For years, human rights groups have been urging world leaders to hold China accountable for its alleged human rights abuses
There have been numerous reports of human rights abuses within China, but no clear way of holding the country to account.
In particular, reports of abuse against the Uyghur population in the Xinjiang province have sparked global concerns.
The UN Human Rights office released a report highlighting the brutality of abuse against muslim minorities in China.
“Allegations of patterns of torture, or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence.”
Michelle bachelet – un high commissioner of human rights
The damning report confirms what human rights groups have been concerned about for years. It details victims accounts of “detention, torture, cultural persecution and forced labor.”
While, the UN Human Rights Office says it’s committed to supporting China to address the issues evident in the report, other groups say immediate action is required.
Non-governmental organisation, Human Rights Watch, is calling on Australia to join other leading nations in making Chinese crimes against humanity punishable.
Following the release of a groundbreaking United Nations report, there is now further evidence that the Chinese government is committing crimes against humanity in Xinjiang.
The organisation wants to see China exposed to sanctions, starting with legislation to prevent the import of any goods made with forced labor.
The group wants businesses, states and the international community to take action.
Holding China accountable
While the reports of China’s abuse in the Xinjiang region are horrific, world leaders seem to be finding it difficult to hold the communist country accountable. It raises questions about where accountability comes from and how it is policed.
Human Rights Watch want the Australian Government to move in line with other leading nations like the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada to target China’s behaviour.
They want businesses to stop importing goods that are manufactured through forced labor, and a new legislation in place to enforce it.
However, thousands of Australian businesses rely heavily on China’s manufacturing hubs.
For some, they’re the backbone of their survival. So is it fair or realistic to put this expectation and responsibility on Australian business owners?
“Is it realistic that in the year 2022 we want to import goods from political prisoners?
Political prisoners who are locked up for no other reason other than they are muslim.”
sophie mcneill – human rights watch
However, the level of complexity attached to a problem shouldn’t justify turning a blind eye to it.
Australia lagging behind
The EU, US, UK and Canada have all made significant efforts to tackle China’s alleged human rights abuses.
They have taken a stand by implementing acts and legislation to deter China’s behaviour. The United States, for example, has the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which provides customs authorities increased powers to enforce bans on imports from forced labor.
This has many wondering why Australia hasn’t taken any concrete action to condemn China’s human rights abuses.
Tensions between Australia and China have been at an all time high since Australia moved to investigate the origins of the coronavirus.
Some say Australia is concerned for the repercussions and consequences of holding China accountable on the global stage.
“We’ve been calling on the Australian Government to take action for years now… We’ve run out of excuses. Now is the time to act.”
Sophie Mcneill- Human Rights watch
Does China care about sanctions?
As a communist country, China has shown time and time again that it does not mind being an outlier on the global stage.
Some say that targeted sanctions will not deter or stop the abuse against ethnic minorities. While others say if a coalition of countries band together to call out the abuse, then it is more likely to have a real impact.
Double standards
Many countries around the world has or has had reports of human rights abuses in one way or another.
Soon, Qatar will host the 2022 FIFA World Cup, which in largely known for its human rights abuses. In particular, there have been reports of human rights abuses during the construction of the stadiums required for the cup.
However, all of the countries who are now taking a stand against China are heading to the world cup. It raises questions of hypocrisy and whether leading Governments are selecting who they hold accountable based on their own political rhetoric.
Are world leaders picking and choosing where justice falls?
“Governments do pick and choose and that hinders our ability to hold China accountable.”
Holly is an anchor and reporter at Ticker. She's experienced in live reporting, and has previously covered the Covid-19 pandemic on-location. She's passionate about telling stories in business, climate and health.
The craft brewing industry is raising a toast to the resurgence of Australian barley imports, heralding a potential cost-saving boon amidst recent economic challenges.
Over the past three years, the burgeoning craft beer sector in China faced multiple setbacks, including the pandemic’s impact on bar attendance and heavy anti-dumping tariffs imposed by the Chinese government in 2020 on Australian barley and wine.
The removal of the barley tariffs in the previous month, following an easing of trade tensions, is expected to lower production costs for brewers across China. This development is particularly welcomed by craft beer brewers who rely on pure malt without additives like broken rice or starch, which had made their products more expensive.
Prior to the tariffs, Australian government data indicates that China consistently purchased between 86% and 91% of Australia’s malting barley exports, occasionally accounting for over half of Chinese malting barley demand.
Miller Meng, brewmaster at Shanghai’s The Brew, expressed optimism about the return of Australian barley, stating, “Australian malt’s return to the market will restore prices to a more reasonable level.” He highlighted the surging prices of alternative malts in the absence of Australian supplies.
With over 13,000 craft beer-related businesses in China, the craft beer industry had been a thriving segment in the world’s largest beer market, worth an estimated $125 billion this year. However, the absence of Australian malting barley forced many Chinese craft brewers to explore alternatives, often at a higher cost due to global supply chain disruptions.
The hope now is that the reintroduction of Australian imports will help stabilize profit margins for craft brewers. Australian malting barley is currently offered at a competitive $350 per metric ton compared to $390 for French barley, with more favorable freight costs from Australia to China. Approximately 300,000 tons of Australian malting barley have already been contracted for sale to China since the tariff removal.
For Australian barley farmers, this revival of the Chinese market is a welcome development, as it restores an essential export channel. The barley that had previously been destined for Chinese beer production had been diverted to other markets at lower prices in recent years. Brewers in China anticipate a resurgence in demand for Australian malting barley over the next two years, signaling a brighter future for the craft beer industry in the country.
X CEO Linda Yaccarino appeared perplexed when questioned about Elon Musk’s plan to introduce a subscription model for X.
The confusion raised concerns about her knowledge of the company’s strategic direction and her involvement in key decisions.
During the interview conducted by CNBC’s Julia Boorstin, Yaccarino initially seemed unaware of Musk’s announcement regarding a “small monthly payment” for X’s services. Boorstin probed about the potential impact of this shift from ad-based revenue to subscriptions on X’s business model. Yaccarino’s response, or lack thereof, left many wondering if she was truly informed.
Musk had publicly revealed the subscription plan in a live-streamed conversation, emphasizing its importance in deterring spammers and bots from profiting on the platform. This suggested that the move was more than just an idea.
As the interview continued, Yaccarino evaded questions about her consultation in this decision, despite her background in advertising and her role as X’s CEO. She defended her position, stating that she was brought in to run the company and deliver the best user experience. However, her inability to address subscription-related queries left the audience perplexed.
The interview also highlighted Yaccarino’s lack of precise knowledge about X’s user numbers, further raising doubts about her understanding of the company’s operations.
Ultimately, the interview painted a picture of discord between Yaccarino and Musk, suggesting that they may not be aligned on X’s strategic direction. Questions about subscriptions, staffing, and other crucial aspects of X’s future remained unanswered, leaving observers uncertain about the company’s direction under its current leadership.
A New York state judge rejected a bid by Uber Technologies Inc, DoorDash Inc and Grubhub Inc to block New York City’s novel law setting a minimum wage for app-based delivery workers.
The decision by New York Acting Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Moyne will allow the law to take effect pending the outcome of the companies’ lawsuit. Moyne in July had stopped the law from being implemented while he considered the companies’ request to block it until the case is resolved.
The law will require companies to pay delivery workers $17.96 an hour, which will rise to nearly $20 in April 2025. Companies can decide whether to pay workers hourly or per delivery, which would be based on the hours workers log into the app.
Uber, DoorDash, Grubhub Inc and a smaller food delivery service, Relay Delivery Inc, claim the law will force them to shrink service areas to absorb the new labor costs, ultimately hitting customers and restaurants.
Moyne blocked the city from enforcing the law against Relay pending the outcome of the case. The judge said that unlike the other companies, Relay cannot immediately raise the fees it charges to restaurants and needs time to renegotiate its contracts.
Adam Cohen, a lawyer for Relay, in an email said Relay’s couriers earn more than $30 an hour on average.
“Today’s ruling further ensures beloved local restaurants, many of which are also small businesses, will continue to be able to rely on Relay to help them make ends meet,” Cohen said.
A DoorDash spokesperson in a statement said the decision was disappointing for workers, merchants and customers.
“The City’s insistence on forging ahead with such an extreme pay rate will reduce opportunity and increase costs for all New Yorkers,” the spokesperson said.
Spokespersons for Uber and Grubhub also said they were disappointed with the ruling.
City officials, meanwhile, praised the judge’s decision in a press release.
