Xinjiang Sanctions Episode 4 - Chloe Cranston

Xinjiang Sanctions

In Episode 4, James speaks with Chloe Cranston, Business and Human Rights Manager at Anti-Slavery International. James asks Chloe about what companies are doing in response to allegations of Xinjiang forced labour, and we he ar about a new initiative in Brussels to prevent goods made with forced labour entering the European market.

Transcript

James Cockayne 0:00

Welcome to Xinjiang Sanctions, a podcast looking at the global response to forced labour in Xinjiang, China. I'm James Cockayne, a Professor of Global Politics and Anti-Slavery at the University of Nottingham. I've been working on modern slavery and forced labour issues for the last decade and researching Xinjiang forced labour for the last year. You can see the results of that research at www.xinjiangsanctions.info. In this short podcast series, I speak with global experts to understand why forced labour emerged in Xinjiang and what governments and business are doing to try to address it. I'm pleased to be joined on this episode by Chloe Cranston, Business and Human Rights Manager at Anti-Slavery International. Welcome, Chloe.

Chloe Cranston 0:44

Hi, James. Thanks for having me.

James Cockayne 0:46

Tell us about Anti-Slavery International Chloe.

Chloe Cranston 0:48

So Anti-Slavery International is considered the world's oldest human rights organisation. It was set up over 180 years ago as part of the original abolitionist movement. And it's worked all through that time in one form or another. And we now work to end contemporary forms of slavery. And we have four strategic themes which are: responsible business (which I manage), climate change in modern slavery, migration & trafficking and child slavery.

James Cockayne 1:17

So almost two centuries of expertise then in fighting slavery and forced labour. Recently, Anti-Slavery International has helped mobilise an effort responding to Xinjiang forced labour. Can you tell us about that?

Chloe Cranston 1:29

Yes. So we co-founded something called the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region. And that coalition came about towards the end of 2019, the beginning of 2020. And essentially what happened there is various groups, labour rights groups, investors, anti-slavery groups, human rights groups, which have focused heavily for decades, on how the fashion industry is tainted with human rights abuses, complicit in human rights abuses. They we increasingly saw all the evidence that the fashion industry was directly tied to the forced labour of Uyghurs. And at the same time, obviously, and evidently, the Uyghur community was watching in horror as the fashion industry was failing to take action. So what we had was essentially, a group of us came together with this common objective, to unite to end the state's imposed forced labour and other human rights abuses against Uyghurs. And it's not only Uyghurs, it’s other Turkic and Muslim majority peoples in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. So we united and brought brought these groups together with this common cause. And I would say, you know, arguably, it is one of the biggest formalised human rights movements now in recent times. So the coalition is now supported by over 400 organisations, and that's faith based organisations, investors, as I said, many human rights and human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch, in over 40 countries. So really a worldwide movement, and we have various focus areas. One is we're calling for companies to exit the Uyghur region. For governments and institutions such as the UN and the ILO to put pressure on the Chinese government, ultimately, to end the forced labour in the Uyghur region.

James Cockayne 3:16

So as you mentioned, one of the key things the coalition has done is issue a call to action to companies to exit the Uyghur region. Are they listening?

Chloe Cranston 3:25

So I would definitely say yes, so we publicly launched the coalition in July 2020. And when we launched that call to action companies, and we were initially focused on the fashion industry, our focus has obviously expanded looking at solar looking at agriculture, at PVC, all the other industries. But initially, we were focused on fashion. And when we first launched it, we were doing extensive private engagement with many, many leading companies in the fashion industry. And honestly, many companies really did not understand the scale to which they were exposed to Uyghur forced labour across their supply chains. So how I would explain that is many were looking at it solely in terms of their direct business relationships in the region. So did they have a tier one supplier in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and at that time, some companies still did, I think that has very much significantly changed in the past two and a half years. So many of it, we're looking at really just these direct business relationships, but the exposure was much more complex. And this is what we laid out in our call to action. It's about direct business relationships, it’s about wherever companies are in financial relationships with a facility say elsewhere in China or even elsewhere in the world, the parent company of which is involved in supporting the Uyghur forced labour systems and that’s still being in a financial relationship with a complicit company. Then in early 2020, we had the expose about the forced transfers of Uyghurs from the region to elsewhere in China. So that was also part of how it was tainting supply chains. And then obviously the sourcing of goods. So cotton and yarn and if we are talking about other sectors, you know, polysilicon, PVC, and so on. So we really set out in these kind of the way I have said it, it's kind of four different ways that companies were very, very exposed in their supply chain. I'm not even speaking about the value chain side, which is obviously be about exporting goods and services to the region. And so by setting out those four areas that you know, what we did is we definitely set the bar. We know that companies took the steps we demanded, we know that companies were taking these, really understanding these different layers of how they could be exposed. And even if companies weren't being public about it, a year on many of the leading companies that we were engaging with, we know were taking these steps. And crucially now, and I know you probably want to talk about this, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the US essentially makes our call to action binding law. And what that shows is companies can't be completely complicit in Uyghur forced labour, not even if it's just a small part of their supply chain.

James Cockayne 6:09

You mentioned the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Was the Coalition involved in its, its development?

Chloe Cranston 6:15

Yes, of course, so many, there's many, many US based organisations in the coalition. And those organisations did a huge amount of work to advocate for the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and also to push it forward when it was stalling.

James Cockayne 6:29

So as you've explained that that law, in a way makes mandatory some of the things that you are calling on business to do. Which of the steps that business now have to undertake as a result of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, do you see as having the most impact?

Chloe Cranston 6:45

So you know ultimately what the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act does is it makes it that companies cannot source anything from the Uyghur region, essentially, because there's this rebuttable presumption and only if the company can prove it wasn't made with forced labour would they be able to import it into the United States. However, the crux of it is, and this was really the basis of our call to action, is due to the levels of repression and surveillance and control in the region, no company can go there and actually meaningfully identify whether there is forced labour happening. And if they actually did, there's nothing they can do to prevent it, there's nothing they can do to mitigate it, and there's nothing they can do to remediate it, i.e. they cannot act in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. And that's, you know, was really seen as well, in September 2020, if I get my timelines, right, that many auditing companies, six auditing companies announced they would no longer audit in the region due to you know, the threats on auditors and so on. So with that, if we have this rebuttable presumption, the only way a company can import its goods into the United States now is if it can prove that none of the inputs in that good were made in the Uyghur region, because they are not reasonably going to be able to prove it was not made with forced labour. And that is, you know, what we need to see happening and that needs to, you know, put the pressure on the Chinese government to allow access to the region to allow for an enabling environment for human rights.

James Cockayne 8:17

So you mentioned there Chloe that the situation in Xinjiang makes effective due diligence very difficult and you also mentioned that it makes remediation very difficult. So what can be expected in terms of remediation of the problems in the supply chain and also remedy to people who have been affected by these abuses?

Chloe Cranston 8:41

So it's a really interesting question, remedy for victims of state imposed forced labour, which is what this is, is a really unexplored area. So this is not the only example of state imposed forced labour in supply chains we've had. There was decades of state imposed forced labour in Uzbekistan. That situation has now reformed we need to see more change happening in Uzbekistan still with labour rights, but that situation is reformed and we still have ongoing state imposed forced labour in cotton in Turkmenistan as well. However, in all these situations, whether we're talking about the previous situation in Uzbekistan or what we're looking at now the Uyghur region, the question of remedy is a big one, and honestly, I would say to any listeners that I personally believe there needs to be much more work done at international levels. To work out this - how do we ensure justice and remedy for victims of state imposed forced labour? One thing that we've discussed with companies is, when we're talking about the Uyghur situation, is donations to Uyghur refugees. So it's not possible to directly provide remedy to Uyghurs in the Uyghur region. As I said, there's no access their suppliers wouldn't be able to, there's just there's no meaningful route there. But there are you know, there are Uyghur refugees, for example, in Turkey that are desperate for support. And so companies can, you know, engage meaningfully with the global Uyghur community with representatives of these survivors, and engage with them to understand how they could possibly support some form of remediation there. But I personally think it's an area that needs a lot more focus on to consider what is the best route.

James Cockayne 10:26

It's possible to imagine that companies might respond to that kind of ask by saying that they support in principle, but but don't see why they should carry the financial burden. And that that's really a state responsibility. Do you hear that kind of reaction? And how would you see that balance of responsibilities between states and business in enabling and providing remedy?

Chloe Cranston 10:47

So when we're talking about state imposed forced labour, quite clearly, ultimately, the responsibility lies on the state. And when we talk about it long term, we would be looking at transitional justice, similar to what you look at when you have, you know, situations of conflict and so on. And quite clearly that falls in the responsibility of the state. However, the supply chain piece, the harsh reality is that companies have sourced from the Uyghur region, where they've sourced the product and that product has been made with Uyghur forced labour. When they identify it has been made Uyghur forced labour, what are they going to do? Are they going to sell it and make profits from crimes against humanity? Are they, even if they say repurpose it, and still make a loss, but there's still some money involved there? What are they going to do with that money? That is money that has been made off the backs of crimes against humanity and genocide committed against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim majority peoples. And so that money cannot sit in the pockets of companies. And so they do have a responsibility there to consider what they do. And there has been there is one case, for example, that is in the public space of a company that donated via a large human rights organisation to support Uyghur refugees. So that example has been set.

James Cockayne 12:10

You make the point there that there that financial ties can create some difficult questions for for companies' – profits and other financial ties. There's been a lot of focus by policymakers recently on import bans. Have we seen any efforts to think through the role of investment and capital market controls?

Chloe Cranston 12:34

There's also been attention on, for example, the role of the International Financial Corporation, which is found to be still shoring up investments of various facilities in the Uyghur region that are tied to Uyghur forced labour. And I think personally, I think the role of investment and export credits and so on is particularly crucial when we are looking at the solar industry. And how can the investment community come in in order to engage with the solar industry and urgently drive a redirection of their sourcing, so they are not sourcing from the Uyghur region, right, so, given the urgency of the transition to clean energy. So my personal view is on the investment industry and investors is a crucial, crucial role of the solar industry.

James Cockayne 13:23

Now, just thinking a little bit beyond the United States, there's rightly a lot of focus on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which has only been in force a few weeks at the time that we're recording this podcast. But last year, over the other side of the pond, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, committed the Commission to develop a forced labour instrument. And quite recently, the European Parliament has put its weight behind the idea, what can we expect on that side of the pond in this area?

Chloe Cranston 13:56

So first, I would just say how hugely important it is that the European Union does introduce a strong law in this regard. What we have with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act is something very, very strong. But the reality is, is that if a company has its product seized, it can re-export it to another market. The other reality is is that some companies in some industries where this is feasible, may be creating bifurcated supply chains, i.e, one so called clean supply chain for the United States so that they don't get caught up in the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act enforcement, and one so called tainted supply chain for the rest of the world. And those two facts together – the issue of bifurcated supply chains and the issue around re-export or trans-shipments – means that we really, really need to see other governments introduced comparable laws. So we very much welcome that the European Commission is developing this forced labour instrument. It’s not Uyghur forced labour specific but we of course, still welcome it. So what to expect? The, what we're currently hearing is it should come in September, it should be announced in September as to be in the year anniversary of when President von der Leyen first announced that this would happen. We know the European Commission wants to design a law that applies both to domestic products, i.e. products produced in the EU, and imported products. And in that sense, they're looking at a combination of a market surveillance and border mechanism instrument. Maybe a bit technical, but they're looking at something that in terms of enforcement would work somewhat differently from the United States approach. And we as civil society, and also, if you look at the European Parliament's Resolution, we're very much hoping they learn from the US Tariff Act, but make improvements. In particular, and this is maybe a little bit tangential from the Uyghur forced labour discussion, we really need to see a remedy centred model, so that in other cases of forced labour, the real purpose of such a law would be to drive urgent remedy to victims. For example, if you look at some of the cases of what's happened in Malaysia,

James Cockayne 16:19

Right, and that brings us back, I guess, to this fundamental question of what the ultimate goal of these kinds of measures is or can be. And and I guess, that leads me to ask, Chloe, whether you're optimistic about the international community's ability to use these kinds of measures to generate a change in government policy in China so that the drivers of forced labour in and related to Xinjiang change. Are you optimistic on that front?

Chloe Cranston 16:54

So I think it’s worth highlighting that this system of state imposed forced labour is different from elsewhere. So for example, Anti-Slavery has worked for decades on Uzbekistan and a decade on Turkmenistan. And in those countries, the primary goal of the state imposed forced labour is financial gain. Here, in what I mean in the Uyghur region, the financial gain is arguably secondary. The financial profit is not the primary objective we see from the Chinese government. The first and primary objective is ethnic and religious persecution. And so in that sense, this does make it, you know, this egregious horror, what we're viewing. And that does make this you know, a really tough campaign. However, what we do need to see is all levers used to put economic and political pressure on the Chinese government to end the state imposed forced labour and the other abuses. So that's import bans, that other economic pressure tools such as you know, export bans as well. Sanctions - sanctioning specific entities, sanctioning specific individuals. The role of the UN is absolutely crucial, the role of the ILO, the role of specific governments, we need to see more governments come in on this, it’s been very US heavy lead, but we do need to see, you know, there's a strong strong call for greater support from Muslim majority governments. So I think ultimately, we just need to be using all levers we have to put economic and political pressure on the Chinese government.

James Cockayne 18:42

So the import ban is, in a sense, the first step towards that much more complex array of, of different levers that need to be pulled, is that right?

Chloe Cranston 18:53

I wouldn't put them in a timeline. I would say they all need to be, they all need to happen at once, essentially, but I think the import ban piece as well, just to highlight that. So the question of whether the Chinese government is reforming the system is obviously absolutely crucial. But regardless of that companies still have their responsibility to respect human rights. Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Many governments are introducing our mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence laws as well now. So putting aside the question of that, of the reform in China for a second, that is evidently going to be a long term goal. We see the system continuing we see even actually the forced labour ramping up. Companies cannot be complicit in that, they cannot be profiteering from state imposed forced labour and import bans are absolutely crucial to do that. What they do is they mean companies need to know where their products come from. Absolutely no more excuses about the opaqueness of supply chains means we don't know where our cotton comes from. We need to get past that. Companies need to know their supply chains, they need to be working with their suppliers to redirect sourcing. And they really need to be taking this seriously and not be profiteering from the system.

James Cockayne 20:12

Well Chloe thank you so much for everything that you and Anti-Slavery International have been doing to drive effort around the world to address this critical issue. And thank you so much for your time today. Thanks for listening to this episode of Xinjiang Sanctions presented by me James Cockayne. You can find out more about our research project at www.xinjiangsanctions.info, where you can download our study, our policy briefs and explore datasets on government, Chinese and corporate responses. Thanks to the University of Nottingham Rights Lab and to our funders, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office for their support with this research and the podcast which is available on all major platforms. Don't forget to subscribe if you're interested in accessing all the episodes from the series.

---

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.