中文
By Gao Tongtong
In a recent BBC interview, Tadashi Yanai, the chief executive officer of Uniqlo, triggered extensive discussion by stating that the company does not source cotton from northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. As one of the largest cotton producers worldwide, Xinjiang has become a leading supplier for many global brands due to its superior quality, long fibers and high yield.
Yanai's statement exposes the political manipulation by Western powers and media over Xinjiang, while also reflecting the double standard mentality adopted by certain multinational corporations as they strategically engage in the international political chess game to maximize their own interests.
The cotton industry, as a symbol of the textile sector, played a crucial role in the development of European capitalism. However, it also stood as a testament to the brutal expansion and exploitation of imperialism. Particularly, the emergence of the modern American cotton industry was made possible through the violent and inhumane exploitation of thousands of black slaves.
The deep scars of history have made cotton and its products among the most provocative commodities, easily stirring up the sensitivities of the Western public. As a result, the United States has illegally sanctioned multiple industries in Xinjiang, including cotton, out of ideological and geopolitical interests. By invoking the alleged "forced labor" in Xinjiang, it has compelled multinational enterprises to take a stance, thereby severely disrupting the stability of the global industrial chain.
Under Western political coercion, some multinational corporations have begun to reassess their business relationships with Xinjiang, and have even chosen to align with Western political values by cutting ties with Xinjiang's cotton industry.
Starting as early as 2020, foreign brands such as Adidas, New Balance and Nike have successively issued public statements refusing to use cotton from Xinjiang. Clearly, these multinational companies have lost their grip on business ethics and are willing to serve as pawns in Western political battles.
A loader lifts a bundle of newly harvested cotton in a field in Awat County of Aksu, northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, October 24, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]
However, as every country plays a specific role in today's global supply chain system, every country plays its part. A blind attempt at "decoupling and severing ties" would trigger a domino effect, with not only Chinese companies but also these multinational corporations themselves facing losses. In 2021, for instance, H&M Group's decision to stop sourcing cotton from Xinjiang led to a 28 percent drop in its China Mainland sales in the second quarter, causing a loss of $74 million.
In fact, Uniqlo was embroiled in a controversy over boycotting Xinjiang cotton as early as 2021. The recent incident once again reveals the complex intertwining of politics and economics within the global supply chain.
Some global companies have chosen "to decouple from Xinjiang" in their supply chains, which essentially reflects the strategy of the U.S. and other Western nations to politicize and weaponize the global supply chain. By using various administrative methods, they pressure multinational companies into submission, with the ulterior motive of hindering China's development.
Although economic globalization is currently facing certain challenges, its continuous and deeper development, along with the increasingly widespread international economic exchange and cooperation, is an irreversible trend.
As active participants in the global industrial cooperation network, multinational enterprises should take on their social responsibilities and foster a more vibrant, inclusive economic globalization process. They should avoid becoming pawns of Western political forces, hiding behind the banner of "human rights" to recklessly damage the interests of the global public, including Chinese consumers.
Gao Tongtong, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a research fellow at the Institute for Communication and Borderland Governance of Jinan University.
