Happy Nice Mall

A sweeping bill aimed at banning products manufactured by forced labor in China became law after President Biden signed the law on Thursday.

But the next four months, when the Biden administration will hold hearings to explore how widespread forced labor is and what needs to be done about it, will be crucial in determining how far legislation goes in changing the behavior of companies that source products from China.

While knowingly importing goods made by slave labor is against US law, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act shifts the burden of proof from customs officers to companies. Firms will have to proactively prove that their factories and all their suppliers’ factories do not use slavery or coercion.

law, which Passed by the House and Senate almost unanimouslyWashington’s first comprehensive effort to control supply chains, which the United States says is exploiting persecuted minorities, and its impact could be far-reaching, he said. A wide range of products and raw materials such as petroleum, cotton, minerals and sugar — flow Xinjiang region of China, where accusations of forced labor proliferate. These materials are often used in Chinese factories that produce products for global companies.

“I predict there will be many companies, even entire industries, that would be surprised when they realize that their supply chains can extend as far as the Uyghur region,” said Laura Murphy, professor of human rights and contemporary slavery. at Sheffield Hallam University in England.

If the law is enforced as written, it could force many companies to rework the way they do business or risk having products blocked at the US border. These high stakes are expected to trigger a lobbying effort by companies trying to ease the burden on their industries, as the government writes guidelines that importers must comply with.

“Real, effective enforcement will likely mean an attempt by companies to pull back and create loopholes,” said Cathy Feingold, international director of the AFL-CIO. “So enforcement will be key.”

The behind-the-scenes discussions before the bill passed provided an early indication of how important the legislation could be for some of America’s biggest companies, such as business groups like the US Chamber of Commerce and brands alike. Nike and Coca-Cola tried to limit the scope of the bill.

The Biden administration has tagged the Chinese government’s actions in Xinjiang – including the arrests of more than a million Uighurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities, among them. forced conversion, sterilization, and arbitrary or unlawful killings – aspect genocide.

Human rights experts agree that Beijing’s policies Transporting Uighurs to farms and factories Nurturing the global supply chain is an integral part of the repression in Xinjiang, an attempt to assimilate minorities and separate them from their culture and religion.

In Declaration Last week, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Mr Biden welcomed the bill’s passage and said that with Congress “action can and must be taken to hold the People’s Republic of China accountable for genocide and human rights abuses.” Forced labor in Xinjiang.” He added that the administration “will work closely with Congress to implement this bill to ensure global supply chains are free of forced labor.”

Still, some members of the administration argued behind closed doors that the bill’s scope could overwhelm US regulators, leading to further supply chain disruptions at a time like this. inflation accelerating at a speed peak of almost 40 years, according to interviews with more than two dozen government officials, members of Congress, and staff. Some officials have also expressed concerns that an aggressive ban on Chinese imports could put the administration’s climate change-fighting goals at risk. China’s solar panel dominance and the components for making them, said people familiar with the controversy.

Mr. Biden’s special envoy on climate change, John Kerry, and his deputy secretary of state, Wendy R. Sherman, have separately addressed some of these concerns in their calls to Democratic Congressmen in recent months, according to four people familiar with the debate.

Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican and one of the bill’s lead authors, has criticized companies wanting to continue importing products and officials unwilling to sway China, saying they “just won’t go,” and those who want to limit their influence. Giving up.” “They will all try to weigh in on how to implement this,” he added.

One reason the risks are so high is the critical role Xinjiang can play in many supply chains. Twice the size of Texas, the region is rich in raw materials such as coal and oil, and crops such as tomatoes, lavender and hops; it is also a major electronics, sports shoes and footwear manufacturer. Clothes. By some estimates, it provides one fifth world cotton and 45 percent of the world’s polysilicon, a key component for solar panels

Xinjiang’s significant presence in the solar energy supply chain, Biden’s main source of tensionIt relies on solar power to help the US achieve its goal of significantly reducing carbon emissions by the end of the decade.

