Yet five years on, that clarity has not translated into coherent government policy.

Recent testimony from a former Chinese police officer, Zhang Yabo, underscores the extent to which repression remains organized, deliberate, and embedded within state structures. In an interview with Der Spiegel, