Despite the diplomatic boycott, US government agencies have stopped shying away from questioning whether the IOC’s apolitical politics benefit the Chinese state and its Olympic activities. or not. And while foreign policy in Beijing 2022 may be different, the US private sector still maintains a large degree of leverage over business.
Diplomatic participation of Ceremonies are a matter of public image, but corporate involvement has a complementary, and far more powerful, economic ramifications. The 2022 game diplomats-only boycott issue perpetuates the fiction that Chinese companies alone bear their responsibilities and are the cause of the human rights issues advocates have raised. out.
In both China and the United States, the major Olympic sponsors hold significant market shares in their respective fields and still have political ties to American political leaders. For many, their activity in China remains tied to the Xinjiang region and its political situation, including what the State Department has. description as crimes against humanity.
Coca-Cola, that holding Investment pledges and extensive bottling distribution at branches in China, campaigning against the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which named one of their sugars provider allegedly involved in forced labor. Sportswear giant Nike also push back on allegations of forced labor in its textile operations, asserting that it conducted an audit of partners in the shoe and clothing supply chain.
Technology is even more closely linked to China’s political ambitions and standards. Tesla work Storefront in Xinjiang. Airbnb has been get benefit reduced listings in Xinjiang for the majority Han Chinese tourists on vacation while refuse accommodation for Uyghurs and other minorities. When asked about the possibility of the US government putting pressure on business in Xinjiang, US State Department spokesman Ned Price said no such plan has been implemented. He speak: “The private sector has at our fingertips – and this includes US companies – a wealth of information about US concerns, which we have joined with our partners and allies. given by himself. And they make their own decisions regarding what we have said very clearly is going on in Xinjiang. In short, the government’s position – aside from frustration with companies acting as sponsors or business partners for games – has yet to emerge.
In these types of spaces, investment leaders talked more about decoupling from questionable China policies than taking concrete actions to do so. Digital platforms like Amazon often use guise of US-China competition to the fight antitrust oversight hearings while complying with Chinese government requests to shut down negative review books by Xi Jinping. Sanctions against Chinese corporations have linked Chinese technology developers of data and hardware solutions to Xinjiang law enforcement, but much of the home’s actions America still only stops at censoring or restricting the activities of American companies.
Basically, access to The Chinese market has become an excuse for businesses to avoid action. These corporations, always welcoming innovation and business ingenuity to their financial stakeholders, pride themselves on their unique strategic acumen, while deciding that the offering, the service, and continuing to do business under supervision is an acceptable value.
This link has been formed not only through market interests but also through the enterprise’s working culture in and close to surveillance technology. Researchers of the Xinjiang crisis have scrutinized companies that build cameras, databases and control technology, finding more similarities with US tech companies than differences. separate.
In their book Blockchain Chicken Farm, writer Xiaowei Wang visits the headquarters of facial recognition company Megvii, the company that powers Xinjiang’s surveillance systems, and notes that the international education and corporate culture are mediocre of the white-collar employees there: “It’s easy to believe that the company behind China’s Skynet has a Soviet-era Secret… at least then one person, one company, one country can become one. symbol of sinister surveillance. Instead, I was met with utter indifferent openness combined with the dry surgical threat of a non-disclosure agreement. It doesn’t remind me of Silicon Valley. It to be Silicon Valley. ”
