Citing Huawei’s complicity in slavery and oppression, British Uyghurs are appealing to the British Government to reverse a decision to allow it to run part of the UK’s 5G network.
by Ruth Ingram
Table of Contents
- Uyghurs protest
- Huawei’s involvement in human rights abuses
- A security risk for the world
- Lawyer Polak speaks
Uyghurs protest
A last ditch stand to persuade the British Parliament to change its mind over the Chinese technological giant Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s 5G network comes after a close call in March, when rebel MPs with grave security concerns, voted against their party but were narrowly defeated by 24 votes.
In a letter to the British Government this week, two prominent exiled Uyghurs are pleading for another look at this issue, citing Huawei’s indisputable involvement with the CCP and its key role in the subjugation and persecution of Uyghurs in North West China.
Rahima Mahmut, a human rights advocate who heads up the World Uyghur Congress in London and Enver Tohti Bughda, an activist and member of the International Advisory Committee of the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, are calling for a rethink on the basis of the fundamental business and human rights Britain has signed up to.
Speaking on behalf of his clients, human rights barrister Michael Polak, who is the chair of Lawyers for Uyghur Rights, said the petition was being made on the basis that the Government’s decision was in breach of the UK’s international obligations and commitments made in regards to human rights and workers’ rights. He said his clients would argue for reconsideration “as there is evidence of the use of forced labor and slavery in Huawei’s supply chain.” He added, “It has also been alleged that Huawei plays an integral part in the systematic oppression of the Uyghur and other Turkic people in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (East Turkestan), which amounts to crimes against humanity and a breach of jus cogens norms of international law.”
British Uyghur Rahima Mahmut cites Huawei’s direct role in the abuse of her own family, whom she has not contacted since 2017, at their instigation, for fear of their own safety. “Since 2016, my homeland has been turned into the biggest digital gulag on earth, and Huawei has been working with the public security bureau, providing surveillance technology which is being used to arbitrarily detain millions of my people,” she says. “It’s a disgrace that a company that is central to the oppression and suppression of an entire ethnic population has been given such an important role within the infrastructure of the United Kingdom. It is a betrayal of the core values and morals that I believed this country stood for as a British citizen.” “The entire Uyghur population both inside the Uyghur region and in exile are suffering from the CCP’s oppressive surveillance technology,” she said.
Enver Tohti, the other claimant, has stated that, “God created us equal, but the Chinese government has turned us into second class citizens and has imprisoned thousands of my compatriots. Many of my friends and family have been taken into the concentration camps [the so-called transformation through education camps] and we do not know when or if they will be released. Those who remain outside the camps live their life in the shadow of fear and repression unable to practice their religion and culture for fear that they too may disappear into these horrendous camps.” He added, “As a British Uyghur I need the Government to speak up against the repression of the Uyghur people, not go into business with a company which is deeply involved in these acts against us.’
Huawei’s involvement in human rights abuses
Proof of Huawei’s direct involvement and support of human rights abuses and modern day slavery has been meticulously gathered by the Australian think tank ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) in its in depth study, “Uyghurs for Sale: ‘Re-education,’ Forced Labour and Surveillance Beyond Xinjiang”
Conservative estimates that 80,000 Uyghurs have been forced into slavery, many as part of Huawei’s own supply chain, point to a Chinese government push to transfer large swathes of Uyghurs and other ethnic minority citizens into factories across the country, where they are forced to work under the guise of so-called poverty alleviation in the province.
ASPI research describes vividly how, the regions of Tibet and Xinjiang are often at the “bleeding edge” of China’s technological innovation. After trawling through swathes of Chinese Government websites and reports they have come to the inescapable conclusion that Huawei is “proudly” working hand in hand with the Communist Party to crush the Uyghur people and other Turkic minorities in the region.
Making no efforts to conceal its intent, Huawei boasts of numerous successes with Public Security Bureau projects in Xinjiang and a host of other surveillance-related contracts directly at the behest of the Chinese Government’s police forces. “The evidence shows that Huawei is deeply implicated in the ongoing surveillance, repression and persecution of Uyghurs and other Muslim ethnic minority communities in Xinjiang,” said the report.
Their research shows the mapping of 75 Smart City-Public Security undertakings, most of which involve Huawei. These projects “include the provision of surveillance cameras, command and control centres, facial and license plate recognition technologies, data labs, intelligence fusion capabilities and portable rapid deployment systems for use in emergencies.”
