Faced with accusations that it was profiting from the forced labour of Uyghur people in the Chinese territory of Xinjiang, the H&amp;M Group — the world’s second-largest clothing retailer — promised last year to stop buying cotton from the region.

But last month, H&amp;M confronted a new outcry, this time from Chinese consumers who seized on the company’s renouncement of the cotton as an attack on China. Social media filled with angry demands for a boycott, urged on by the government. Global brands like H&amp;M risked alienating a country of 1.4 billion people.

The furore underscored how international clothing brands relying on Chinese materials and factories now face the mother of all conundrums — a conflict vastly more complex than their now-familiar reputational crises over exploitative working conditions in poor countries.

If they fail to purge Xinjiang cotton from their supply chains, the apparel companies invite legal enforcement from Washington under a U.S. ban on imports. Labour activists will charge them with complicity in the grotesque repression of the Uyghurs.

But forsaking Xinjiang cotton entails its troubles — the wrath of Chinese consumers who denounce the attention on the Uyghurs as a Western plot to sabotage China’s development.

The global brands can protect their sales in North America and Europe, or preserve their markets in China. It is increasingly difficult to see how they can do both.

“They are being almost at this point told, ‘Choose the U.S. as your market, or choose China as your market,’” said Nicole Bivens Collinson, a lobbyist who represents major apparel brands at Sandler, Travis &amp; Rosenberg, a law firm in Washington.

In an age of globalization, international apparel brands have grown accustomed to criticism that they are profiting from oppressed workers in countries like Myanmar and Bangladesh, where cheap costs of production reflect alarming safety conditions.

The brands have developed a proven playbook: They announce codes of conduct for their suppliers and hire auditors to ensure at least the appearance of compliance.

But China presents a gravely elevated risk. Xinjiang is not only the source of 85% of China’s cotton but synonymous with a form of repression that the U.S. government has officially termed genocide. As many as 1 million Uyghurs have been herded into detention camps and deployed as forced labour.

The taint of association with Xinjiang is so severe that both the Trump and Biden administrations have sought to prevent Americans from buying clothing produced with the region’s cotton.

For the apparel brands, their dilemma is heightened by the fact that the Chinese government has weaponized China’s consumer market. In fomenting nationalist outrage, Beijing is seeking to pressure the international brands to pick a side — to ignore reports of forced labour or risk their sales in the world’s largest potential consumer market.

Framing this choice is the reality that China remains the world’s central hub for making clothing.

In pursuit of alternatives, many international brands are shifting production from Chinese factories to plants in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and Bangladesh. But moving does not eliminate their exposure to Xinjiang cotton.

China exports unprocessed cotton to 14 countries, including Vietnam, Thailand, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and yarn to 190 countries, according to the International Cotton Advisory Committee, an international trade association in Washington.

China is the source of nearly half of all cotton fabric exported around the world. Most of that material includes cotton harvested in Xinjiang.

“Supply chains are long and opaque, and the journey from field to shelf involves cotton gins, mills, weaving or knitting, dyeing and finishing — all steps that may take place in different parts of China, or different countries,” said Leonie Barrie, an apparel analyst at GlobalData, a consulting company in London. “Even if a brand had no direct relationship with Chinese factories, they can’t completely rule out any links to Xinjiang’s cotton.”

Long March to Xinjiang

The ubiquity of clothing made with Xinjiang cotton is the result of forces that have shaped the global economy for centuries.

Cotton’s history is intertwined with the barbarity of slavery, given that it is vital to the production of textiles and dependent on large numbers of people to harvest and refine in a gruelling process.

The lucre of cotton prompted plantations in the American South to turn to the African slave trade. In modern times, the cotton trade has frequently drawn accusations of forced labour from human rights groups, most prominently in Uzbekistan.

As China has transformed itself from an impoverished country into the world’s second-largest economy, it has leaned on the textile and apparel industries. China has courted foreign companies with the promise of low-wage workers operating free from the intrusions of unions.

The brands have turned China into an export colossus. They have also invested heavily in selling their products to a growing Chinese consumer class.

Xinjiang, a rugged expanse more than twice the size of Texas, holds China’s largest oil reserves. Its abundant land and sunshine have made it fertile ground for cotton.

The Chinese government has rejected claims of worker abuse in part by claiming that much of Xinjiang’s cotton harvest is now automated. But manual picking remains common in the south of the region, where most Uyghurs live. There, nearly two-thirds of cotton is hand-picked, the regional government said last year.

