Tesla has opened a showroom in Xinjiang

Tesla has opened a showroom in Xinjiang

Elon Musk’s Tesla Automobile Company has opened a new showroom in Urumqi, the capital of China’s Xinjiang province, but the move has not been a resounding success. This is the province where China has been under severe pressure from the Uyghur population for years. Reports from the county include labor camps, thousands of broken families, retraining programs, and a state watch after each shakedown.

Tesla announced the new showroom on the last day of December, announcing that it would embark on an electric journey with Xinjiang in 2022. In addition to the post, photos about the opening were also posted, including people holding a “Tesla <3 Xinjiang" sign.



The company’s decision was strongly condemned by international human rights organizations, but it is also interesting to note that the United States has previously imposed a number of sanctions on China for violations in the boycott. US companies have also been banned from doing business with local companies and suppliers. President Joe Biden wrote last month subject to this law, which seeks to ensure that there is no connection between American actors and Uyghur forced labor.

The store, which has just opened, is China’s 211th Tesla Showroom, and its opening has been criticized by Urgur organizations as well as International Human Rights Watch: As Australian researcher Sophie McNeil He told the Guardian newspaperBeijing and the business community have long relied on the global intent that puts profit first on human rights, even when it comes to allegations of crimes against humanity, and this should not be allowed to continue in 2022.

See also  This Octavia is the fastest Skoda

In recent years, many international and American companies have left the region. Intel recently announced that it has asked its suppliers not to use products, services, or labor from the region. The announcement was met with outrage in the Chinese press and public life by the time Intel released it. Letter of apology, where they argued that they only had to comply with US law and that the decision did not constitute a decision for them as to the boycott.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *