In the Xinjiang cotton row, principle has been hijacked for political profit

For the US in particular, ‘principle’ has become a byword for political profit, which can be coupled with financial profit to achieve supremacy
For the international brands stuck between making a financial profit and a government’s ‘political profit’, decisions have to be balanced very carefully

Liu Jun

Published: 3:30am, 25 Apr 2021

Why you can trust SCMP

China and Western countries have recently been trading barbs on several issues, each side citing inviolable principles. One critical issue revolves around cotton produced in Xinjiang, a major grower of high-quality cotton not only for the domestic market but also for international brands.

For the West, this is a human rights issue.

So-called evidence of forced Uygur labour and other human rights abuses have been produced. A group of Western governments including the United States have voiced concerns and even anger towards Beijing. Countries such as the US, Canada and the Netherlands have labelled Chinese policies in Xinjiang genocide, which is a highly explosive accusation.

In light of this, international brands have been urged to stand on the side of principle instead of profit, and boycotts of cotton and related products from Xinjiang have been advocated.

For China, this is about defending the truth.

01:08

Xinjiang, China’s top cotton producer

Beijing has protested strongly against the misinformation and false claims in the Xinjiang cotton dispute. The array of videos and audio files produced can hardly be classified as findings; they only give information from one side. Mere stories cannot be treated as material evidence where there is a dearth of facts that can be verified and validated.

For the powerful Chinese consumer, there is also the principle of national pride. Brands, no matter how big or popular, that do not behave in line with China’s core national interests, or whose China-bashing declarations are not based on fact, can also expect to face a punishing boycott.

There are no grounds to assume that Chinese consumers’ actions are unjustified or politically driven, or that their purchasing decisions are manipulated by the government or propaganda. Chinese consumers are quite able to come up with their own judgments and decisions.

So now, there are boycotts in both directions. Foreign boycotts on China driven by the principle of human rights. And Chinese boycotts on foreign entities driven by the principles of truth and national pride. This is a balanced reciprocity, and it rightly reflects the respective freedoms to choose, based on what each side believes to be right.

02:38

Global brands face backlash in China for rejecting Xinjiang cotton

Yet the Chinese market is one of the biggest magnets for companies worldwide. They see enormous business opportunities in China’s industrialisation and urbanisation, and now digitisation. So this tussle leaves many companies in a quandary.

First, how to verify which allegations are true? We need verifiable information – evidence and facts to lead us to the truth. But the Xinjiang cotton case is full of unhelpful misinformation.

Second, how to balance truth and purpose? The purpose of companies is to make a profit. We seek truth to advance civilisation. Truth without truthful solutions is not what human beings have been pursuing. It is all about finding solutions to the obstacles that hinder the improvement of society. Yet in the Xinjiang cotton issue, both sides are unable to agree on the truth, nor can they work towards truthful solutions.

Third, how to distinguish between principle and profit? Principles are about the highest moral standards, and can influence the material world in a powerful way. Unfortunately, politicians and opportunists in the West often distort the concept, using it to serve their political and economic interests. Meanwhile, Chinese consumers are merely voting with their feet, based on market economy principles.

03:36

Beijing hits back at Western sanctions against China’s alleged treatment of Uygur Muslims

For the US in particular, “principle” has become a byword for political profit, which can be coupled with financial profit to achieve supremacy.

In this way, the path to upholding a principle is not through reasoning, but through finger-pointing and blame games instead, and the mechanisms and actions to reinforce such principles are not rules-based, but centred on punitive sanctions.

For the international brands stuck between making a financial profit and a government’s “political profit”, decisions have to be balanced very carefully.

The right way out of the quagmire is to build platforms for communication and negotiation, enabling a conducive exchange of information, evidence and facts, and pushing out as much misinformation as possible. Only in this way can the truth be uncovered and a truthful solution be reached.

Liu Jun is a member of the China Finance 40 Forum. The views expressed here are the author’s own