As human rights groups have focused on the exploitation of the Uyghurs, apparel brands have sought to distance themselves from Xinjiang. Nike, Burberry and PVH, the parent of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, have issued assurances that they have ceased buying cotton from sources in the region while conducting audits of their suppliers.

But supply-chain experts caution that multinational manufacturers frequently game the audit process.

“The key tool it’s used for is rubber-stamping conditions in supply chains, as opposed to trying to deeply figure out what is going on,” said Genevieve LeBaron, an expert on international labour at the University of Sheffield in England.

In Xinjiang, efforts at probing supply chains collide with the reality that the Chinese government severely restricts access. Not even the most diligent apparel company can say with authority that its products are free of elements produced in Xinjiang. And many brands are less than rigorous in their audits.

Major apparel brands have coalesced around the Better Cotton Initiative, an organization based in Geneva and London whose official mission includes improving working conditions for those in the trade.

Last fall, the organization announced a halt to its activities in Xinjiang amid persistent reports of forced labour. But the body’s China branch recently asserted that its investigation in Xinjiang “has never found a single case related to incidents of forced labour,” dating back to 2012, according to a statement reported by Reuters.

That assertion flew in the face of a growing body of literature, including a recent statement from the United Nations Human Rights Council expressing “serious concerns” about reports of forced labour.

The Better Cotton Initiative declined a request for an interview to discuss how it had come to its conclusion.

“We are a not-for-profit organization with a small team,” the initiative’s communications manager, Joe Woodruff, said in an email.

The body’s membership includes some of the world’s largest, most profitable clothing manufacturers and retailers — among them Inditex, the Spanish conglomerate that owns Zara, and Nike, whose sales last year exceeded $37 billion.

Anger Among Consumers

Even as statements about Xinjiang cotton from apparel companies have failed to ease human rights concerns, they have provoked outrage among Chinese consumers.

On Chinese social media, people have posted photos of themselves throwing away their Nike sneakers or — for the less committed — covering the logos on their sweaters with masking tape.

An auto body shop in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, put up a banner barring customers who wore Nike or H&amp;M. A bar in Beijing offered free drinks to customers who wore apparel from domestic brands.

In the southern Chinese city of Xiamen, Polly Cai, 24, said her taste for clothing and shoes from brands like Nike and Uniqlo had been trumped by her disgust for what she viewed as a blow to her country’s dignity.

“Western brands want to take Chinese consumers’ money and still step all over Xinjiang cotton,” she said. “It’s ridiculous.”

The global brands are putting stock in the enduring popularity of their products in China while seeking to avoid further provocation. Inditex removed from its website a statement in which it had promised to avoid Xinjiang cotton.

Yet in muting their condemnation of forced labour in Xinjiang, the brands risk amplifying their problems outside China.

“If they do the right thing, they face serious commercial risk in China,” said Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, an advocacy organization. “Yet they know consumers globally will be repulsed by a brand that willfully abets forced labour. It is a profound moral test.”

Beyond China

For the apparel brands, the furore over Xinjiang is merely the latest development driving them to move production to other countries.

As labour costs have climbed in China in recent decades, many industries have shifted operations to lower-cost nations like Vietnam, Cambodia and Bangladesh. The Trump administration furthered the trend by pressuring American multinational companies to abandon China.

“All of the economic forces that pushed this production to China are no longer at work,” said Pietra Rivoli, a trade expert at Georgetown University in Washington.

Still, China retains attributes not easily replicated — the world’s largest ports, plus a cluster of related industries, from chemicals to plastics.

Other countries present their human rights concerns. Last year, the European Union revoked duty-free access for garments from Cambodia in response to its government’s harsh crackdown on dissent.

Some global brands are seeking Beijing’s permission to import more cotton into China from the United States and Australia. They could employ that cotton to make products destined for Europe and North America while using the Xinjiang crop for the Chinese market.

Yet that approach may leave the apparel companies exposed to the same risks they face now.

“If the brand is labelled as ‘They are still using forced labour, but they are just using it for the Chinese market,’ is this going to suffice?” said Collinson, the industry lobbyist.

Last week, H&amp;M issued a new communication, beseeching Chinese consumers to return. “We are working together with our colleagues in China to do everything we can to manage the current challenges,” said the statement, which did not mention Xinjiang. “China is a very important market to us.”

