced that his department would move to revoke or block Chinese student visas in 'sensitive' research fields outright, citing national security risks. The proposal would give broad authority to federal agencies to deny or cancel visas without due process, based not on individual conduct, but on nationality and field of study. This is not strategic caution — it's blanket exclusion. And it mirrors the logic of Yu's essay: that anyone Chinese by origin or association is inherently suspect. Such policies are dangerously close to the racialized fearmongering of the Chinese Exclusion Act era, now dressed in tech-sector clothing. They undermine US universities, punish innocent scholars, and hand the CCP a propaganda victory. If carried out, this policy won't stop espionage — it will cripple American research labs, isolate Chinese dissidents, and accelerate talent flight to competitor nations like Canada, the UK, and Australia. The Trump administration's aggressive stance on Chinese espionage is haunted by the very intelligence failures it now seeks to prevent. As Sue Miller, the CIA's former chief mole hunter, has pointed out, the collapse of US spy networks in China more than a decade ago — a debacle that saw scores of informants arrested or executed — remains unresolved. That strategic humiliation not only decimated on-the-ground intelligence, it also created a culture of institutional paranoia in Washington. Now, instead of rebuilding trust and refining intelligence practices, the Trump-era approach has leaned heavily on suspicion and overreach — particularly targeting ethnic Chinese scientists, scholars, and students. But blunt tools don't fix complex failures. The overcorrection has led to high-profile wrongful prosecutions, deteriorating academic collaboration and growing mistrust within diaspora communities. The United States' inability to root out past internal breaches has fueled a form of policy scapegoating — one that risks trading precision for profiling. Without credible reform of intelligence capabilities and transparent accountability for past missteps, the crackdown will remain reactive, politically charged and ultimately self-defeating. Yu frames UA-China academic collaboration as 'outsourcing,' suggesting the US has ceded control of its intellectual infrastructure to a hostile power. But this misunderstands both how American academia works and why it thrives. Academic exchange is not a one-way transaction. It's a competitive ecosystem, where ideas are tested, refined and challenged through global participation. Chinese students and researchers don't dilute US education — they elevate it. They help fill STEM classrooms, contribute to breakthroughs in AI and biomedical research, and keep US universities globally dominant. Cutting them off would hurt America far more than it would hurt China. Yes, vigilance is necessary. Research security protocols should be strong. Federal funding should come with guardrails. But throwing out the entire system of engagement, as Yu and now Rubio suggest, would be self-sabotage. If enforced, Rubio's proposal to ban Chinese students will not only undercut America's higher education system — it could also trigger swift retaliation from Beijing. China may impose reciprocal visa restrictions on US students, scholars and education programs, halt joint research initiatives or tighten controls on American academic access to Chinese data and field sites. More strategically, it could restrict elite talent from going to the US, incentivize a reverse brain drain or escalate a global narrative campaign accusing the US of racial discrimination. Such moves wouldn't just harm bilateral ties — they would damage America's soft power, alienate diaspora communities and send a troubling signal to other nations about the risks of engaging with US institutions. Ironically, by closing the door on Chinese students, Rubio and his allies may be doing more to weaken America's global leadership than to defend The U.S.-China contest is not just about chips, jets, and rare earths. It's about the future of global norms — openness versus control, pluralism versus authoritarianism. In this battle, academic freedom is not a vulnerability. It's a weapon. It is what makes the US different from — and stronger than — the system the CCP promotes. If we start mimicking Beijing's paranoia, walling off knowledge, and excluding people based on their passport, we risk becoming what we claim to oppose. Yu himself is living proof of that freedom's power. He came to the US seeking truth, found it in an open society and used it to shape national strategy. That's a success story, not a turn around now and advocate for closing the gates behind him is not only short-sighted — it's a betrayal of the very ideals that made his own story possible. A call for strategic openness Miles Yu transferred himself from Chinese student to gatekeeper by pulling up the ladder behind him. What we need is not blanket restriction but smart engagement, clearer funding rules, targeted export controls and honest dialogue with university leaders – and, yes, a robust national security posture. But we must resist fear-driven policies that punish potential allies and weaken our intellectual base. The best way to 'outcompete' China is not to become more like it — but to double down on what made the US the envy of the world. If we follow Yu's and Rubio's advice, we may win a battle of suspicion — but lose the war for global leadership. If the US wants to outcompete authoritarian regimes, it must stop mimicking their logic. Surveillance, guilt by association and ideological profiling are not strategies for innovation — they are symptoms of decline. Democracy's strength lies in openness, in attracting talent, and in offering a system that can inspire — not coerce — loyalty. Rather than banning students, the US should reinvest in the institutions that make it a magnet for global minds: its universities, its press, and its civic infrastructure. Journalists must be more careful not to amplify racialized suspicion. Lawmakers must recognize that brainpower, not fear, drives prosperity. Scholars like Miles Yu must reckon with the contradiction between their personal journeys and the policies they now advocate. Democracy does not win by closing its doors. It wins by proving it is worth entering. Yujing Shentu, PhD, is an independent scholar and writer on digital politics, international political economy and US-China strategic competition.
