Washington weaponizing blacklist by targeting biotech

On Wednesday, the United States Department of Homeland Security added three Chinese biotechnology companies to its blacklist under the so-called "Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act", bringing the total number of such listed entities to nearly 190. What began as ostensibly a "humanitarian effort" has increasingly acquired the characteristics of an industrial-containment strategy.

Washington insists that its restrictions are about "human rights". However, the expanding range of industries targeted — from cotton and tomatoes to electronics, lithium and now genomics — shows that the US' real intention is to use unfounded allegations of "exploitation" to exclude commercial competitors.

China's Ministry of Commerce has rebutted the latest allegations, declaring that forced labor does not exist in China and that people of all ethnic groups in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region enjoy freedom to choose their employment, with their labor rights protected by law. A spokesperson for the ministry stressed that the US allegations were baseless and the measures were simply unilateral protectionism masquerading as "humanitarian concern".

The US legislation itself illustrates the problem. Enacted in 2021, the so-called UFLPA is built on the false premise that goods produced wholly or partly in Xinjiang are made with "forced labor". The primary evidence for this was provided by US government-funded "researchers".

Reversing the usual burden of proof, the legislation puts the onus on Xinjiang-related businesses to establish their innocence to Washington's satisfaction if they want access to the US market.

That is a powerful commercial weapon. Compliance becomes expensive, supply chains become vulnerable and companies can face exclusion without a conventional finding of corporate misconduct. Even companies never directly accused of "exploiting" workers may discover that commercial relationships are regarded as liabilities.

The latest additions raise still more troubling questions. Biotechnology is not merely another export industry. Genomics underpins medical diagnostics, disease research, agricultural innovation and the development of pharmaceutical drugs and treatments. Restricting companies operating in these fields risks disrupting scientific cooperation whose benefits extend well beyond national borders.

Without providing any evidence, the US has raised baseless "concerns" about so-called "genetic testing" in Xinjiang. In other words, a mere expression of "concern" from the US government is sufficient to trigger economic and industrial measures capable of impacting the global supply chain of a key sector, while simultaneously stigmatizing competitors.

Washington has already imposed restrictions on Chinese semiconductors, artificial intelligence and telecommunications equipment. Biotechnology increasingly occupies the same strategic territory. The coincidence between industries deemed "threatening" to US technological leadership and those subjected to expanding restrictions is becoming difficult to ignore.

Washington's latest action contradicts the consensus reached between the heads of state of the two countries and undermines the stability of bilateral economic relations. The ministry spokesperson demanded the US side put an immediate end to the political manipulation and unreasonable suppression of Chinese enterprises, while promising necessary countermeasures.

The US cannot credibly champion rules-based commerce while treating its own political judgments as sufficient grounds for ever-expanding barriers. Nor can humanitarian principles retain their authority if they appear selectively applied according to strategic convenience.

The test of a human rights policy is whether it protects human beings, not whether it serves geopolitical purposes. Washington's growing blacklist increasingly risks confusing the two. And that confusion could prove costly — not just for Chinese businesses, but for the credibility of the "principles" the US claims to defend.

When the US' domestic legislation becomes a means of imposing unilateral commercial restrictions abroad, the predictability of international trade suffers. By acting this way, the US has set a negative example — one that significantly undermines the market economy, free trade and business environment it has long championed.