A BETTER WAY
Neither the United States nor the PRC is likely to cede ground on labor relations. Meanwhile, U.S. trade sanctions and escalating tensions between the two countries impose real and symbolic costs on both populations. Rather than continuing to demand the impossible, the new administration must consider pragmatic approaches capable of catalyzing change.
The International Labor Organization, the UN agency mandated to supervise international labor standards globally, stands ready and willing to neutralize tensions. Both the United States and China are active ILO members and leading ILO donors. Both countries have positioned their nationals in top ILO leadership positions and participate in the organization’s activities. Given that both governments demonstrate respect for the ILO, and in light of the organization’s expertise and demonstrated neutrality, both governments should turn to it to offer a way out of the impasse.
Some might worry that the ILO will refrain from criticizing one of its largest donors. However, the ILO’s supervisory bodies—which are independent and not funded through donor contributions—have openly criticized the PRC’s labor practices. Assessing the situation in Xinjiang, the ILO’s Committee of Experts noted and dismissed the government’s numerous justifications for its labor policies. The organization expressed deep concern over China’s regional employment strategy, reminded the government of its commitments under ratified treaties, and urged the PRC to revise its approach and applicable legislation.
China has proven amenable to incorporating ILO standards and guidance into its economic and geopolitical strategies. Albeit short-lived for other reasons, the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) codified the PRC’s commitments to various ILO declarations (including the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which stipulates workers’ rights to join and form unions of their own choosing). Surprisingly, the CAI also committed the parties to “work towards the ratification of the ILO Fundamental Conventions.” In 2022, when the CAI was concluded, China ratified the ILO’s Forced Labor Convention, as promised. This suggests an appreciation of the link between ILO participation and trade and investment. (Admittedly, China has not followed the organization’s calls to change its approach in Xinjiang.)
Of course, should the U.S. administration seek to work through the ILO, it will have to cede some of its authority. It might not, for instance, enjoy full discretion on whether China’s maritime subsidies create an unfair competitive advantage in violation of Section 301. And if President Trump wishes to carve out a narrative, as did Biden, of pro-unionism, he may want to oversee those kinds of labor battles to signal his loyalties to union constituents.
In considering tensions with the PRC over labor, President Trump must acknowledge that a different approach is needed. Demands for seismic changes to China’s labor practices have proven unfruitful. Instead, the United States could establish a formal working group with the ILO and China, to operate on a voluntary basis, whereby U.S. trade measures would only be implemented concerning labor rights if and when the ILO agreed such measures were appropriate and necessary. The ILO would work with both governments to improve labor conditions in light of each country’s laws, cultures, and practices. If the new administration’s genuine objective is to protect workers, at least at home if not also abroad, it is time to adapt.
