Nike's statement on Xinjiang is actually carefully written to avoid condemning or accusing the Chinese govt of doing anything bad. It just says there are no Uighurs in our supply chain so we are fine. Apparently, this is not good enough. purpose.nike.com/statement-on-x…
Moreover, in the Department of Ingratitude, these companies being targeted in China seem to have lobbied successfully against the Uighur Forced Labor Ban in Congress. Still not good enough apparently. msn.com/en-us/money/ma…
The PR folks who have to write the Nike/HM apologies on Weibo for not using forced labor products from Xinjiang are going to really earn their paycheck this week.
Saudi Arabian leader Mohammed bin Salman "firmly supports China's legitimate position on affairs related to Xinjiang and Hong Kong." This kind of support from a leading majority-Muslim country is why pushing China on Xinjiang is so difficult. globaltimes.cn/page/202103/12…
Interestingly, GT reports China's FM Wang will also be meeting with Turkish diplomats. Curious whether the Turkish will endorse China's Xinjiang policies as well.
In any event, the Arab League support for China's Xinjiang policies is exactly the kind of international support that China needs when it pushes back against US/EU sanctions. China is winning this diplomatic contest so far. ecns.cn/news/society/2…
This could be a big deal, although it has some potential downsides. "U.S. Says China’s Repression of Uighurs Is ‘Genocide’" nytimes.com/2021/01/19/us/…
A US govt legal designation of something as a "genocide" has traditionally been a difficult bureaucratic and legal task. See, e.g., the fight over the 2004 US designation of Sudan's actions in Darfur as "genocide" theatlantic.com/international/…
The Clinton Administration in 1994 appeared to have barred the use of genocide w/r/t Sudan for legal and policy reasons. The Bush Admin did quite a lot of fact finding and legal analysis, and was still not sure the evidence was strong enough.
This is quite a speech on Taiwan by @USAsiaPacific
Chief Stilwell. It says almost everything Taipei would want the US to say: E.g.: China is the problem, not Taiwan; Taiwan needs more international room. US will keep selling arms to Taiwan. state.gov/The-United-Sta…
@USAsiaPacific It declassifies cables related to the 1982 "Six Assurance" given by the US to Taiwan, and reaffirms US commitment to those assurances. The Assurances run from the US to Taiwan, but were meant to clarify the limits of what the US would do w/r/t Taiwan when negotiating with China.
@USAsiaPacific To the extent there was any ambiguity on the US position on Taiwan's sovereignty, this speech clarifies that "The U.S. takes no position on sovereignty over Taiwan." which directly contradicts China's claim that the whole world (incl the US) agrees that Taiwan is part of China.
Here is @RepTedYoho's "Taiwan Invasion Prevention Act", which would authorize US military force in the event China uses force against Taiwan. yoho.house.gov/sites/yoho.hou…
@RepTedYoho The key language in the bill is similar to other congressional authorizations for the use of force, like the famous Sept. 11 AUMF. This bill's language is similarly broad, but does impose some conditions on when the President can use force to defend Taiwan.
@RepTedYoho POTUS can use force if 1) China attacks Taiwan's military; 2) China attacks territory under Taiwan's 'effective juris'; 3) China endangers lives of TW civilians or military.
I know yet another sanctions bill against China is no longer big news, but the "HK Autonomy Act" (which passed the Senate today) has some potentially new sanctions over HK. toomey.senate.gov/files/document…
Under existing US law, @potus CAN sanction individuals over violations of HKers human rights, and he can also withdraw HK's special status under US law for trade and other intl purposes. But all is left to @potus' discretion. But the new HK Autonomy Act is MANDATORY.
Moreover, unlike the existing US laws which focus on HK or CN govt officials, the new HK Autonomy Act seems to require sanctions on "foreign financial institutions" that "knowingly that knowingly conducts a significant transaction with" a sanctioned HK or CN govt official.