The Sun
21-04-2025
- The Sun
Chilling truth behind YOUR kids' favourite toys – as traumatised workers in ‘nightmare' factories leap to their deaths
FROM electronic baby gadgets to Barbie dolls and teddy bears, there is no doubt children's toys bring joy to millions of youngsters across Britain. But behind some of the nation's best-loved toys lies a dark world of labour violations, with claims of horrific working conditions, sexual harassment, brutal abuse and even suicides. 11 11 11 Toy factories in China - where a reported 90 per cent of toys bought in the Western world are produced - have been exposed as 'nightmare' sites that threaten their employees' health. Women and men working gruelling 12-hour days for measly wages are allegedly subjected to bullying and threats, with one called a 'stupid c***' by their manager for being 'too slow'. Investigators also found exhausted workers sobbing in cramped living quarters at the factories, cockroaches lurking in employees' lunches, and a lack of protective equipment. And heartbreakingly, some workers were found to have jumped to their deaths - including a recently-fired employee and a 45-year-old woman who had been yelled at for being 'too old'. A non-profit organisation investigating Chinese toy factories told The Sun parents are unaware of the 'terrible' working conditions of those producing their children's adored toys. 'Today, workers continue to toil in terrible working conditions, working long hours, earning low wages, experiencing bullying and are exposed to hazardous substances with a lack of protective equipment,' said China Labor Watch (CLW), which has investigated the working and living conditions in the Asian superpower's toy factories for 24 years. ' Workers' base wages are barely enough to sustain their livelihoods, and many workers thus choose to work overtime to earn higher wages. "Women workers, who generally make up the majority of workers in toy factories, face sexual harassment, including inappropriate remarks and sexualised stares and comments from male workers.' It comes as US President Donald Trump 's trade war with China is expected to hike up the price of children's toys in America, with uncertainty over how it will affect British consumers. Toy giants, including Mattel - the firm behind Barbie and Fisher-Price toys - and Hasbro, who make Nerf guns and Transformers - source a hefty proportion of their products from China. Secrets of the 'Shein village' where kids found working in sweat shops & 'miserable' staff live in mouldy shacks - and why you should think twice about returns Andrew Murphy, chief executive of the British toy retailer The Entertainer, said the republic produces 'almost 90 per cent' of the world's toys, 'certainly those consumed' by the West. 'The effect on the industry overall just can't be overstated,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme last week, referring to Trump's tariff rate on Chinese goods, which is currently 145 per cent. With so many toy companies reliant on Chinese manufacturing, it is hardly surprising that China is reported to have as many as 10,000 toy factories, employing millions of workers. But while the finished products are excitedly chosen in store aisles, or unwrapped by little fingers at Christmas, their production has been plagued by allegations of suffering. 11 11 11 Brutally beaten Just last year, investigators posing as workers at Chang'An Mattel - a factory in Guangdong province, which produces Barbie dolls for Mattel - uncovered shocking 'rights violations'. They found a 'poisonous' climate, with managers allegedly verbally attacking staff and making it near-impossible for them to form friendships by spacing them out. One worker, who was preparing to leave the factory, told investigators: 'The managers behave badly, they're impatient, they say we're incompetent and call us idiots.' Some leaders were accused of hurling items at workers, while cruel comments reportedly included, 'You really are stupid", and, 'You can't even put in a nail right.' In 2011, a 45-year-old woman working at another Chinese toy factory leapt to her death after a manager shouted at her and ordered her to leave the production line. Women workers, who generally make up the majority of workers in toy factories, face sexual harassment including inappropriate remarks and sexualised stares and comments from male workers. China Labour Watch The manager had allegedly scolded the victim for being too old and working too slowly. After her tragic death, the woman's family gathered in front of the factory and were brutally beaten, according to CLW - though it is unclear who carried out the beating. The woman's grieving husband later claimed female workers were being placed under 'a lot of stress' and were being 'viciously reprimanded' for not meeting their quotas. Sexually harassed At Chang'An Mattel, women were found to be targets of sexual harassment by male colleagues in workplace chat groups - something that was, worryingly, 'commonplace'. They were allegedly being asked about their sexual experiences and for personal photos. Women were also reported to be banned from taking paid time off work for severe period pain, while being restricted to traditionally 'feminine' tasks, such as styling Barbies' hair. Men, in contrast, were given so-called 'masculine' tasks, such as machine-operated roles. Although the factory had posters advertising a harassment complaint hotline, undercover investigators found these were hidden away in the corners of the site's dormitory areas. In these areas, men living at the factory could 'easily look down into the dorm rooms of the women', leaving the female workers feeling uncomfortable, according to a 2024 report by China Labour Watch, who investigated the factory along with the charity, ActionAid France. 