Those words appear to have satisfied no one — not the human rights organizations sceptical of claims that apparel companies have severed links to Xinjiang; not Chinese consumers angry over a perceived national indignity.

On Chinese social media, criticism of H&amp;M remained fierce.

“For you, China is still an important market,” one post declared. “But for China, you are just an unnecessary brand.”

Faced with accusations that it was profiting from the forced labour of Uyghur people in the Chinese territory of Xinjiang, the H&M Group — the world’s second-largest clothing retailer — promised last year to stop buying cotton from the region.

Faced with accusations that it was profiting from the forced labour of Uyghur people in the Chinese territory of Xinjiang, the H&M Group — the world’s second-largest clothing retailer — promised last year to stop buying cotton from the region. But last month, H&M confronted a new outcry, this time from Chinese consumers who seized on the company’s renouncement of the cotton as an attack on China. Social media filled with angry demands for a boycott, urged on by the government. Global brands like H&M risked alienating a country of 1.4 billion people. The furore underscored how international clothing brands relying on Chinese materials and factories now face the mother of all conundrums — a conflict vastly more complex than their now-familiar reputational crises over exploitative working conditions in poor countries. If they fail to purge Xinjiang cotton from their supply chains, the apparel companies invite legal enforcement from Washington under a U.S. ban on imports. Labour activists will charge them with complicity in the grotesque repression of the Uyghurs. But forsaking Xinjiang cotton entails its troubles — the wrath of Chinese consumers who denounce the attention on the Uyghurs as a Western plot to sabotage China’s development. The global brands can protect their sales in North America and Europe, or preserve their markets in China. It is increasingly difficult to see how they can do both. “They are being almost at this point told, ‘Choose the U.S. as your market, or choose China as your market,’” said Nicole Bivens Collinson, a lobbyist who represents major apparel brands at Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, a law firm in Washington. In an age of globalization, international apparel brands have grown accustomed to criticism that they are profiting from oppressed workers in countries like Myanmar and Bangladesh, where cheap costs of production reflect alarming safety conditions. The brands have developed a proven playbook: They announce codes of conduct for their suppliers and hire auditors to ensure at least the appearance of compliance. But China presents a gravely elevated risk. Xinjiang is not only the source of 85% of China’s cotton but synonymous with a form of repression that the U.S. government has officially termed genocide. As many as 1 million Uyghurs have been herded into detention camps and deployed as forced labour. The taint of association with Xinjiang is so severe that both the Trump and Biden administrations have sought to prevent Americans from buying clothing produced with the region’s cotton. For the apparel brands, their dilemma is heightened by the fact that the Chinese government has weaponized China’s consumer market. In fomenting nationalist outrage, Beijing is seeking to pressure the international brands to pick a side — to ignore reports of forced labour or risk their sales in the world’s largest potential consumer market. Framing this choice is the reality that China remains the world’s central hub for making clothing. In pursuit of alternatives, many international brands are shifting production from Chinese factories to plants in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and Bangladesh. But moving does not eliminate their exposure to Xinjiang cotton. China exports unprocessed cotton to 14 countries, including Vietnam, Thailand, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and yarn to 190 countries, according to the International Cotton Advisory Committee, an international trade association in Washington. China is the source of nearly half of all cotton fabric exported around the world. Most of that material includes cotton harvested in Xinjiang. “Supply chains are long and opaque, and the journey from field to shelf involves cotton gins, mills, weaving or knitting, dyeing and finishing — all steps that may take place in different parts of China, or different countries,” said Leonie Barrie, an apparel analyst at GlobalData, a consulting company in London. “Even if a brand had no direct relationship with Chinese factories, they can’t completely rule out any links to Xinjiang’s cotton.” Long March to Xinjiang The ubiquity of clothing made with Xinjiang cotton is the result of forces that have shaped the global economy for centuries. Cotton’s history is intertwined with the barbarity of slavery, given that it is vital to the production of textiles and dependent on large numbers of people to harvest and refine in a gruelling process. The lucre of cotton prompted plantations in the American South to turn to the African slave trade. In modern times, the cotton trade has frequently drawn accusations of forced labour from human rights groups, most prominently in Uzbekistan. As China has transformed itself from an impoverished country into the world’s second-largest economy, it has leaned on the textile and apparel industries. China has courted foreign companies with the promise of low-wage workers operating free from the intrusions of unions. The brands have turned China into an export colossus. They have also invested heavily in selling their products to a growing Chinese consumer class. Xinjiang, a rugged expanse more than twice the size of Texas, holds China’s largest oil reserves. Its abundant land and sunshine have made it fertile ground for cotton. The Chinese government has rejected claims of worker abuse in part by claiming that much of Xinjiang’s cotton harvest is now automated. But