Thread by @NomoGaia

HAPPENING NOW. There are already nearly 400 people at the hearing, including senior leadership at DHS and leading experts on #Uyghur forced labor.

https://twitter.com/JTIP_State/status/1507046013139402758

Undersecretary @SilversRob: "We are strongly committed to preventing the importation of products made with forced labor." NomoGaia's comments are aimed to assist in this.

State Dept ILAB Deputy Undersecretary @TheaMeiLee: DOL's mission is to safeguard the dignity of work everywhere; that's why traceability doesn't just stop at end goods but includes the whole supply chain.

The act contributes to this administration's efforts to ensure that the US economy does not derive profits from Uyghur atrocities - Kari Johnstone @JTIP_State

Searing expert testimony from @nyrola, linking family separations to the forced labor schemes, as Beijing implements forced labor programs to 'alleviate' poverty. Children and elders are institutionalized so working-age Uyghurs can be coopted into work.

Describing her imprisoned sister, @Qelbinur10 reveals that the garments her sister wears on their rare video chats are factory uniforms. She cannot know if goods her sister makes are reaching US markets.

. @OliviaEnos stresses the need for UFLPA implementation beyond Xinjiang borders, because Uyghur forced labor is being 'exported' to other regions. All historically marginalized groups should be in scope. Sometimes NomoGaia and @Heritage disagree on DHS priorities. Not this one.

Holding state documents up to the camera, @GroseTimothy shows how national & state documents detail the approaches to forced labor transfers. The calculated nature of cultural erasure of Uyghurs is a matter of national, state & local policy.

"I never thought in the 21st century China would commit a full-scale genocide against my people" - @RushanAbbas
The scale of forced labor "cannot be understated" - it's an "economic engine" for the PRC AND the world economy at the expense of Uyghurs including her detained sister

From @HorizonAdvisory's Emily de la Bruyere: we need better methods for screening risks. Currently only first-tier suppliers are really being screened, when the risks are further down the supply chain.

Translating for Sayragul Sauytbay, @GaniStambekov describes how Sayragul, an ethnic Kazakh, was forced to teach CCP propaganda & cultural shame. She witnessed rapes & forced sterilizations. Gani also described horrors of an imprisoned friend. cnn.com/2019/05/09/asi…

@GaniStambekov Gani translated for Gulzira Auelkhan whose accounts of horrors (forced labor, rape, degradation, prisoners forced to harm prisoners) in the camp are wrenchingly documented abcnews.go.com/International/…

shahit.biz/eng/viewentry.…

supchina.com/2019/09/04/how…

Gulzira says her prison guards told her the gloves she made would sell for $200 in America. They said by 2026 the whole East Turkistan population would be integrated into CCP's labor force.

From @Anti_Slavery, @Chloe_Cranston's 2 key points:
1. scoping the Act only to end goods produced in Xinjiang would be "entirely insufficient."

2. US cannot allow re-export of Uyghur forced labor goods rejected at US borders. We have to starve the market *worldwide*.

"When we support China's forced labor programs in Xinjiang by buying goods produced in the region, we are destroying traditional Uyghur jobs." @RianThum notes that the forced labor isn't solving unemployment, it's eliminating traditional economy & culture.

"The evidence suggests that participation in labor schemes is a prerequisite for economic activity in the region" - @RianThum nails the core problem with efforts by companies to claim that somehow THEIR supply chains in Xinjiang are free of the systematic and universal abuses.

Observing "a shift in mode," @adrianzenz finds that the labor transfers require MUCH LESS specific documentation by companies, as the approach is now normalized. People are already in databases. Propaganda is no longer needed. This makes forced labor tracing much harder.

Kehinde Togun from @HUAction wants to see robust & broad enforcement of the #Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (#UFLPA). Xinjiang industry is massive and expanding. Audits are compromised, so full supply chain transparency is needed.

[well over 500 attendees at the hearing as we wrap up a 10-minute break. The session on methods for tracing the origin of goods upcoming.]

Kicking off, @RanisVoice, speaking as a survivor of child human trafficking and advocate for current victims, calls on CBP to rise the challenge of supply chain tracing.

Eugene Laney, CEO of @AEI, says "Forced labor has no place in the US economy." He's seeking information sharing, not WROs. He says the government should be doing the work companies are (legally) obligated to undertake to identify crimes in their supply chains.

His observation that "this approach has worked" with conflict minerals isn't actually borne out in evidence. I hope this testimony is scrutinized against evidence.

From "Applied DNA Sciences" James Hayward argues that DNA tags applied to cotton fibers at the gin "provides full forensic traceability." ADNAS is run by professors and this is science-driven work.

[lament] There are a lot of sales pitches happening right now. It feels a bit shameless and hubristic. If one company were actually solving forced labor in Xinjiang, we wouldn't need this hearing or this law. [/lament]

Our @kendylsalcito was up next. Remarks here: docs.google.com/document/d/1C8…

In the solar industry, @SEIA has advocated independent audits. We know that auditors face threats and intimidation, making audits unreliable. @JohnSmirnow notes that "More work needs to be done."