At this year’s meetings, Biden administration officials discussed how difficult it would be for importers to bypass Xinjiang and reposition their supply chains for solar products and other products, according to three government officials. According to three people familiar with the controversy, Department of Labor and U.S. Trade Representative officials were more sympathetic to a sweeping ban on Xinjiang goods. Some officials responsible for climate, energy and the economy have opposed a sweeping ban, saying it would harm supply chains or jeopardize the fight against climate change.

Ana Hinojosa, Director General of Customs and Border Protection and who led the implementation of the government’s forced labor provisions until she stepped down in October, said agencies responsible for “competing priorities” such as climate change have expressed concerns about the impact of the legislation. Corporations and various government agencies became nervous as the law’s broad powers could prove to be “disruptive to the U.S. economy.”

“The need to develop our clean energy is real and important, but it’s not something the government or the United States should do on the backs of people working in modern slavery conditions,” said Ms. Hinojosa.

In a phone call this year with Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Mr. Kerry conveyed her concerns about disrupting solar supply chains, while Ms. Sherman shared her concerns with Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Mr Merkley, one of the bill’s principal sponsors, said in an interview that Ms. Sherman had told him she was concerned that the legislation was not as “targeted and deliberative” as it should have been. The conversation was the first reported by the Washington Post.

“I think this is a targeted and deliberative approach,” said Mr. Merkley. “And I think the administration is starting to see how strongly Republicans and Democrats in both houses feel about it.”

A State Department official said Ms. Sherman did not initiate the search and did not express opposition to the bill. Mr. Kerry’s spokesperson, Whitney Smith, said the accusations she had lobbied against the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act were “false”. Ms. Pelosi refused to discuss private conversations.

Nury Türkel, vice-chairman of the US International Commission on Religious Freedom and Uyghur-American lawyer, said that the US “must fight both genocide and environmental destruction.”

“Policy makers and climate activists are choosing between saving the world or turning a blind eye to the enslavement of the Uighurs,” he said. “This is wrong and we cannot allow ourselves to be forced into it.”

Management officials also reacted The United States can take a strong stance against forced labor while developing a robust solar supply chain. National Security Council spokeswoman Emily Horne said Mr Biden “believes that what is happening in Xinjiang is genocide” and that the administration has taken a number of actions, including financial sanctions, to combat human rights abuses in the region. visa restrictions, export controls, import restrictions and Diplomatic boycott of 2022 Beijing Olympics in February.

“We took action to hold the PRC accountable for human rights violations and to address forced labor in Xinjiang,” Ms. Horne said, using the acronym for People’s Republic of China. “And we will continue to do that.”

The law highlights the delicate US-China relationship, where policymakers must figure out how to confront anti-democratic practices while the US is economically dependent on Chinese factories. China remains largest supplier of goods to the United States.

One of the biggest hurdles for US companies is determining whether their products touch Xinjiang at any point in the supply chain. Many companies complain that they lack the power to request information from Chinese firms that produce raw materials and parts, beyond their direct suppliers.

Government restrictions preventing foreigners from unrestricted access to sites in Xinjiang have made it difficult for many businesses to explore their supply chains. New Chinese anti-sanction rulesThreatened with penalties against companies complying with US restrictions made scrutiny even more difficult.

The Chinese government denies the use of forced labor in Xinjiang. Government spokesman Zhao Lijian said US politicians “are trying to control China and hinder its development through political manipulation and economic bullying in the name of human rights.” He promised a “decisive response” if the bill becomes law.

Lawmakers struggled last year to strike a more aggressive compromise home version a legislation SenateIt gave companies longer timelines to make changes and eliminated the need for SEC reporting, among other differences.

final invoice It included a mechanism for creating lists of assets and products that helped transport persecuted workers to factories in China or that used forced labor. owned by companies like Apple lobbied for the creation of such lists, believing it will provide greater certainty for businesses wishing to avoid assets of concern.

Lisa Friedman contributing reporting.