The company has provided the region’s police with technical expertise, support, and digital services to help meet the digitization requirements of the public security industry and ensure “Xinjiang’s social stability and long-term security,” as part of a 2014 roll out of the “Safe Xinjiang” initiative, a euphemism for a police surveillance system. Huawei built the police surveillance systems in Karamay and Kashgar, and was praised by the head of Xinjiang provincial police department for its contributions to “Safe Xinjiang”.
The involvement of Huawei in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region security apparatus is also alleged in the “China Cables,” a set of highly classified Chinese government documents that were obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) earlier this year.
“There are significant allegations that the Chinese authorities are committing crimes against humanity including torture, enslavement, forcible transfer of population, imprisonment and other severe deprivations of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law,” said Michael Polak, citing “enforced marriage and pregnancy, persecution based on religion, race, and ethnicity, and enforced disappearances.” He added, “There is also evidence which alleges that Huawei’s role is integral to the commission of these breaches of jus cogens rules of international law.”
A security risk for the world
Huawei’s indisputable expertise in all matters surveillance related is not merely confined to the borders of China. The company and the ideology that underpins it have expansionist ambitions across the globe.
“The complicity of China’s tech giants in perpetrating or enabling human rights abuses—including the detention of an estimated 1.5 million Chinese citizens and foreign citizens, foreshadows the values, expertise and capabilities that these companies are taking with them out into global markets.” summarizes the ASPI in another report entitled “Mapping China’s Technological Giants.”
From the phones in people’s pockets to the tracking of 2.5 million people using facial recognition technology, and the transformation through education camps, Huawei and other Chinese technology companies have shown their true colors. The ASPI concludes its report by raising several red flags for any country contemplating involvement with Chinese tech companies in its infrastructure.
“The most challenging issue is the continued export around the world of the model of vicious, ubiquitous surveillance and repression being refined now in Xinjiang,” it warns.
“The degree to which nations and communities around the world are coming to rely on Chinese technology companies for critical services and infrastructure, from laying cables to governing their cities, has significant strategic implications both now and for many years into the future,” it said, flagging up the ideology underpinning Chinese technological companies, “which have scant regard for democracy, press or political freedoms, or rights for minorities.”
Other factors the ASPI report urged for consideration when dealing with Chinese companies, were the country’s well-established track record of stealing intellectual property, highlighting the 5G domain as a particularly sensitive area.” Quoting an article in the China National Defense Report in March 2019127 appearing to be written by researchers affiliated with Xidian University and the PLA’s Army Command Academy, the report says that, “they discuss the military applications for China of 5G in the move to ‘intelligentised’ warfare.” ASPI quotes the article, which said, “As military activities accelerate towards extending into the domain of intelligentization, air combat platforms, precision‐guided munitions, etc. will be transformed from ‘accurate’ to ‘intelligentized.’ 5G‐based AI technology will definitely have important implications for these domains.”
A further worrying trend, says the ASPI, is the extent to which Chinese companies are leading the field in research and development into a range of innovative, and strategically sensitive, emerging technologies. “Their global expansion provides them with key resources, such as huge and diverse datasets and access to the world’s best research institutions and universities.”
Most concerning is the extent to which the CCP’s own policies and official statements “make it clear that it perceives the expansion of Chinese technology companies as a crucial component of its wider project of ideological and geopolitical expansion.”
Lawyer Polak speaks
The claimants in this case are represented by a team made up of Michael Polak, plus a specialist judicial review solicitor, Oliver Carter of Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, and Dr Aris Georgopoulos, Assistant Professor in European and Public Law at the School of Law, University of Nottingham and Head of the Research Unit for Strategic and Defence Procurement of the Public Procurement Research Group (PPRG)
About this important case Michael Polak has stated the following:
“Given the evidence that Huawei is an integral part of the security apparatus where the Uyghur and other Turkic people are subjected to crimes against humanity, our clients believe it would be unconscionable for the Government to maintain a course of action welcoming them into our national infrastructure.”
“Our clients have bravely decided to challenge a company which has played such a large part in the oppression of the Uyghur people in atrocities which provide a perfect example of the damage which can be done by a powerful authoritarian government setting out to destroy a people and a culture,” Polak added, stressing that, “Our Government needs to act within both its legal obligations not to contract with companies involved in gross human rights violations and with slavery tainted supply chains and its moral obligation to make it clear to the Chinese Authorities, and those companies aligning themselves closely to them, that the mass detention and repression of the Uyghur people will not be tolerated.”
Rahima Mahmut, one of the Claimants in this case, and head of the World Uyghur Congress London Office has stated:
‘Since 2016, my homeland has been turned into the biggest digital gulag on earth, and Huawei has been working with the public security bureau providing surveillance technology which is being used to arbitrarily detain millions of my people. I myself have lost contact with my family since January 2017, when my brother asked me not to contact them, “leave us in God’s hands” he said in a trembling voice. The entire Uyghur population both inside the Uyghur region and in exile are suffering from the Chinese government’s oppressive surveillance technology.
