Latest news with #UyghurForcedLaborPreventionAct
Mint
2 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Apple isn't leaving China. Its footprint is getting harder to see.
Apple's plans to make iPhones in India, components in Vietnam, and build new hubs across Southeast Asia reflect a meaningful effort to diversify away from China. But they tell only part of the story. In March, Apple CEO Tim Cook announced a new $99 million clean energy fund during a visit to Beijing. He didn't disclose project locations or recipients—only that Apple's commitment to China was 'expanding." The announcement came just two months before Chinese regulators delayed Apple's rollout of generative artificial intelligence features, the Financial Times reported. Those developments show how even one of China's most entrenched U.S. companies may face political and commercial friction as it tries to do business in both countries. As geopolitical pressure intensifies and investors look for clarity on decoupling, Apple's recent maneuvers offer a lesson for global businesses: A company need not leave China entirely so long as it can more effectively hide itself within it. Apple's behavior over the past several years shows it recalibrating its exposure to the actors and regions in China that carry reputational or regulatory risk. But it isn't ceasing to do business in China. Rather, Apple has stepped back from some of its direct affiliations and reduced its visibility without severing its ties to the business ecosystem in China, which remains dominated by the Chinese Communist Party. This model is instructive for other multinationals operating in China and other complex authoritarian environments. Confrontation and divestment are costly. Structural opacity, by contrast, offers flexibility—and protection. Apple needs to remain in good standing with regulators on both sides of the Pacific. That has led to unusual arrangements in China's western Xinjiang region. The Chinese Communist Party's policies of mass surveillance and forced labor there have deservedly drawn international condemnation. Congress passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in 2021, banning imports tied to forced labor in Xinjiang. Many Western businesses have withdrawn entirely from doing business in Xinjiang. In 2016, Apple announced that it had taken minority stakes in four wind power projects in China as part of a strategy to decarbonize its supply chain. The projects were developed in collaboration with Goldwind, one of China's largest wind turbine makers. Goldwind has strong ties to state-led infrastructure planning and to Xinjiang. The company was formerly called Xinjiang Goldwind but dropped the word from its name in 2023. Though not sanctioned by the U.S., Goldwind has faced criticism for its ties to Xinjiang from European and U.S. politicians for its suspected ties to forced labor. An investigation by the Tech Transparency Project, a nonprofit organization, and The Information, a tech and business publication, linked Goldwind to state-run labor transfer programs and construction projects involving the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a U.S.-sanctioned paramilitary entity. U.S. pressure over forced labor in Xinjiang intensified in 2020. Companies such as H&M and Nike, which issued statements addressing forced labor allegations, faced backlash on social media in China. By 2021, Apple's affiliated entities no longer appeared as shareholders in the Goldwind wind projects in Xinjiang. Corporate filings, reviewed in a Chinese business registration database, indicate that the equity stakes were transferred to subsidiaries controlled by Goldwind. Apple didn't publicly disclose the move, and no mention appeared in its environmental or investor reporting: Apple's investment shift is being revealed here for the first time. Apple didn't respond to requests for comment. The company has addressed allegations of forced labor involving Xinjiang in at least one other case, saying it regularly audits its supply chain to avoid the practice. It cut ties with a Chinese supplier that had been accused of forced labor in 2021, Bloomberg reported. Apple may have found other investing strategies that allow it to maintain relationships with Chinese entities in less visible ways. In 2018, Apple had announced it and 10 Chinese suppliers would invest $300 million in China Clean Energy Fund. That fund allows Apple's capital to reach state-linked firms and potentially sensitive regions without appearing in public filings. Among the beneficiaries of the fund, disclosed in a Chinese business registration database, is China General Nuclear Power Group, a state-owned firm added to the U.S. Entity List in 2019 for military ties. U.S. companies face sharp restrictions on doing business with companies on the list. The initial clean energy fund, designed to last just four years, ended in 2022. This year, Apple announced a successor fund worth approximately $99 million during Cook's visit to Beijing—but this time disclosed neither project locations nor recipient companies, continuing its reliance on indirect investment vehicles. This isn't a retreat from China but a careful reconfiguration—one that allows Apple to meet its clean-energy goals while addressing government sensitivities in both the U.S. and China. In 2024, Apple ranked third for China exposure of large U.S. companies in Strategy Risks SR 250 