manual picking remains common in the south of the region, where most Uyghurs live. There, nearly two-thirds of cotton is hand-picked, the regional government said last year. As human rights groups have focused on the exploitation of the Uyghurs, apparel brands have sought to distance themselves from Xinjiang. Nike, Burberry and PVH, the parent of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, have issued assurances that they have ceased buying cotton from sources in the region while conducting audits of their suppliers. But supply-chain experts caution that multinational manufacturers frequently game the audit process. “The key tool it’s used for is rubber-stamping conditions in supply chains, as opposed to trying to deeply figure out what is going on,” said Genevieve LeBaron, an expert on international labour at the University of Sheffield in England. In Xinjiang, efforts at probing supply chains collide with the reality that the Chinese government severely restricts access. Not even the most diligent apparel company can say with authority that its products are free of elements produced in Xinjiang. And many brands are less than rigorous in their audits. Major apparel brands have coalesced around the Better Cotton Initiative, an organization based in Geneva and London whose official mission includes improving working conditions for those in the trade. Last fall, the organization announced a halt to its activities in Xinjiang amid persistent reports of forced labour. But the body’s China branch recently asserted that its investigation in Xinjiang “has never found a single case related to incidents of forced labour,” dating back to 2012, according to a statement reported by Reuters. That assertion flew in the face of a growing body of literature, including a recent statement from the United Nations Human Rights Council expressing “serious concerns” about reports of forced labour. The Better Cotton Initiative declined a request for an interview to discuss how it had come to its conclusion. “We are a not-for-profit organization with a small team,” the initiative’s communications manager, Joe Woodruff, said in an email. The body’s membership includes some of the world’s largest, most profitable clothing manufacturers and retailers — among them Inditex, the Spanish conglomerate that owns Zara, and Nike, whose sales last year exceeded $37 billion. Anger Among Consumers Even as statements about Xinjiang cotton from apparel companies have failed to ease human rights concerns, they have provoked outrage among Chinese consumers. On Chinese social media, people have posted photos of themselves throwing away their Nike sneakers or — for the less committed — covering the logos on their sweaters with masking tape. An auto body shop in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, put up a banner barring customers who wore Nike or H&M. A bar in Beijing offered free drinks to customers who wore apparel from domestic brands. In the southern Chinese city of Xiamen, Polly Cai, 24, said her taste for clothing and shoes from brands like Nike and Uniqlo had been trumped by her disgust for what she viewed as a blow to her country’s dignity. “Western brands want to take Chinese consumers’ money and still step all over Xinjiang cotton,” she said. “It’s ridiculous.” The global brands are putting stock in the enduring popularity of their products in China while seeking to avoid further provocation. Inditex removed from its website a statement in which it had promised to avoid Xinjiang cotton. Yet in muting their condemnation of forced labour in Xinjiang, the brands risk amplifying their problems outside China. “If they do the right thing, they face serious commercial risk in China,” said Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, an advocacy organization. “Yet they know consumers globally will be repulsed by a brand that willfully abets forced labour. It is a profound moral test.” Beyond China For the apparel brands, the furore over Xinjiang is merely the latest development driving them to move production to other countries. As labour costs have climbed in China in recent decades, many industries have shifted operations to lower-cost nations like Vietnam, Cambodia and Bangladesh. The Trump administration furthered the trend by pressuring American multinational companies to abandon China. “All of the economic forces that pushed this production to China are no longer at work,” said Pietra Rivoli, a trade expert at Georgetown University in Washington. Still, China retains attributes not easily replicated — the world’s largest ports, plus a cluster of related industries, from chemicals to plastics. Other countries present their human rights concerns. Last year, the European Union revoked duty-free access for garments from Cambodia in response to its government’s harsh crackdown on dissent. Some global brands are seeking Beijing’s permission to import more cotton into China from the United States and Australia. They could employ that cotton to make products destined for Europe and North America while using the Xinjiang crop for the Chinese market. Yet that approach may leave the apparel companies exposed to the same risks they face now. “If the brand is labelled as ‘They are still using forced labour, but they are just using it for the Chinese market,’ is this going to suffice?” said Collinson, the industry lobbyist. Last week, H&M issued a new communication, beseeching Chinese consumers to return. “We are working together with our colleagues in China to do everything we can to manage the current challenges,” said the statement, which did not mention Xinjiang. “China is a very important market to us.” Those words appear to have satisfied no one — not the human rights organizations sceptical of claims that apparel companies have severed links to Xinjiang; not Chinese consumers angry over a perceived national indignity. On Chinese social media, criticism of H&M remained fierce. “For you, China is still an important market,” one post declared. “But for China, you are just an unnecessary brand.”

