Why Governments Have Turned to Sanctions

As evidence of large-scale human rights abuses in Xinjiang mounted, a number of governments moved beyond diplomatic statements to impose targeted sanctions and trade restrictions. These measures aim to signal disapproval, impose costs on those responsible, and — in the case of import bans — sever economic links to supply chains implicated in forced labor.

Key Sanctions Regimes

United States

The United States has adopted several overlapping measures:

  • Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act (2020): Required the U.S. government to sanction individuals responsible for abuses in Xinjiang and report to Congress on the situation.
  • Global Magnitsky Act sanctions: Targeted individuals including senior Xinjiang officials such as Chen Quanguo, the former Party Secretary of Xinjiang.
  • Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA, 2022): Created a rebuttable presumption that goods produced wholly or partly in Xinjiang are made with forced labor, effectively restricting their import unless importers can prove otherwise. This has had wide-ranging effects on supply chains in cotton, polysilicon, and tomatoes.

European Union

In March 2021, the EU imposed asset freezes and travel bans on four Chinese officials and one entity under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime — the first EU sanctions on China since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. China responded with counter-sanctions on European parliamentarians, researchers, and institutions, which froze the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) before it was ratified.

United Kingdom

The UK, in coordination with the EU, U.S., and Canada, announced sanctions on the same day in March 2021. The UK's sanctions authority under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations targeted the same officials. The UK Parliament later passed a non-binding motion declaring the situation in Xinjiang a genocide.

Canada

Canada also imposed coordinated sanctions in March 2021 and has used its import control framework to address goods made with forced labor. Canada's Parliament passed a motion declaring the situation a genocide in February 2021.

Trade-Focused Measures

Beyond targeted sanctions on individuals, several governments have introduced or are developing import restrictions on goods linked to Xinjiang forced labor. These are particularly significant for industries including:

  • Cotton and textiles: Xinjiang produces a significant share of China's cotton.
  • Solar panels: A large proportion of global polysilicon — used in solar panels — has been produced in Xinjiang.
  • Tomato products: Xinjiang is a major source of processed tomato products.

Limits and Criticisms of Sanctions

Critics argue that sanctions have had limited practical effect on Chinese government behavior. China has not altered its stated policies in Xinjiang in response to sanctions pressure, and has countered with retaliatory measures. Some analysts argue that more coordinated multilateral action — including through the UN Security Council — would be more effective, though China's veto power makes this difficult.

Others note that supply chain due diligence laws (such as those passed in Germany and under consideration in the EU) may have greater long-term impact by requiring companies themselves to conduct human rights due diligence throughout their supply chains.

Looking Ahead

The policy landscape continues to evolve. Legislative developments in the EU, proposed forced labor import ban mechanisms, and ongoing reviews of existing sanctions regimes all represent areas to watch. Monitoring these developments is essential for advocates, businesses, and affected communities alike.