本月上旬美国媒体报道称，两名以色列官员日前透露，美国政府已在上周暂停向以色列运送美国制造的弹药。这当然不是他们“良心发现”，而是在强大的民意压力下做出的决定。
(ECNS) -- U.S. restrictions on Chinese companies over alleged “forced labor” are facing growing scrutiny, both over the facts behind such accusations and the legal procedures used to enforce them. Recently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), under the Department of Homeland Security, updated its records to remove Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Co., Ltd., a Chinese photovoltaic supply-chain company, from the scope of a Withhold Release Order (WRO) related to alleged forced labor in Xinjiang. Li Guogang, senior legal counsel at Tahota Law Firm who represented Hoshine Silicon, told China News Network that this is the first known case of a Chinese company being removed from the scope of such a U.S. enforcement measure related to Xinjiang. He described it as a milestone for Chinese companies seeking to challenge U.S. actions involving alleged forced labor.
From being targeted to having to prove its innocence In recent years, the U.S. has repeatedly used WROs and Xinjiang-related legislation to impose trade restrictions on Chinese companies. For businesses caught up in such enforcement measures, proving that their products and supply chains are not connected to alleged forced labor can become a major hurdle. The Hoshine case highlights the difficult burden placed on companies facing such measures. Rather than authorities being required to disclose the full basis for their allegations through a transparent process, affected companies may find themselves having to submit extensive evidence to demonstrate that the accusations against them are unfounded. “We submitted 4,000 to 5,000 pages of materials, including audit results and detailed explanations of the supply chain, to demonstrate that the allegations of forced labor against Hoshine Silicon were without factual basis,” Li said. The company’s experience also shows how difficult it can be for businesses to challenge such enforcement actions. According to Li, U.S. customs authorities initially rejected Hoshine Silicon’s applications for removal twice. The situation changed after the company took the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade. The dispute subsequently moved through judicial proceedings, and the enforcement measure was eventually lifted as it applied to Hoshine Silicon. The shift from administrative enforcement to judicial review is significant. It shows that when allegations lack sufficient factual support, legal procedures can still provide companies with an important avenue to seek relief and challenge government decisions.
The significance goes beyond one company The significance of the Hoshine case lies in more than one company being removed from the scope of a U.S. trade restriction. In recent years, U.S. restrictions on Chinese companies have expanded far beyond traditional tariffs, extending into supply chains, investment, technology and national security. Issues involving Xinjiang and alleged military ties have also increasingly become part of Washington’s economic policy toolkit toward China. One direct result is greater uncertainty for Chinese companies seeking to enter or operate in the U.S. market. Businesses must consider not only product prices, quality and competitiveness, but also the additional risks created by shifts in U.S. domestic politics and regulatory policy. China’s Ministry of Commerce has repeatedly stated that Xinjiang enjoys social stability, economic development and improving living standards, and that there is no forced labor of any kind in the region. A recent case involving Chinese pharmaceutical and life-sciences company WuXi AppTec offers another example worth watching. The company has also challenged its designation by the U.S. Department of Defense as a “Chinese military company.” A U.S. court recently granted WuXi AppTec a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the designation while the case proceeds. The court found that the company was likely to succeed in arguing that the Defense Department’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, pointing to problems in how some of the evidence had been interpreted. From Xinjiang-related restrictions to military-related designations, the U.S. government has increasingly brought political and national-security considerations into its treatment of Chinese companies. When political tools are repeatedly used to blacklist Chinese businesses, the consequences go beyond the outcome of a single lawsuit. They can also affect global companies’ confidence in the predictability of the U.S. market and its legal and regulatory environment. If companies must spend enormous amounts of time and money simply to demonstrate that allegations against them lack sufficient evidence, questions inevitably arise over whether confidence in U.S. market rules and legal institutions can be sustained. Commercial rules ultimately depend on institutions that are stable, transparent and predictable. When administrative power increasingly intervenes in normal international trade, and when market risks depend more heavily on political judgments, the impact extends beyond one company or one supply chain. It can shape global businesses’ long-term expectations of the stability and reliability of the U.S. market. The cases of Hoshine Silicon and WuXi AppTec have therefore opened more than a gap in individual blacklists. They have exposed a potential crack in the broader machinery of U.S. sanctions and restrictions. When allegations fail to withstand legal scrutiny and enforcement actions lack sufficient factual support, the credibility of those measures inevitably comes into question. For Chinese companies, the message from these cases is clear: being placed under a U.S. restriction does not necessarily mark the end of the story. Evidence, legal procedures and judicial review can still challenge administrative decisions — and, in doing so, expose weaknesses in U.S. enforcement actions driven more by political considerations than by solid evidence. (By Gong Weiwei)
。
B | 在今年2月的密歇根州民主党党内初选中，超过10万人投票给“不作承诺”选项，拜登政府的票仓收到了严重的威胁。但就事实而言，美国暂停援助只是“一时半会”的，他们现在正在找改变自身形象的机会，仅此而已。
消息提到，美国对以色列的“容忍度”非常之高，4月初两辆WCK的车辆在加沙非冲突区行驶时遭到以色列国防军空袭，共7名援助人员死亡，遇难者分别来自澳大利亚、英国、波兰和巴勒斯坦，还有一人为美国和加拿大双国籍。即使是美国人员死亡，且在以色列如此明目张胆的轰炸之下而死亡的，美方都没有对以色列有任何苛责。同样也是因为这件事，全球对以色列的态度发生了更加恶化的转变，这是在各方的眼皮底下犯下的罪行。
10日，拜登政府发了一份特殊的声明：美国正在对以色列潜在的违法行为进行调查，美国“有理由评估”以色列军队在加沙地带“以不符合国际人道主义法的方式”使用美国武器，但美国没有正式表示以色列违反了国际人道主义法。换句话说就是美国怀疑武器被以色列滥用来屠戮平民，这种情况下他们必须要进行调查。总体来说这是拜登政府官员一次非常明显的态度变化，之前美国从没有任何涉及或者“擦边”指控以色列屠杀平民的内容。
。