It’s a disgrace that a company that is central to the oppression and suppression of an entire ethnic population has been given such an important role within the infrastructure of the United Kingdom. It is a betrayal of the core values and morals that I believed this country stood for as a British citizen.’
Enver Tohti, the other Claimant has stated that:
‘God created us equal, but the Chinese government has turned us into second class citizens and has imprisoned thousands of my compatriots. Many of my friends and families have been taken into the concentration camps and we do not know when or if they will be released. Those who remain outside of the camps live their life in the shadow of fear and repression unable to practice their religion and culture for the fear that they too may disappearance into these horrendous camps. As a British Uyghur I need the Government to speak up against the repression of the Uyghur people, not go into business with a company which is deeply involved in these acts against us.’
The case to challenge the decision to contract with Huawei on human rights grounds is being funded using Crowd Justice. The claimants welcome donations from those from around the world who want to support them in their David and Goliath battle. Donations can be made here https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenge-to-huawei-5g/
Media Requests
We are happy to accommodate any media requests. To arrange please email contact@lawyersforuyghurrights.com or call Michael Polak at Church Court Chambers on 020 7936 3637
Notes to Editors
Lawyer for Uyghur Rights, www.lawyersforuyghurrights.com is a group made up of barristers, solicitors, paralegals, academics, and students who are working together to develop strategies to combat the mass oppression and atrocities being carried of the Uyghur people and other Turkic Muslim minorities in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (East Turkestan) The organisation is chaired by Michael Polak.
Michael Polak is a barrister practising in both international and domestic human rights law as well as criminal law defence. He practises from Church Court Chambers in London and is a Director of Justice Abroad (www.justiceabroad.co.uk). He is chair of Lawyers for Uyghur Rights and works closely with the World Uyghur Congress and the Uyghur community.
Oliver Carter is a solicitor in the Public Law & Human Rights team at Irwin Mitchell, specialising in civil liberties and judicial review work, and is instructed to act for Ms Mahmut and Mr Tohti. In July 2019, he received a Legal Aid Practitioners Group Special Award for making an exceptional contribution to legal aid and access to justice at the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year awards.
Dr Aris Georgopoulos is Assistant Professor in European and Public Law at the School of Law, University of Nottingham and Head of the Research Unit for Stra tegic and Defence Procurement of the Public Procure ment Research Group (PPRG). He has been a Global Governance Fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS) of the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, and a Grotius Fel low at the Law School of the University of Michigan and has acted as expert advisor to national authorities, international organisations and institutions (such as the OECD, the World Bank, the European Central Bank, The European Court of Auditors and USAID)
Your Car is not clean
Global carmakers, including General Motors, Tesla, BYD, Toyota, and Volkswagen, are failing to minimize the risk of Uyghur forced labour being used in their aluminium supply chains, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 99-page report, “Asleep at the Wheel: Car Companies’ Complicity in Forced Labor in China,” finds that some carmakers have succumbed to Chinese government pressure to apply weaker human rights and responsible sourcing standards at their Chinese joint ventures than in their global operations, increasing the risk of exposure to forced labour in Xinjiang. Most have done too little to map their aluminium supply chains and identify links to forced labour.
Car Companies’ Complicity in Forced Labor in China
“Car companies simply don’t know the extent of their links to forced labor in Xinjiang in their aluminum supply chains,” said Jim Wormington, senior researcher and advocate for corporate accountability at Human Rights Watch. “Consumers should know their cars might contain materials linked to forced labor or other abuses in Xinjiang.”
The link between Xinjiang, a region in northwestern China, the aluminium industry, and forced labour is the Chinese government-backed labour transfer programs, which coerce Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims into jobs in Xinjiang and other regions.
Human Rights Watch reviewed online Chinese state media articles, company reports, and government statements and found credible evidence that aluminium producers in Xinjiang are participating in labour transfers. Human Rights Watch also uncovered evidence that fossil fuel companies that supply coal to aluminium producers in Xinjiang have received labour transfer workers at their coal mines. Xinjiang’s aluminium smelters depend on the region’s abundant and highly polluting coal supplies to fuel the energy-intensive process of aluminium production.
In 2023, domestic and foreign manufacturers in China produced and exported more cars than any other country. Since 2017, the Chinese government has committed crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, including arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, and cultural and religious persecution, and has subjected Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim communities to forced labor inside and outside Xinjiang.
The Chinese government has sought to make Xinjiang an industrial hub even as it expanded abuses against Uyghurs. Xinjiang’s aluminum production has grown from approximately one million tons in 2010 to six million tons in 2022. More than 15 percent of the aluminum produced in China, or 9 percent of global supply, now comes from the region. Aluminum is used in dozens of automotive parts, from engine blocks and vehicle frames to wheels and electric battery foils, which are both used by manufacturers in China and exported to global carmakers.
Most of Xinjiang’s aluminum is shipped out of the region and mixed with other metals to make aluminum alloys in other parts of China, including for the car industry. Once an aluminum ingot has been melted and mixed with other materials, it is impossible to determine whether or how much of it came from Xinjiang, enabling tainted aluminum to enter domestic and global supply chains undetected.
Aluminum ingots from Xinjiang are bought and sold by commodities traders, further obscuring the links between Xinjiang and supply chains. Glencore, a global commodities trader, told Human Rights Watch it purchases aluminum from a Xinjiang-based smelter for sale to domestic customers in China but stated that “we recognize the risks of forced labor associated with Xinjiang” and said it had conducted due diligence at the supplier’s facilities in Xinjiang.
Car companies have a responsibility under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to identify, prevent, and mitigate the presence of forced labor and other human rights abuses in their supply chains. The high level of repression and surveillance in Xinjiang, including threats to workers and auditors, makes it impossible for companies to credibly investigate allegations of forced labor and consider potential remediation. Car companies should instead map their supply chains and disengage from any supplier found to source parts or materials from Xinjiang.
Some carmakers contend that because they do not operate or control their Chinese joint ventures, they are less able to address the joint ventures’ supply chain links to Xinjiang. Volkswagen, which holds 50 percent of the equity in its joint venture with SAIC, a Chinese carmaker, told Human Rights Watch it is not legally responsible for human rights impacts in their joint venture’s supply chain under Germany’s supply chain law because the law only covers subsidiaries in which companies have “decisive influence.”
German government guidance, however, sets out a range of criteria for determining whether a company has “decisive influence,” including “whether the subsidiary manufactures and exploits the same products or provides the same services as the parent company.” SAIC-Volkswagen manufactures cars for the Chinese market under the Volkswagen brand. The law also applies to Volkswagen’s direct suppliers, which could include SAIC-Volkswagen.
Companies in joint ventures also have a responsibility under the UN Guiding Principles to use their leverage to address the risk of forced labor in the joint venture’s supply chain. Volkswagen said that the company “assumes responsibility … to use its leverage over its Chinese joint ventures to address the risk of human rights abuses.” But when asked about potential links between SAIC-Volkswagen and an aluminum producer in Xinjiang, Volkswagen responded: “We have no transparency about the supplier relationships of the non-controlled shareholding SAIC-Volkswagen.” Volkswagen did say that its directly controlled operations outside China had prioritized supply chain mapping for aluminum parts, but acknowledged it had “blind spots” over the origin of the aluminum in its cars.
General Motors, Toyota, and the Chinese car company BYD did not respond to questions about oversight of Chinese joint ventures, supply chain mapping, or the origin of their aluminum. General Motors instead said, “GM is committed to conducting due diligence and working collaboratively with industry partners, stakeholders, and organizations to address any potential risks related to forced labor in our supply chain.”
Tesla, which builds cars for China’s domestic market and for export at its Shanghai Gigafactory, said that it had “in several cases” mapped its aluminum supply chain and had not found evidence of forced labor. However, the company did not specify how much of the aluminum in its cars remains of unknown origin.
Car industry staff and responsible sourcing experts, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the threat of Chinese government retaliation deterred companies from talking to their China-based suppliers and joint ventures about their potential links to forced labor in Xinjiang. The Chinese government has initiated criminal investigations targeting companies or individuals that help businesses investigate their potential links to human rights abuses in China, including forced labor in Xinjiang.
The Chinese government’s hostility to scrutiny underscores the need for other governments to pay more attention to companies’ respect for human rights in China. Several jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, have enacted or are planning laws banning the import of products linked to forced labor. Governments should also pass laws requiring companies to disclose their supply chains and identify potential links to human rights abuses.
“China is a dominant player in the global car industry and governments need to ensure that companies building cars or sourcing parts in China are not tainted by the government’s repression in Xinjiang,” Wormington said. “Doing business in China should not mean having to use or benefit from forced labor.”
All this make me want to follow in the foot steps of Ted Kaczynski…
What are they so afraid of?
Is this how you want your children and grandchildren to live… At best. Leave your thoughts in the comments below. We are here to have a conversation about our Nation.
