America’s massive, large-scale accusations against China are astonishing. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for example, seriously describes Xinjiang as “the largest genocidal concentration camp in the world” without a shred of proof.
The Chinese company Smart Shirts, which sells clothes by Hugo Boss, Tommy Hilfiker, Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren and Burberry, among others, some of which contain cotton from Xinjiang, filed a lawsuit against Sheffield Hallam University for defamation. In 2024, the university published a report by partially anonymous researchers. The Uyghur Center for Democracy and Human Rights, which according to a 2023 toolkit published by it receives, among others, funds “from governments”, and the Uyghur Rights Monitor, whose funding it preferred not to disclose, were also involved.
A well-oiled propaganda industry
It’s worth noting that other Uyghur advocacy organizations, such as the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) and the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP), have received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a U.S. government-funded organization. It is a CIA offspring and notorious regime change instigator, which reported providing approximately $8.76 million to various Uyghur organizations between 2004 and 2020.
The US spends billions on anti-Chinese propaganda, the CIA has long had Western journalists on its payroll and occasionally even buys newspapers and other media to spread its propaganda.
The university’s report concluded that “a significant amount of clothing produced using forced labor from Uighurs enters the EU without restrictions.” According to the report, the company Smart Shirts is also involved in forced labor practices in Xinjiang. The intention of the Uighur and British activists was to prevent the sale of these products in Europe.
Severe reputational damage to deter foreign companies from doing business with China
Unproven accusations that clothing companies profit from forced labor are defamatory and damaging to their business. They can only be made publicly if there is proof that Smart Shirts, or its business partners, clothing brand companies, actually sell clothes whose cotton was harvested or processed using forced labor. This is also how it is treated in civil and criminal law in many other countries.
In December 2024, the London High Court ruled that the report only gave rise to suspicion, but that there was no proof. The defendant university admitted in court that the report merely listed indications and probabilities that forced labor was involved. However, the court came to a different conclusion: the report made factual statements based on the research on which it was based. The report was therefore “defamatory under British common law.”
The US-led Military Media Academia Complex (MIMAC) suffered a defeat in the High Court in London in its economic and propaganda war against China aimed at making this century another century of humiliation for the Middle Kingdom: the British university was forced to remove the link to its defamatory “research” report.
Resorting to “unlawful conduct” to harm China for the benefit of the United States
The high court also determined that there were “sufficient reasons for unlawful conduct” on the part of the authors of the report, but they were not accused of any negligence. The court is continuing to pursue the case, which could result in the university having to pay damages.
Members of the British Parliament seized the occasion to cite the report during a debate in November as evidence that “slavery and forced labor” prevail in China. It is part of a Washington-led anti-Chinese campaign that even accuses China of genocide, which was never proven either.
A Smart Shirts spokesperson told the New York Times: “Our lawsuit seeks to repair the material damage to our company caused by the misleading report.”
The university declined to comment
The New York Times lies
In the last two years, the New York Times highlights that similar lawsuits from Chinese companies have emerged in Europe and Australia. Unsurprisingly, the newspaper falsely claims that they are using laws against defamation that do not exist in China.
Civil Code of China (effective 2021) Article 1026 determines: If a company’s reputation is harmed due to false information, fabrication, or misrepresentation, the company can sue for damages, demand a public apology, and request a correction of false statements.
Another Chinese industry that is more competitive than the American one must be suppressed
China’s Xinjiang region has become a major player in the global cotton industry, rivaling America. The Middle Kingdom is the world’s largest cotton producer and consumer and has a huge textile production infrastructure. It has also largely mechanized its cotton fields and continues its mechanization drive. It is more competitive in terms of cost, scale and market integration. The additional control over a large part of the global textile supply chain therefore gave it a significant competitive advantage over its rivals.
While there is no formal ban, if American farm equipment manufacturer John Deere were perceived to support the agricultural sector in Xinjiang, it would face political pressure from Washington and US-incited and supported campaigns by Western consumer activists. In this indirect way, Washington’s policy thwarts the sale of its machines in China. Picture: Machine in use in the cotton fields of Xinjiang [Source: chinadailyhk.com]
Any Chinese industry that outdoes the US faces scrutiny and boycotts under various pretexts, such as “endangering national security.” In the case of the cotton and textile industry in Xinjiang, the US resorted to another weapon from its arsenal of economic warfare: fabricated labor and human rights violations.
Related articles:
The Economic War Against China Turns Chinese Into Patriots
A New Peak of Disinformation: Financial Times Lies that Business is Collapsing in China
Revelation: Repressive China Suppressed A Popular Toy Bear — Or Was It the Western Fake News Media?
In China, the Communist Party is saving capitalism.
How the Media Misuse Sport as a Propaganda Weapon in the Information Warfare