When sneakers, sunflower seeds are policed, 'rights' become a joke: China Daily editorial

An opinion article published in The Hill on Saturday has an all-too-familiar ring to it. In the article, Sam Brownback, former US ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, and former NBA player and activist Enes Kanter Freedom argue that NBA superstar Stephen Curry's commercial partnership with Chinese sportswear company Li-Ning is a moral failing.

The article makes the so-called Xinjiang "forced labor" issue less a subject for careful inquiry than a convenient stage prop in Washington's favorite geopolitical drama.

Ever since Washington officially embraced its politicized "allegations" surrounding the Xinjiang "forced labor" issue in 2020, a growing chorus of politicians, advocacy groups and commentators have treated normal commercial interaction involving the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region as an ethical litmus test.

In the article, Brownback and Freedom write, "These are not careless accusations. They are specific charges documented by the US government and corroborated by international investigators."

But, documented by whom? The US Department of Labor's own report on the situation in Xinjiang is a principal foundation for the claims. Yet the report itself was produced by the department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs. Its reference list is replete with mentions of US government agencies and congressional bodies, alongside German "anthropologist" Adrian Zenz and reports from Washington- and Taipei-sponsored think tanks.

That does not automatically invalidate the report. But it does complicate the confident image of broad, independent corroboration presented by Brownback and Freedom. When the same network of institutions quote one another to support the same conclusion, skepticism is only due diligence.

The same scrutiny extends to Adrian Zenz, who has become perhaps the most frequently cited Western "researcher" on Xinjiang. But his institutional affiliations, advocacy commitments and methodology deserve far more examination than they typically receive in media coverage. His work is often treated less as a contribution to a contested academic debate than as settled scripture paid for directly or indirectly by Washington.

Curiously, those who constantly urge others to "follow the evidence" seldom encourage readers to follow the footnotes.

Meanwhile, the political economy behind the US' Xinjiang sanctions receives remarkably little attention. On Friday, another 43 Chinese companies were added to the so-called "Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List", bringing the total number of sanctioned Chinese entities to 187. Related restrictive measures take effect on Monday.

The restrictions now extend well beyond cotton to industries ranging from metals and mining to electronics, agriculture and food products. Even Chinese sunflower seeds are regarded as a "concern" to US "national security".

These measures are commonly framed as "human-rights" enforcement. But they are in essence reshapers of markets. By excluding Chinese competitors from US supply chains, they inevitably create opportunities for US producers, alternative overseas suppliers and an expanding compliance industry built around supply-chain auditing, legal consulting and regulatory certification.

Commercial consequences must not be treated as incidental as the "Entity List" becomes longer and longer. What emerges is an ecosystem in which politicians, advocacy groups, think tanks, lobbyists, researchers and "sympathetic" media outlets reinforce one another's narratives, each citing the others as confirmation of a consensus they have collectively constructed.

This echo chamber is presented as the appearance of overwhelming "certainty" while discouraging serious examination of underlying assumptions.

That is why Brownback and Freedom's article ultimately says less about Stephen Curry or Li-Ning than about a political culture increasingly inclined to convert normal business deals into a geopolitical battlefield. It is easier to police sneakers than to scrutinize evidence. It is easier to stage another morality play than to confront the possibility that, in the age of strategic competition, conscience can become just another instrument of a zero-sum game.