Hello again from Seoul, where South Koreans are embracing the end of many coronavirus restrictions.
One of the most noticeable changes has been the rediscovery of hoesik, or after work dinners that usually involve a lot of barbecued meat and a lot of soju.
We’ll have to see whether a boom in foreign wine imports, which were buoyed by the pandemic-induced trends of homsul and honsul (drinking at home, and drinking alone), will be sustained with the curfews on evening activities now lifted.
The start to this week will be dominated by questions over the failures of COP26 and of the direction of US-China relations when presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping hold a high-stakes virtual summit.
But today’s Trade Secrets is looking ahead to the Beijing Winter Olympics, now just three months away.
We’re of the opinion that as governments and corporate sponsors fail to ask tough questions of China over the alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang, the task (and the risk) will soon fall upon the athletes.
Charted waters looks at the impact of different nations’ energy sources in lowering emissions related to usage of electric vehicles.
As governments and sponsors stay silent, will athletes speak out?
A storm is gathering over the Beijing Winter Olympics.
Alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang have been labelled as genocide by the US government and crimes against humanity by many campaign groups.
There are mounting calls for diplomats and dignitaries, as well as sponsors and broadcasters to either boycott the games or, at the very least, to publicly hold China to account.
However, Trade Secrets believes that government and sponsors will ultimately shy away from the issue.
And it will instead be athletes who are most likely to draw attention to Beijing over its treatment of the Uyghurs and other minority groups.
For a succinct recap on Xinjiang, 43 countries at the UN — including the US and the rest of the G7 — in late October issued a joint statement outlining credible reports “that indicate the existence of a large network of ‘political re-education’ camps where more than a million people have been arbitrarily detained”.
The statement went on: “We have seen an increasing number of reports of widespread and systematic human rights violations, including reports documenting torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, forced sterilisation, sexual and gender-based violence, and forced separation of children.”
It added: “There are severe restrictions on freedom of religion or belief and the freedoms of movement, association and expression as well as on Uyghur culture. Widespread surveillance disproportionately continues to target Uyghurs and members of other minorities.”
More damning accounts exist.
With Xinjiang in mind, earlier this year the Financial Times raised the question of whether banning athletes from participating in events in China would make any difference in changing the behaviour of the Chinese government. Looking back at campaigns such as the sporting boycott of apartheid South Africa, the paper’s editorial board pointed out that past boycotts were effective only when they are both sustained and co-ordinated with broader international efforts.
For some, reconciling the situation in Xinjiang with Beijing’s hosting of the games is not only unethical, it is unconscionable.
In June, an international cross-party group of legislators, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, suggested the Games be relocated. Activists from 200 different human rights groups in September wrote to international broadcast networks, including the BBC, urging them to cancel deals to show the sports event.
And last week, Human Rights Watch, a US-based campaign group, said its letters to the Games’ biggest corporate sponsors asking companies to use their leverage to address human rights abuses in China drew almost nothing in the way of responses.
At a press conference on Friday, Sophie Richardson, director of the China programme at Human Rights Watch, made the argument that sponsors should be able to publish “robust human rights due diligence strategies” to justify their involvement in the games. But instead, she said, “companies seem much more interested in trying desperately not to have this conversation”.
For the sponsors — which include global brands such as Visa, Coca-Cola, Airbnb, Omega and Samsung — and maybe even the broadcasters, the Olympics in China pose something of a lose-lose.
Staying in means their brands will be associated with supporting the Chinese government. Pulling out means not only losing the commercial opportunities, but, possibly more ominously, risking a political backlash and boycott by Chinese consumers.
Trade Secrets has written about what options foreign companies have if they find themselves in the crosshairs of increasingly nationalistic Chinese shoppers. To summarise: there are few good ones.
For a taste of what an episode like this might look like, go no further than actor John Cena’s “apology to China” after calling Taiwan a country in a promotional video for Fast & Furious 9. It is not pretty.
But if human rights campaigners fail to force the companies to act what is next? It appears that attention will soon fall upon the athletes. Indeed, Richardson noted that the situation facing athletes was “terrible”.
“They don’t really get a choice. They can either give up their opportunity to compete at all, or say they don’t want to compete in environments like these,” she said.
Despite that sympathy, athletes are among the groups that human rights campaigners will be trying to educate in the coming months on the issues in Xinjiang, as well, perhaps, on China’s actions in Hong Kong, Tibet and Taiwan.
The risk of athletes speaking out at the games is a serious and awkward one for Beijing.
We are in an unparalleled era of activism.
Four years on from NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the US national anthem, high profile international sports events rarely make it to the opening whistle, buzzer or starting gun, without a sign of protest.
Fans, who also want to be on the right side of history, now expect it. Equally, sponsors are expected to stand behind athletes such as tennis star Naomi Osaka who regularly speak out on thorny issues of social justice and race.
But in Beijing dissent and protest is simply not tolerated.
Any public criticism from international Olympians bringing disrepute upon China may well come at a very high personal cost.
If there is a protest — perhaps a statement at a press conference or a banner unfurled embarrassing Xi or the government — the very politicians, diplomats and sponsors who have tried to dodge the issue this year may find themselves inescapably brought back into the fray.
While not a perfect example, China’s treatment of Canada’s two Michaels — innocent men jailed for nearly three years, caught in a game of hostage diplomacy — does serve as reminder of the stakes at which Beijing plays. And as we wrote two months ago, Xi’s China might not care about reputational damage from such an international incident as much as one might expect.
Yet if these Games end without a word from governments, companies or athletes over China’s treatment of the Uyghurs, someone might well ask: who really won?
Charted waters
Lex published an interesting note on Friday examining whether electric vehicles were becoming more green.
The answer to this question depends in large part on the degree to which batteries can be recharged using cleaner forms of energy. The chart shows that, owing to their greater reliance on nuclear and wind power, France and the UK have been more effective in reducing emissions related to electric vehicle usage compared with Germany and China, where there is greater use of coal. Claire Jones
Trade links
China has accused the EU of threatening world trade, with Beijing’s ambassador to the bloc accusing it of imposing too many barriers and regulations on manufacturers.
Global manufacturers are facing another problem in their supply chain after the price of magnesium spiked (Nikkei, $) and highlighted their vulnerability to policy shocks in China, which accounts for 80 per cent of the world’s production.
The excellent Robert Armstrong looks into whether those bottlenecks are really important in and of themselves, or if it’s merely a case of super-high demand for goods. Harry Dempsey has a great piece on how a high-end cycling manufacturer is struggling to fulfil orders owing to said bottlenecks.
The FT also has a Special Report out today on the Future of Logistics — well worth a look for those after a deeper understanding of supply chain snags.
Australia has vowed to support the US in a campaign to defend Taiwan from China. The EU is considering imposing sweeping sanctions on scores of Belarusian officials, a Syrian airline and a hotel in Minsk as part of measures to press authoritarian leader Alexander Lukashenko to stop the flow of migrants to Europe’s borders.
Singapore state investor Temasek is temporarily halting new investment in Chinese tech companies owing to uncertainty over Beijing’s crackdown on the sector, its chief strategist told Nikkei Asia ($). Francesca Regalado and Claire Jones
Source: Economy - ft.com