Global brands find it hard to untangle themselves from Xinjiang cotton

Brands like Nike and H&M are finding out the cost of raising China's human rights violations. The brands are facing boycott calls from the Chinese press and citizens. WION's Palki Sharma tells you more about Beijing's campaign of manufactured outrage.

Gravitas: China targets Nike and H&M over ban on Xinjiang Cotton

The social media backlash in China against Western clothing brands is ballooning rapidly. This, as the country's ruling Communist Party retaliated for Western sanctions imposed on Chinese officials accused of human rights abuses in the Xinjiang region.

The attacks began on the social media handle of the Communist Youth League, once a cradle for China's leaders. The league's account on Weibo, China's Twitter-like platform, highlighted an H&amp;M statement from March 2020, in which the clothing brand said it would stop buying cotton grown in Xinjiang. The Swedish retailer said it was deeply concerned about reports of forced labour in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). &nbsp;

In the latest development, the Chinese state-backed nationalist tabloid, Global Times, has cited Burberry, Adidas, Nike, and New Balance for critical remarks about Xinjiang cotton two years ago. So much so that Chinese celebrities such as Wang Yibo announced breaking endorsement contracts with H&amp;M and Nike.

On Wednesday, anger erupted on Chinese social media against Nike after netizens stumbled upon a statement from the leading sportswear brand that said it was "concerned" about reports of forced labour in Xinjiang. Nike had stated that it does not use cotton from the region. The Nike controversy soon began trending on Weibo. &nbsp;

The social media frenzy has not only led to nationalistic calls for Western brands such as Nike and Adidas to leave China, but also a call by the netizens to support local brands such as Li Ning and Anta.

Earlier this year, just before its controversial exit, the Trump administration announced an import ban on all cotton and tomato products from Xinjiang over allegations that they are made with forced labour from detained Uighur Muslims. It's important to note that the US would import cotton products from China and not raw cotton. With the US ban imposed and no apparent change of stance by the Biden administration towards China, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would now look at cotton products made in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Experts believe that the US ban, combined with a boycott by the Western apparel industry, could now result in more demand for raw cotton from India, particularly from the US, Vietnam and Bangladesh, who would have otherwise depended on China.

Let's do some number crunching. For the year 2020, the worldwide cotton market was worth $38.54 billion. That is expected to reach $46.56 billion by 2027, compound annual growth of 2.74 per cent from 2020 to 2027. That's how lucrative the cotton market is.

India is the largest producer of cotton in the world. China, Pakistan and the United States are other major producers.

Now, it is important to understand why Xinjiang matters when it comes to cotton.

Roughly 1 in 5 cotton garments sold globally contains cotton or yarn from Xinjiang. Of the total cotton produced in China, 86 per cent is from XUAR. This amounts to 70 per cent of all cotton yarn in China, the largest share in the dragon's yarn exports.

China and India have been the core cotton consumers for decades. In India, the textile sector reigns supreme, consuming most of the indigenous raw cotton. The domestic consumption of cotton also explains why India is not the largest exporter of cotton, despite being its largest producer. The core importers are China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Turkey and Pakistan.

China's cotton exports in 2019 were $14.1 bn, equalling 26.6 per cent of total global exports, while India contributed 11.8 per cent, worth $6.3 billion and less than half of China's worldwide export. This is the gap that India must aim to fill.

Currently, both Vietnam and Bangladesh are buying a good amount of cotton from India, which is expected to produce at least 49.5 million bales (one bale is around 170 kgs) this season till September 2021, according to the Cotton Association of India. According to Reuters news agency, India's cotton exports are expected to jump 40 per cent&nbsp;in 2020/21 from a year ago to 7 million bales, the highest in seven years.