rankings; it has since dropped to 27th. Apple continues to operate at scale within China's commercial and political systems, while relying on structures that make its presence less legible to outside observers. The company meets regulatory expectations in both Washington and Beijing, while it avoids direct exposure that could invite retaliation from either. U.S. sanctions law covers physical imports from Xinjiang, but it doesn't restrict capital flows. Financial contributions routed through investment vehicles, such as the CCEF, are legally safe—even if reputational risk persists. Apple isn't exiting China. It has re-engineered its presence there to be less visible and harder for outsiders to trace. Its energy partnerships, once direct and disclosed, are now filtered through funds. In Xi Jinping's China, the companies that endure aren't the ones that speak out. The ones that endure are the ones that adapt—and recede from transparency. Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barron's newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit feedback and commentary pitches to ideas@
Los Angeles Times
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
A plan to take human rights off the table at the State Department
What a difference eight years makes. During President Trump's first term, then-Sen. Marco Rubio pushed the president to expand his human rights diplomatic agenda. Rubio recognized that promoting human rights abroad is in the national interest. He urged the president to appoint an assistant secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor — commonly known as DRL — after the position was left vacant for nearly two years. He co-sponsored the Women, Peace and Security Act (ensuring that the U.S. includes women in international conflict negotiations), spoke out against the torture of gay men in Chechnya and co-sponsored the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. So it is shocking that as secretary of State, Rubio is overseeing the near-total destruction of his department's human rights and global justice policy shops and programs. Rubio knows this decision, one catastrophe among the many State Department cuts he's contemplating, will undermine the enforcement of legislation he previously championed. It will also imperil decades of bipartisan foreign policy and leave the world a much more dangerous and unjust place. Congress must use its authorization and appropriation powers to protect this work. We speak from experience. We represent the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, an organization of former State Department senior diplomats mandated to promote human rights and criminal justice globally, and to combat human trafficking. If the proposed DRL 'reorganization' proceeds, critical infrastructure and expertise, which took decades and enormous political will to build, will be lost. It would also send a chilling message to the world, and to Americans: The U.S. no longer sees the quests for equality, global justice or human rights as foreign policy imperatives, or as priorities at all. Rubio's plan would shutter most of the State Department's offices devoted to human rights and lay off an estimated 80% of the DRL staff, most of whom are experts in human rights and democracy. In a recent Substack post, he claimed these civil servants had become 'left-wing activists [waging] vendettas against 'anti-woke' leaders.' Surely he knows they have instead proved themselves committed to serve the U.S. government under whatever administration is elected. Rubio may claim that he is not eliminating DRL, but by stripping it of all policy functions, limiting it to dispensing minimal humanitarian assistance and undermining its ability to influence policy debates, his plan will be the last nail in the coffin in which the Trump administration buries America's human rights work. When difficult foreign policy debates are underway at the highest levels, there will be no U.S. experts at the table who specialize in human rights issues. Yet we know it is crucial that America's foreign policy decisions balance the often precarious tension between human rights and economic and geopolitical issues. The destruction of DRL means many important initiatives will cease altogether. As one example, the bureau previously funded a global network of civil society organizations working to reintegrate detained children of Islamic State insurgents in Iraq. Without intervention, these children and their mothers (often victims themselves) would have been indefinitely trapped in refugee camps and left susceptible to radicalization and terrorist recruitment. This lifesaving work — which made Americans safer by disrupting the cycle of anti-American extremism — was done at minimal cost to U.S. taxpayers. Now this meticulously crafted network will probably disintegrate, empowering hostile regimes overnight and imperiling the victims of Islamic extremism. Per the plan, the few surviving DRL offices would be rebranded along ideological lines. The Office of International Labor Affairs would become the Office of Free Markets and Fair Labor, allegedly to prioritize American workers. But a different message is clear: The State Department is eviscerating efforts to prevent human trafficking, forced labor and union-busting overseas, despite the fact that such practices only make it harder for America's workers and manufacturers to compete in a global economy. Trump's foreign policy perversely twists human rights causes into their regressive opposites. For instance, Rubio plans to cancel the role of special representative for racial equity and justice created by the Biden administration — a long-overdue position given the destabilizing role of racial injustice in countries around the world (including our own). Now the department touts racist narratives about 'civilizational allies' and asserts that human rights derive from 'western values.' That assertion is offensive, dangerous and wrong. For starters, the flagship human rights instrument is the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Labeling human rights 'western' only encourages dictators around the world to falsely claim the efforts are a Trojan horse for American imperialism. Such framing may put a target on the backs of activists in repressive regimes where advocating for the most marginalized — LGBTQ+ people for example — can be a death sentence. The Rubio overhaul of the State Department may not seem as alarming as the administration's scorched-earth tactics elsewhere, such as the total elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development. But his plan — and his weak and unsubstantiated justification for it — should raise alarms because foreign policy mirrors domestic policy and vice versa. Indeed, we fear that America's retreat from human rights and democracy on the global stage is a preview for more repression to come here at home. Congress will have to decide whether to approve Secretary Rubio's dismantling of offices that fight for human rights and justice, a plan Sen. Rubio would have strenuously rejected less than a year ago. As the U.S. confronts emboldened adversaries, rising authoritarianism and increasing instability in the Middle East and elsewhere, senators and representatives would do well to remember that nations that promote and protect human rights and the rule of law are more likely to enjoy peace, prosperity and stability — conditions that used to define the U.S. to the rest of the world and that we need now more than ever. Desirée Cormier Smith is the former State Department special representative for racial equity and justice. Kelly M. Fay Rodríguez is the former special representative for international labor affairs, and Beth Van Schaack the former ambassador for global criminal justice. The full list of founders of the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice is available at
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Recycled cotton fiber company opens facility in Central America
This story was originally published on Fashion Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Fashion Dive newsletter. Recover is launching a joint venture in partnership with textile manufacturer Intradeco meant to produce recycled cotton fiber in a new processing plant in Central America, according to a press release last week. The companies said the project is meant to revolutionize textile production in the Western hemisphere. The venture will be based in El Salvador and is set to start operation in 2025. Initial textile shredding will temporarily be managed out of a Recover factory in Spain, per the release. The partnership marks the beginning of a process designed to create closed textile loops and more circular textiles systems, per the release. The companies added that the collaboration will benefit from the growing importance of the Central America region, where many brands are establishing production hubs. It's designed to capitalize on the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA-DR, per the release. The processing plant's location is close to textile waste and production streams, which Recover said allows the plant to operate in a cost-efficient manner with fast lead times. The companies added that the initiative will address the demand for nearshoring and help simplify brand's compliance with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, a 2021 law that generally bans products from the region over forced labor concerns. Recover's other production hubs are located in Spain, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Pakistan. The company opened its Vietnam facility earlier this year. Recover has partnered with Perry Ellis, Land's End and Tilly's. Its investors include Goldman Sachs, Fortress Investment Group and Eldridge Industries. Recommended Reading Shein develops polyester recycling process Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
U.S. and Xinjiang Cotton Are Locked in a Trade War of Their Own
Far from 'America First,' U.S. cotton appears to be on a losing streak—at least, as far as the country's foremost trade nemesis is concerned. Writing in a report late last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, or FAS, said that U.S. cotton exports to China plummeted by 73 percent in the seven months between August 2024 and February 2025, collapsing America's previous 29.6 percent market share to just 17.1 percent. More from Sourcing Journal Temu Stops Direct-from-China Shipments to U.S. Consumers SHIPS for America Act Reintroduced to Reinvigorate US Shipbuilding Research Draws 'Probable' Links Between Shein and Xinjiang Textile Production While anti-American sentiment amid fraying trade relations is one reason for the dramatic decline, a bigger one, according to the FAS, is the 'excellent weather' that resulted in bumper harvests in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which contributed 92.3 percent of China's cotton this marketing year. Despite U.S. restrictions on products of Xinjiang origin through the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, along with mounting global antipathy toward the same because of concerns over a Muslim crackdown, the region's cotton saw a 10.8 percent increase in production and an almost 100 percent trade uptake by the end of March. And China, if anything, only appears to be doubling down on the province, with production outside Xinjiang expected to fall further 'due to limited subsidies, lower cotton prices, reduced quality, higher input costs and competition from alternative crops,' the FAS wrote. In December, the China Cotton Association raised its estimate for Xinjiang's cotton production to 6.1 million metric tons, reflecting a 10.8 percent year-on-year increase that will account for almost 95 percent of the national output by this time next year. Industry contacts similarly expect ginned cotton volumes in the region to increase from the 6.39 million metric tons yielded this past marketing year, itself an 18.9 percent uptick from the year before. 'In contrast, the Yangtze and Yellow River regions show declines due to limited mechanization, higher labor costs and lack of price support policies, with the National Monitoring System reporting the steepest drop in these regions,' the report said. 'Several industry sources did share that the high concentration of cotton production in Xinjiang poses a challenge for industrial development and that to mitigate the risks, there should be efforts to gradually restore and maintain cotton production in inland areas. However, the latest surveys do not show any sign of the restoration.' There's also the fact that China continues to subsidize the relocation of yarn and textile manufacturers from other regions of the country to Xinjiang. The FAS cited a local news article that said that Xinjiang's spinning capacity reached 29.1 million spindles with 62,400 looms in operation, both of them historic numbers. Spinning capacity is expected to increase further as the Xinjiang government plans to spin 45 to 50 percent of Xinjiang cotton by 2028, 'with the goal of developing Xinjiang into a global textile hub,' the FAS added. Coupled with a recent Xinjiang Cotton Industry Development Leadership Group meeting that emphasized accelerating the construction of the China Cotton and Cotton Yarn Trading Center, developing a 'Xinjiang Cotton' public brand certification system and broadening export markets in Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Eastern Europe under the Belt and Road Initiative, Xinjiang will maintain its 'dominant position' in China's cotton supply, potentially reducing its need to import during the 2024-2025 marketing year, while 'developing more export-oriented textile manufacturing to offset challenges in traditional markets like the United States,' the FAS said. Another impediment for U.S. cotton is growing competition from Australia and Brazil, which are producing fibers that Chinese spinners consider not only to be of comparable or improving quality but also competitively priced. Looking ahead, the report said, Australia and Brazil are expected to maintain their position as the primary cotton suppliers to the Chinese market for the remainder of the 2024-2025 marketing year, especially to meet the demands of textile orders from countries looking to shun Xinjiang cotton, whether due to UFLPA compliance or otherwise. But also not helping are the Trump administration's trade provocations. The report predicted that Beijing's imposition of 140 percent tariffs on U.S. cotton will 'all but stop further imports from the United States.' Statistics from bonded zones at Chinese ports indicate that domestic importers have been actively liquidating U.S. cotton stocks in recent months—and replacing them with their Brazilian counterparts—to sidestep tariffs. That U.S. tariffs of 145 percent, plus the closure of the so-called de minimis 'loophole,' will also reduce Chinese textile exports of non-Xinjiang textiles and finished apparel to the United States might provide some cold comfort. The hit isn't unsubstantial: In 2024, textile exports to the United States accounted for 10.7 percent of China's total textile exports, valued at $14.8 billion, and 22.7 percent of China's total apparel exports, or $36.1 billion's worth. And while large-scale textile and apparel companies in China have been transferring some production to Southeast Asia, smaller firms with limited resources may 'struggle to adapt,' the FAS said. Without the easing of tensions, however, the battle between U.S. and Xinjiang cotton will only intensify, perhaps even spill into third-country markets as Chinese garment manufacturers shift toward exporting to non-U.S. markets due to the tariff turmoil, said Sheng Lu, professor of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware. 'Notably, while the UFLPA has effectively driven most Chinese cotton out of the U.S. market, China has 'shielded' Xinjiang cotton through increased subsidies and recent retaliatory tariffs on U.S. cotton,' he said. 'We can expect heightened competition and growing tensions between U.S. cotton and Xinjiang cotton, along with a more turbulent global cotton market shaped by geopolitics and trade policy.'
The Guardian
15-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
US labor groups sue over ‘ignorant' cuts of programs fighting child labor abroad
Labor groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's abrupt termination of international labor rights programs aimed at ending child labor and other abuses. The Solidarity Center, Global March Against Child Labour, and the American Institutes for Research (AIR), filed the lawsuit on Tuesday seeking to stop the cuts, enacted by Elon Musk's so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge), and arguing the programs were authorized by Congress and that the secretary of labor has no authority to cancel the funds. Several groups supporting workers and corporations have criticized the Trump administration's decision to abruptly cancel all ongoing grants and contracts for programs with the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) at the Department of Labor which works to improve labor conditions outside the US. In March Doge announced it had canceled about $577m in grants for programs it labeled 'America last'. Doge cited programs including 'worker empowerment in South America', 'improving respect for Worker's rights in agricultural supply chains' in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador and 'assisting foreign migrant workers' in Malaysia. The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of labor unions in the US, and the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), whose members include corporations such as Adidas and Ralph Lauren, criticized the cuts and argued the decision 'puts American workers and American businesses last' by enabling the degradation of labor and business standards abroad. 'It's just so frustrating to read the shallow and useless justifications that are being put out on Twitter by the secretary of labor and the Doge crowd,' said Thea Lee, who served as deputy undersecretary for International Labor Affairs at the US Department of Labor from 2021 to 2025. 'The abrupt termination of all of ILAB grants is a destruction of decades of consensus that is bipartisan, that is business and labor agreeing together that these are important things. It's ignorant. It's self-defeating, and it's wasteful and inefficient.' Lee explained the cuts demonstrate ignorance of how the global economy works, of the long-term sourcing and investment decisions made by corporations, and the negative impacts on American workers, businesses, and consumers in competing and relying on supply chains where forced labor, child labor, and other human rights abuses are ignored. 'This was a completely indiscriminate meat ax that was taken to these projects and workers will suffer, businesses will suffer, and American workers will suffer,' said Lee. Lee cited programs and research required to enforce trade agreements between the US and other nations, such as the National Child Labor survey, and around enforcing the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was co-sponsored by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as examples of programs where the work already completed is likely to be wasted due to the cuts. Shawna Bader-Blau, the executive director of the Solidarity Center, a nonprofit working in over 90 countries to improve worker standards and conditions, said the cuts reduced the organization's budget by 20%, in addition to 30% cuts through USAID cuts. 'It's a devastating, huge impact. The Solidarity Center is very often in countries where they are the only external support for trade union organizing and the advancement of worker rights. If we have to leave, we're not replaced,' said Bader-Blau. 'It's critical to the American economy that American workers not be forced to compete with extremely exploited workers in other countries, up to and including forced and child labor in supply chains.' She cited programs involved in enforcing labor aspects of the United States Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), signed under Trump's first term, to improve labor conditions in Mexico. The programs directly impact US workers whose jobs have often been outsourced to Mexico by corporations to exploit cheaper labor. The cuts, noted Bader-Blau, make it more likely that workers will be affected by offshoring and consumers will be purchasing goods where labor abuses are rampant in the supply chain. The cuts follow cancellations of previous grants, including a program that began in 2022 and was slated to continue until 2026 to provide support for Uzbekistan, the sixth largest producer of cotton in the world, after the country banned forced labor and child labor in its cotton production industry. The program was created to affirm and support the ban on forced labor and child labor so American corporations that had boycotted cotton from the region could begin sourcing from the country. The program's cancellation was touted by US Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer last month. 'State-imposed forced labor was used in the cotton harvest for decades,' said Raluca Dumitrescu, coordinator for the Cotton Campaign. Umida Niyazova, director of the Uzbek Forum for Human Rights, explained Uzbekistan has moved in recent years from producing cotton and exporting the entire crop, to developing a textile industry to process it. Though the nation has eliminated forced labor and child labor in harvesting, issues and abuses are still rampant throughout the industry. 'Since 2021, under enormous pressure, the state has changed the coercive practice of mass mobilization for cotton harvesting, however, the risks of forced labor remain high since structural reforms have not been implemented,' said Niyazova. Niyazova said the country still needs programs to establish decent labor standards and enforce them, such as the cancelled ILAB program. 'As Uzbek textile products are aimed at the foreign market, this concerns other countries and people of goodwill who would not want to become potential participants in a production chain based on worker exploitation,' she added. A spokesperson for the US Department of Labor did not provide information on how the funds will be reallocated, and did not comment on criticisms of the cuts. 'The American people resoundingly elected President Trump with a clear mandate to reduce federal government bloat and root out waste. Americans don't want their hard-earned tax dollars bankrolling foreign handouts that put America last,' said Courtney Parella, US Department of Labor spokesperson in an email. 'That's why we're focused on improving oversight and accountability within this program – and across the entire department – while prioritizing investments in the American workforce.'
