In recent times, the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands have declared the actions of the Chinese Communist Party against Uyghur Muslims as genocide, leading to the imposition of various trade sanctions. Similarly, countries have taken trade measures in response to China’s violations of its one-country, two-systems agreement with Hong Kong. Raj Bhala, Brenneisen Distinguished Professor of Law at the KU School of Law, has analyzed both situations in two new companion case studies. He argues that linking trade to human rights is a justifiable approach and examines potential future scenarios for such measures.
“Most people think human rights are to be separated from trade. In fact, that’s not true,” Bhala stated. “There are no express, comprehensive provisions for human rights in the World Trade Organization or General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but we’re seeing the link come up in U.S. trade policy and some regional free trade agreements. We’re entering an era of invigorated enhancements of human rights through trade policy.”
Bhala authored an article on China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims and the American trade response, published in India’s Journal of the National Human Rights Commission. He also wrote another article on Hong Kong’s democracy, China’s violation thereof, and the American trade response, which is forthcoming in the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy.
While the trade disputes between former President Donald Trump and China were widely debated, Bhala highlights that the trade reactions to events in Xinjiang and Hong Kong are distinct and defensible actions. He points out that the United States and China are now in a new era of great power competition and discusses the historical separation of trade and human rights issues, as well as the earliest connections between the two.
“The articles make the point that the two issues, international trade and human rights, are now inextricably linked,” Bhala emphasized. “In one situation, we have what three governments have already called genocide, and what the world generally agrees is a violation of China’s one-country, two-systems policy in Hong Kong in the other.”
These situations involve the genocide of a religious minority in Xinjiang and the violation of legally codified human rights in Hong Kong, such as direct elections and peaceful assembly. In response, the United States has implemented various trade actions, including import bans on Chinese products like cotton and tomatoes from Xinjiang and freezing the assets of Chinese Communist Party officials on the mainland.
Bhala argues that such sanctions and related actions are appropriate since the World Trade Organization does not provide for trade remedies to human rights violations or crimes against humanity.
“If we don’t use trade measures like sanctions in these two egregious instances, then when would we?” Bhala questions.
In addition to outlining the legal responses in the articles and justifying them, Bhala examines how the United States and other nations are likely to continue using such measures in the future. He highlights various contexts, including China’s actions toward Tibet, Taiwan, and the South China Sea, as potential sources of disagreement and conflict between the two world powers. Importantly, Bhala underscores that the conflicts are not with the Chinese people but with the actions and policies of their government.
“We know the Chinese people are not monolithic in their views of their own government,” Bhala acknowledges. “There are many people in Hong Kong and on the mainland who are concerned with what has happened in Xinjiang with the Uyghur population and also in respect to what has happened in Tibet and Taiwan.”
While the long-term results of trade remedies to human rights violations remain uncertain and may impact tensions, these ongoing situations confirm the interconnectedness of international trade and human rights.
“If we’ve learned nothing else, it’s that trade policy is national security policy is human rights policy,” Bhala concludes. “Our national security is based on our values. We express our values partly through who we decide to trade with and the terms on which we trade with them. Trade is not only about trade.”