Now the question is, will India be able to fill the gap created by the boycott of cotton products from Xinjiang? And will India be able to replace the American dependency on Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam and The Philippines?

As India's foreign minister, Dr S Jaishankar aptly pointed out at the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/globalsummit/dubai-2021">WION Global Summit</a>, the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the drawbacks of the global supply chain.

And perhaps that's why now is the time for India to be part of the reset, one that must span across defence, diplomacy, pharma, technology, textiles and trade.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

The social media backlash in China against Western clothing brands is ballooning rapidly. This, as the country's ruling Communist Party retaliated for Western sanctions imposed on Chinese officials accused of human rights abuses in the Xinjiang region.

The social media backlash in China against Western clothing brands is ballooning rapidly. This, as the country's ruling Communist Party retaliated for Western sanctions imposed on Chinese officials accused of human rights abuses in the Xinjiang region. The attacks began on the social media handle of the Communist Youth League, once a cradle for China's leaders. The league's account on Weibo, China's Twitter-like platform, highlighted an H&M statement from March 2020, in which the clothing brand said it would stop buying cotton grown in Xinjiang. The Swedish retailer said it was deeply concerned about reports of forced labour in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). In the latest development, the Chinese state-backed nationalist tabloid, Global Times, has cited Burberry, Adidas, Nike, and New Balance for critical remarks about Xinjiang cotton two years ago. So much so that Chinese celebrities such as Wang Yibo announced breaking endorsement contracts with H&M and Nike. On Wednesday, anger erupted on Chinese social media against Nike after netizens stumbled upon a statement from the leading sportswear brand that said it was "concerned" about reports of forced labour in Xinjiang. Nike had stated that it does not use cotton from the region. The Nike controversy soon began trending on Weibo. The social media frenzy has not only led to nationalistic calls for Western brands such as Nike and Adidas to leave China, but also a call by the netizens to support local brands such as Li Ning and Anta. Earlier this year, just before its controversial exit, the Trump administration announced an import ban on all cotton and tomato products from Xinjiang over allegations that they are made with forced labour from detained Uighur Muslims. It's important to note that the US would import cotton products from China and not raw cotton. With the US ban imposed and no apparent change of stance by the Biden administration towards China, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would now look at cotton products made in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Experts believe that the US ban, combined with a boycott by the Western apparel industry, could now result in more demand for raw cotton from India, particularly from the US, Vietnam and Bangladesh, who would have otherwise depended on China. Let's do some number crunching. For the year 2020, the worldwide cotton market was worth $38.54 billion. That is expected to reach $46.56 billion by 2027, compound annual growth of 2.74 per cent from 2020 to 2027. That's how lucrative the cotton market is. India is the largest producer of cotton in the world. China, Pakistan and the United States are other major producers. Now, it is important to understand why Xinjiang matters when it comes to cotton. Roughly 1 in 5 cotton garments sold globally contains cotton or yarn from Xinjiang. Of the total cotton produced in China, 86 per cent is from XUAR. This amounts to 70 per cent of all cotton yarn in China, the largest share in the dragon's yarn exports. China and India have been the core cotton consumers for decades. In India, the textile sector reigns supreme, consuming most of the indigenous raw cotton. The domestic consumption of cotton also explains why India is not the largest exporter of cotton, despite being its largest producer. The core importers are China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Turkey and Pakistan. China's cotton exports in 2019 were $14.1 bn, equalling 26.6 per cent of total global exports, while India contributed 11.8 per cent, worth $6.3 billion and less than half of China's worldwide export. This is the gap that India must aim to fill. Currently, both Vietnam and Bangladesh are buying a good amount of cotton from India, which is expected to produce at least 49.5 million bales (one bale is around 170 kgs) this season till September 2021, according to the Cotton Association of India. According to Reuters news agency, India's cotton exports are expected to jump 40 per cent in 2020/21 from a year ago to 7 million bales, the highest in seven years. Now the question is, will India be able to fill the gap created by the boycott of cotton products from Xinjiang? And will India be able to replace the American dependency on Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam and The Philippines? As India's foreign minister, Dr S Jaishankar aptly pointed out at the WION Global Summit, the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the drawbacks of the global supply chain. And perhaps that's why now is the time for India to be part of the reset, one that must span across defence, diplomacy, pharma, technology, textiles and trade. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Xinjiang cotton boycott: A golden opportunity for India

China said today that reports of United States blocking imports of cotton it says are harvested with "slave labour" in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nike-and-coca-cola-lobby-against-xinjiang-forced-labor-bill-346470">Xinjiang</a> region is "fake news of so-called forced labour".

