Securitization of Forced Labor Issues: New Impact on International Economic and Trade Order | Expert Comments

Rule-based games have extended from traditional tariff barriers into the realm of values, with increasingly obvious tendencies toward comprehensive securitization and politicization.

Recently, the U.S. and Western countries have promoted the securitization of forced labor issues, impacting the international economic and trade order.

On March 12th, Eastern Time, the United States announced the initiation of a Section 301 investigation into products allegedly associated with forced labor, involving 60 economies including China. In recent years, the U.S. and Western countries have continued to hype the so-called “overcapacity” in China’s new energy and other industries. These related fallacies are intertwined and layered, reflecting a profound transformation in the international trade order. That is, rule-based competition has extended from traditional tariff barriers into the realm of values, with clear trends toward securitization and politicization.

The essence of Western policies related to “labor issues”

From a policy tools perspective, there are significant differences between the U.S. use of Section 301 and the European Union’s “Prohibition of Forced Labour Regulation.” The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office conducts labor rights investigations under Section 301 of the “Trade Act of 1974,” which lacks domestic compliance procedures. On February 20th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policies were unconstitutional. The recent initiation of a Section 301 review by the Trump administration is clearly an effort to rebuild tariff barriers.

It is worth noting that such policies follow the core conventions of the International Labour Organization at the legislative level, but in practice, they are applied selectively and with excessive discretion. The mechanical application of relevant clauses and policy tools by the U.S. and Western countries could severely disrupt the international division of labor based on comparative advantage.

The rhetorical trap of the “overcapacity” narrative and China’s reality

Against the backdrop of escalating international trade rule conflicts, the narratives of “overcapacity” and forced labor are converging. Previously, U.S. officials, including the Treasury Secretary, repeatedly hyped China’s new energy industry “overcapacity,” claiming it “disrupts global prices and production patterns.” Such rhetoric clearly ignores the fundamental facts of the current global market, where the world still faces a significant capacity gap in green transformation. According to the International Energy Agency, by 2030, global demand for new energy vehicles will reach 45 million units, and new photovoltaic installations will total 820 gigawatts—4.5 times and 4 times higher than in 2022, respectively. With over 130 countries and regions setting carbon neutrality goals, the global demand for green capacity far exceeds existing output.

Deep changes in the international trade environment and international society’s counter-criticisms

By analyzing recent developments and rhetoric from the U.S. and Western countries in the international trade field, three key changes emerge: First, the value-driven orientation of rule-based competition. Issues like labor standards and environmental protection are being endowed with higher moral value, becoming “reasonable” grounds for trade barriers. Second, ideological tendencies in supply chain competition. Due diligence requirements for forced labor compel companies to conduct compliance checks across entire supply chains, significantly increasing transaction costs and compliance risks. Third, multilateral governance mechanisms face challenges of hollowing out. The U.S. bypasses WTO rules and reshapes trade barriers through unilateral legislation, severely undermining the authority of multilateral trade systems.

In the face of profound changes in the international trade environment, China has consistently participated in global labor governance rule-making with an open attitude, insisting on responding to false accusations based on market demand and industrial laws. Weaponizing forced labor issues is essentially protectionism disguised as morality. However, market choices are far more convincing than political narratives—whether there is overcapacity, the market will ultimately decide.