"Support Xinjiang Cotton": China's Nationalist Mobilization
Recently, the president of the parent company of Japan's Uniqlo publicly declared to the media that the group's products would no longer use cotton from the Xinjiang region. Although the president refused to elaborate on the reasons, the news sparked outrage when it reached China. Chinese citizens began expressing their anger online in various ways, such as cutting, burning, or tearing apart Uniqlo clothing. They included the hashtag "Support Xinjiang Cotton" in their posts and vowed to boycott Uniqlo.
Under the mobilization of Chinese nationalism, many foreign brands have faced calls for boycotts by Chinese citizens for various reasons. For example, in 2023, when the Japanese government announced the release of treated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, Chinese netizens launched an online campaign to "boycott Japanese goods". Japanese cosmetics, in particular, became the primary target of Chinese netizens' boycott efforts.
Or, for instance, this past September, China launched a major investigation into the American fashion giants Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein, both under the PVH Group. This action came after the government received reports accusing PVH of “unreasonably boycotting Xinjiang cotton,” violating fair market trade principles, seriously harming the legitimate rights and interests of relevant Chinese enterprises, and endangering China's sovereignty, security, and development interests.
Even earlier, when allegations of forced labor and genocide in Xinjiang first emerged, many foreign brands faced boycotts in China over their policies regarding the use of Xinjiang cotton. In 2020, in response to the U.S. government's passage of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, numerous international brands, including H&M, Adidas, Nike, and Converse, publicly announced that they would stop using cotton from Xinjiang. In response, Chinese citizens similarly called for a boycott of these brands while voicing support for Xinjiang cotton.
Although the aforementioned boycott movements have had very limited impact—American apparel brand Nike and Japanese cosmetics brand SK-II continue to see growing revenue in the Chinese market—the spread and unchecked rise of nationalism within China is indeed another cause for concern. Notably, many individuals have adopted extreme and violent methods to express their support for the country and rejection of foreign entities, indicating that some citizens are losing their sense of reason and becoming zealous "patriotic warriors." In recent years, frequent cases of attacks on foreigners within China have become a clear manifestation of uncontrolled patriotism.
The Nationalist Moat: The CCP Government's Trump Card
Since China's transition into modernity, patriotism and nationalist sentiments have been harnessed by the government as a "moat" to protect domestic brands and industries.
The concept of a "moat" is a crucial one in the field of business investment. It refers to factors such as proprietary technologies or unique business models that provide companies with a competitive advantage. These exclusive technologies and business models enable a company to maintain stable profitability without being undermined or overtaken by competitors, akin to the protective moat surrounding a castle. Warren Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, coined the term "moat" to describe this concept. Buffett uses it as a standard to evaluate whether an investment opportunity is worth pursuing.
However, for Chinese companies, their moat is often not built on technology, business models, intangible assets, or even the products themselves. Instead, it lies in the mobilization of nationalism. From the era of Mao Zedong to today's Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist Party has been highly adept at leveraging nationalism to "support" domestic industries.
For example, during the Chinese Civil War in 1947, Mao Zedong incited anti-American and anti-Western sentiments in major cities such as Shanghai, calling on the people to "support domestic goods" and "boycott American products." Today, through top-down patriotic education and the promotion of Xi Jinping Thought, this nationalism has deeply permeated the daily lives of most Chinese citizens.
Comprehensive ideological education has given rise to fervent patriots who interpret any criticism of Chinese products or businesses as a denial of China itself. When foreigners or companies criticize or take actions against China, these fervent individuals mobilize en masse, launching collective attacks to defend Chinese businesses and vowing to boycott foreign brands.
Xinjiang Cotton: China's "Key" Raw Material Export
What sparks even more curiosity, however, is this: what makes "Xinjiang cotton" so unique? Why does the Chinese Communist Party feel compelled to repeatedly mobilize vast resources, craft narratives, and rally the public to defend it?
The fact is, whether Xinjiang cotton can be exported plays a critical role in maintaining China's reputation as the "world's factory." Xinjiang has long been a major global cotton production hub, with annual exports exceeding 5 million metric tons. This single region accounts for over 20% of the global cotton supply and more than 90% of China's cotton production capacity. In 2023 alone, China exported over $10 billion worth of cotton, generating significant foreign exchange earnings. Because of this, Xinjiang cotton is akin to China's cash cow—if the apparel industry were to ban cotton from Xinjiang, it would effectively cut off the market for these 5 million metric tons of cotton.
In recent years, China has been plagued by stagflation, with domestic demand showing no significant improvement. The annual growth rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has hovered below 1% for years, far lower than the healthy moderate inflation level of 2%. As a result, China heavily relies on overseas markets to offload its domestic overcapacity. Without this outlet, sluggish domestic demand and an inability to monetize massive production surpluses would exacerbate the dire economic situation. This would lead not only to factory closures and production line shutdowns but also to the collapse of raw material suppliers, ultimately disrupting entire industrial chains.
In addition, China’s garment industry is also heavily impacted by the "Xinjiang cotton" policy. Each year, China’s garment and textile exports account for 31% and 42% of the global market share, respectively, with a total export value reaching $293.64 billion.
As China's economy weakens and declines, consumers are cutting back on spending on clothing, forcing a large volume of cheaply made Chinese garments to seek markets overseas. However, as mentioned earlier, cotton from Xinjiang accounts for 90% of China's total cotton production—making it difficult for Chinese-made garments to avoid using Xinjiang cotton. If countries and companies ban the purchase of products containing Xinjiang cotton, these garments will also be unable to be exported.
Under this immense pressure, the Chinese government has been compelled to strongly back "Xinjiang cotton." Now, the story at the beginning of this article becomes crystal clear, and the CCP's intentions are laid bare: leveraging state media to spread information that stokes public anger, then using the flames of nationalism to attempt to pressure foreign companies into compromise. Simultaneously, the ongoing scrutiny of Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein represents a high-profile effort to force these companies to yield under the lure of the Chinese market.
But does this really work? If it's merely the fleeting "boycott threats" of netizens, it might not cause significant harm. However, the extreme nationalism nurtured by the government risks leading to another "Boxer Rebellion"-like tragedy, resulting in more horrific incidents within China. Two years ago, The Economist warned that the prevalence of hateful rhetoric online indicates that under Xi Jinping's leadership, China has fostered a pathological form of nationalism.
China should follow legitimate channels to ensure that domestic businesses operate with transparency, fairness, and safety. This approach would enable Chinese companies to comply with international trade rules and compete fairly with foreign enterprises. However, instead of taking these steps, China has chosen to incite nationalist sentiment and use nationalism to build a protective moat, which clearly goes against the principles of fair international trade practices.
People must continue to pay attention to this issue to ensure that our brands maintain integrity, refuse to support unjust supply chains, and do not yield to threats from China. At the same time, greater vigilance is needed regarding the spread of extreme nationalism in China, ensuring timely and effective responses, as well as countermeasures through higher-level strategic and policy frameworks. Only in this way can a fair production and trade network be preserved, benefiting every producer and consumer in our country.