Watch:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://13.235.153.162/videos/us-imposes-new-restrictions-on-products-from-chinas-xinjiang-province-347226/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The New York Times had reported that the US government will issue new entry rules for Chinese Communist Party members travelling to the United States.

The Chinese foreign ministry slammed the move asserting that it shows "hatred and abnormal mindset towards the Communist Party."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-bans-cotton-imports-from-chinese-producer-citing-xinjiang-slave-labour-347087">Also Read:&nbsp;US bans cotton imports from Chinese producer, citing Xinjiang slave labour</a>

Reports said&nbsp;that the Trump administration had issued new rules to curtail travel to the United States by members of the Chinese Communist Party by limiting the maximum validity of travel visas for party members and their families to one month and a single entry.

Earlier, CCP members could obtain visitor visas to the United States for up to 10 years. The move is likely to hit top Chinese officials and business leaders, the report said.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-tightens-visa-rules-for-chinese-communist-party-members-347141">Also Read:&nbsp;US tightens visa rules for Chinese Communist Party members</a>

The Trump administration in its last few weeks has decided to put a stranglehold on China with reports indicating that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency will "Withhold Release Order" ban on cotton and cotton products from the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/covid-19-outbreak-in-china-shows-ties-with-forced-labour-in-xinjiang-338937">Xinjiang</a> Production and Construction Corps (XPCC).

The new order allows US Customs and Border Protection officials to detain ships containing cotton originating from Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps.

The United States government has alleged that China has held at least 1 million Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang camps and forced them to work even as China says it is a vocational training centre.

China's foreign ministry said, "Their aim is to constrain and oppress relevant parties and enterprises in China and curb China's development." Chinese foreign ministry official said workers in Xinjiang "choose occupations based on their own wishes."

Xinjiang is a major cotton hub of China. The US House of Representatives had earlier in September unanimously voted to ban all imports from Xinjiang but the bill has yet to pass the Senate.

China said today that reports of United States blocking imports of cotton it says are harvested with "slave labour" in Xinjiang region is "fake news of so-called forced labour".

China said today that reports of United States blocking imports of cotton it says are harvested with "slave labour" in Xinjiang region is "fake news of so-called forced labour". Watch: The New York Times had reported that the US government will issue new entry rules for Chinese Communist Party members travelling to the United States. The Chinese foreign ministry slammed the move asserting that it shows "hatred and abnormal mindset towards the Communist Party." Also Read: US bans cotton imports from Chinese producer, citing Xinjiang slave labour Reports said that the Trump administration had issued new rules to curtail travel to the United States by members of the Chinese Communist Party by limiting the maximum validity of travel visas for party members and their families to one month and a single entry. Earlier, CCP members could obtain visitor visas to the United States for up to 10 years. The move is likely to hit top Chinese officials and business leaders, the report said. Also Read: US tightens visa rules for Chinese Communist Party members The Trump administration in its last few weeks has decided to put a stranglehold on China with reports indicating that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency will "Withhold Release Order" ban on cotton and cotton products from the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC). The new order allows US Customs and Border Protection officials to detain ships containing cotton originating from Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. The United States government has alleged that China has held at least 1 million Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang camps and forced them to work even as China says it is a vocational training centre. China's foreign ministry said, "Their aim is to constrain and oppress relevant parties and enterprises in China and curb China's development." Chinese foreign ministry official said workers in Xinjiang "choose occupations based on their own wishes." Xinjiang is a major cotton hub of China. The US House of Representatives had earlier in September unanimously voted to ban all imports from Xinjiang but the bill has yet to pass the Senate.

US ban of CCP members: Abnormal mindset towards Communist Party, says China

xinjiang-cotton

Xinjiang Cotton, News on Xinjiang Cotton, stories on Xinjiang Cotton, articles on Xinjiang Cotton, Xinjiang Cotton stories at Wion, Xinjiang Cotton news, Xinjiang Cotton latest news

xinjiang cotton

Global brands find it hard to untangle themselves from Xinjiang cotton

Gravitas: China targets Nike and H&M over ban on Xinjiang Cotton

Xinjiang cotton boycott: A golden opportunity for India

US ban of CCP members: Abnormal mindset towards Communist Party, says China