Allison Gill from @GLJhub: "mapping supply chains to the raw material level & evaluating labor conditions at each level is critical to any due diligence process." Audit only works, even in theory, if supply chain transparency is present at every tier.

Julia Hughes from @usfashion declares "war" against forced labor. But also wants recognition of what is "feasible." This is apparently a very limited war.

From @oritain, Mike Raiole describes the science behind cotton geochemical 'fingerprinting'. This works for cotton as a raw material.

Irina Bukharin cites @C4ADS' report showing the weak enforcement of forced labor bans because supply chains are being deliberately obfuscated. DHS uses US import data but it also needs to use trade data from other countries & Chinese language data. c4ads.org/long-shadows

Evan Smith from @Altana_AI notes that supply chains aren't static and enforcement of the UFLPA needs to be responsive to evolving business relationships.

The idea that AI will be able to use documentation to do this is baseless (prove me wrong, Evan), but the problem is real.

From the Chinese government, Xiao SUN "strongly" opposes the law because "forced labor does not exist in China". Jun PENG says the law is "too strict."

Baseless propaganda is awkward in an event where experts, survivors & official documentation undermine it.

From @4WorkerRights, @ScottNova_WRC is extremely clear that industry efforts to restrict application of this law to first-tier suppliers is a deliberate effort to continue profiting from forced labor.

From @hrw, a call for civil and criminal penalties for US companies that break the law. This is the first time in the hearing that penalties have been discussed.

Moving on: Measures to identify third-country supply chain routes.

Dr. David Tran from the Alliance for Vietnam Democracy notes that Vietnam is a top importer of Chinese cotton. It is complicit and should be sanctioned alongside China suppliers.

From @UHRP_Chinese, @LouisaCGreve: forced labor is a tool of repression & control, not an enforcement error. Thus, no labor audits can effectively evaluate labor conditions. Some industries have requested upfront exemptions. That is not an option, even as prioritization is needed

"Our member companies have zero tolerance for forced labor," Matt Priest @FDRA (footwear distributers). A shoe will source materials from 40 contexts, though, so any identified forced labor should require "public comment" before enforcement.

So, zero tolerance... eventually?

Meghan Biery of @SIAAmerica worries that the law will put US leadership in the industry "at risk." Xinjiang-produced polysilicon isn't high-enough grade for semiconductors. Does industry not think ingots get re-processed to higher grade? Or that it's supply chain is irrelevant?

Biery makes the remarkable comment that Wacker Chemie has severed ties with Chinese suppliers. That's a big deal and likely directly results from the amazing work done by @LauraTMurphy & @Nyrola in "In Broad Daylight" shu.ac.uk/helena-kennedy…

Also drawing from @LauraTMurphy & @nyrola's polysilicon research, U. Nottingham's James Cockayne reinforces the problems with narrow scoping to Xinjiang, audits & "bifurcation" of supply chains to split Xinjiang polysilicon away from US clients

Stephen Lamar from @apparelfootwear seeks "predictability" from the law. This could be facilitated by industry work to know their supply chains. Instead he advocates for "advance notice" before CBP WROs. Industry would know its goods will be withheld if it's duly diligent

Vanessa Sciarra from @USCleanPower says that WROs are a serious concern and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Isn't profiting from genocide also a serious concern that shouldn't be taken lightly?

Polysilicon sourcing from forced labor is a crime. Why is enforcement the problem?

Courtney Hamilton (@liberalchick) brings up @Apple. Its supply chain remains linked to Xinjiang forced labor in violation of US law and its own supplier code of conduct. CBP should be asking these firms for compliance with their own internal governance.

At @Heritage, 5 recommendations:
Regs on transparency;
Assistance to SMEs for supply chain tracing;
List what compliance measures will be accepted by CBP;
Removal of entities proven not to be using forced labor
Comprehensive eval of results by the USG, to update the public

From @sahibagill @GLJhub : "any audit firm acting in the region should be assumed not to be credible." The context is "incompatible with credible auditing." Information from the region has been faulty for a decade. Businesses need to responsibly exit the region altogether.

VP Int Trade, Consumer Tech Assn @EdBRZA is asking for ANOTHER year to "gain a better understanding" of the issues.

This is so strange.

They've had 4 years to review their supply chains. What would one more year help them "understand"?

This list seems to undermine Heritage's earlier statement.

From @RILAtweets, Blake Harden calls for more time + details from CBP on the reasons for detention. This is odd, because it's the legal obligation of companies not to source forced labor-made goods. Why should CBP tell companies there's forced labor; it's corporate due diligence.

<< Shoutout to @CBP's Valarie Neuhart, who is facilitating this hearing so adeptly >>

The head of Intl Trade & Gov Rel @STRTRADE is claiming that enforcement of the law will disincentivize entrepreneurship, because it will be hard for companies to do their adequate due diligence.