'We have personally witnessed male workers lingering near female restrooms and shower rooms, as well as whistling and staring at female workers in the dormitory space,' said CLW. 'During after work hours, it has also been observed that many male workers sit at the factory entrance, staring at passing female workers and whistling at them.' 'Hollow promise' ActionAid France said photos of women working in the factory were being shared, without consent, on social media, with one disgustingly captioned: 'Woman born after 2000, has worked at Mattel just over a year, her t*ts are so big I can't focus at work.' Barbie, one of the most successful toys in the world, is sold by retailers across Britain. In 2023, the Barbie film, starring Margot Robbie as Barbie and Ryan Gosling as Ken, became Warner Bros's highest grossing film of all time after smashing box office records. The blockbuster comedy, which grossed more than $1.4billion globally, was hailed for its feminist themes. But CLW said in its report: 'The findings of this investigation suggest that the promise of emancipation and feminist empowerment in the Barbie movie rings hollow.' 'Psychological violence' Aside from sexual harassment and abuse from managers, workers at Chang'An Mattel were found to be working excessive overtime to cover their basic living needs, with wages for a standard 40-hour week reportedly totalling between just £510 and £600 a month. Workers claimed to have accumulated up to 110 hours of overtime per month - a violation of Chinese labour laws, which permit up to 36 hours a month, according to the report. They took only 40-minute lunch breaks and were required to meet the site's high production targets - which allegedly included at least two products being completed per minute. Despite dealing with hazardous substances, some were not provided with work uniforms or protective goggles, according to the report, titled 'The Hypocrisy of Barbie's Feminism'. 11 11 11 Workers were so exhausted after their shifts that they were seen struggling to walk. The report follows an investigation into two toy factories in China's Dongguan city in 2020, which found workers being subjected to 'psychological violence'. In one instance, a wounded worker was reportedly scolded for being clumsy and told not to report their injury. And in 2017, investigators dispatched to four toy factories in China - supplying products for Disney, Mattel and Hasbro, among other big brands - discovered concerning conditions in workers' living quarters, including 'malodorous' bathrooms shared by ten or more people. The investigators, working for CLW, also came across obstructed emergency exits, expired fire extinguishers and a lack of sufficient (and legally required) pre-job safety training. Other claims over the years have included toy factory workers being made to sign blank employment contracts, no independent unions, and basic monthly wages as low as £188. Why has Trump hit China with tariffs? DONALD Trump has already imposed huge tariffs on Beijing and is now continuing to lobby even more threats at them. But why is he proposing the levies? Tariffs are an integral part of Trump's economic plans, which he thinks will not only elevate US manufacturing, protect jobs and raise tax revenue, but grow the economy as a whole. In regards to the crippling tariffs, China dubbed them a "serious violation" of the World Trade Organisation rules. In February, the nation initiated a WTO dispute complaint regarding the tariff measures. China serves as a major supplier of auto parts to the US. Phones and computers along with other key electronic devices were also in the top imports from China last year, according to Commerce Department Data. In 2023, the US imported around $427 billion worth of products from China in total, according to the US Census Bureau. Data reveals that 78 per cent of all smartphones imported from the US came from China. Trump's tariff threat has sparked fears of price rises for fashion items and toys. Beijing responded by outlining its own tariffs on American goods, sparking fears of an all-out trade war between the two powerhouses. Solidar Suisse, a non-profit that has previously worked for better conditions in China's toy factories, says 'health-threatening' environments still exist at such sites. It shared pictures with The Sun of grim-looking dormitory beds and employees sleeping at their work stations. 'Safe and healthy environment' Although experts acknowledge there have been 'some' improvements in the country's toy factories in recent decades - including no recent cases of child labour and workers receiving paid maternity and bereavement leave - they claim there is still a long way to go. Mattel has previously said it is 'committed to providing a safe and healthy working environment' and ensuring that all of its workers are treated 'fairly'. In China, the firm reportedly offers training against harassment, as well as providing a hotline service. On its website, Hasbro says 'treating people with fairness, dignity, and respect and operating ethically in our supply chain are core values' at the company 'that we uphold through our policies and reinforce through our actions', while Disney says it is 'committed to respecting human rights'. Yet China Labour Watch told The Sun: 'While major toy companies have established supplier codes of conduct, CLW's investigations into their supplier factories show a disregard of these standards. 'Consumers remain unaware of the working conditions of those who produce their beloved toys.'