Is there evidence for this claim? Is due diligence supposed to be easy?

Ben Wastler @NFTC has a similar position.

The industry commenters are all coming after the expert commenters. This is interesting because comments are made in the order in which people RSVPed to this event.

Looks like industry showed up late... but in force.

Forced labor violates our values AND undermines fair competition, says @AFLCIO's @eric_gottwald. He has clearly lost patience with industry claims that meeting a previous WRO somehow exempts industry from future WROs. The AFL-CIO would know - this is central to their work.

EU Policy Coordinator for the @UyghurCongress @stoop_k is based in Brussels. He advocates for global coordination on preventing Uyghur forced labor across rights-respecting nations. He also advocates for remedy -- a first in this hearing. Victims require remediation!

From @NRFNews, Jon Gold issues comments claiming that "Trusted Trader" approaches suffice. NomoGaia's comments an hour ago provided evidence that these aren't working (NRF, you can read them here!) docs.google.com/document/d/1C8…

NRF also wants CBP to pilot technologies for due diligence. I'm curious to know, why should USG undertake this, when it's a corporate legal requirement to produce goods without forced labor?

We're back! Last session, focused on "other general comments," kicks off with the @USCIB's Brian Lowry. The trade community continues to express confusion about how the law will be implemented. Concerns about port delays suggest that industry isn't yet doing due diligence.

The "infrastructure of genocide" is present in Xinjiang, says @ObersteinSerena. Drawing parallels to @CocaCola, @HUGOBOSS & @VW in Nazi Germany, she finds those companies operating in Xinjiang. "There's no excuse to allow these companies to continue to profit from the genocide"

From Sheffield Hallam, @LauraTMurphy highlights that "there is no finite list of goods or sectors" being sourced from the region and that it's state-sponsored and thus "inescapable in the region"

... Companies have been asking for "permission to continue sourcing from forced labor. Permission to continue breaking the law." (@LauraTMurphy)

Companies have a legal responsibility to continually update data provided to government. Not the reverse.

The problems identified today from an overburdened CBP and delayed shipping at ports remain present and can be addressed by companies actively working to adhere to law (@LauraTMurphy closes)

"It is the moral responsibility and the legal obligation of our government to enforce and fully implement the law" - Scott Paul from the Alliance for American Manufacturing

Martina Vandenberg: We have a roadmap for implementing this law: the N. Korea law, which has powerful enforcement mechanisms and has established that "there is no clear and convincing evidence companies can produce" that would separate supply chains from state-sponsored abuse.

Also Martina Vandenberg: "We need enforcement, not a call to action" @HTLegalCenter

Dean Pinkert @pinkerdea1 from @CorpAcctLab: "Again and again social audits have been proven to fail workers." And that's not just in Xinjiang.

"CBP should not allow itself to be taken in by a practice that can amount to consumer fraud"

@pinkerdea1 @CorpAcctLab Dale Seal's Sun Pacific sources apricots from Kashgar's Kashi Fruit Inc. Says audits and his own personal visits are enough to prove there's no forced labor at his supplier. Curious to know his expertise to verify that his Uyghur suppliers are willing. Potemkin village risks HIGH

Speaking on behalf of consumers, Roberta Kjesrud: Companies asking CBP to tell them what products are forced by forced labor "is sort of like asking teachers to help students cheat on a test. And I'm a former teacher. No."

"If surveillance technology is capable of identifying individual Uyghurs by the way they walk, it can certainly trace a good through the supply chain. As a consumer, I'm ready to pay more."

Becky W from an investor due diligence standpoint speaks powerfully.

"The government of China will not allow its supply chains to be policed by other countries," so the WROs need to apply to the entire class of merchandise, as Nov 2019 WRO against Malawian tobacco products.

Beyond WROs, sanctions and other penalties are needed (Robby Smith)

Pastor Bruce Garner wrote an impassioned letter to Burton in Feb openletter.earth/open-letter-to…). His father was at Dachau after liberation. His horror at the atrocities were compounded by horror at the profits from the factories. Implementing this law is urgent, he says.

The @ciw is here! Forced labor in Fla tomato farms seemed intractable, and totally failed by social audit. Worker-driven initiatives are the only viable solutions to forced labor. It's entirely impossible in Xinjiang.

Audits cannot be even a component of companies evidence base

Judge Laura Safer Espinosa @_FFSC (fairfoodstandards.org) emphasizes that if workers fear retaliation, there can be no confidence in review processes. And it took years for this trust-building in Florida, where intimidation was far less severe than in Xinjiang.

John Drake, VP Supply Chain Policy, @USChamber wants a 'clear evidentiary standard' for enforcement (the standard is that there are links to XJ; after Roberta's comments he should be embarrassed to ask CBP for this) & also wants reliance on Trusted Trader programs, which fail too

I tagged the wrong Serena Oberstein! @SJOberstein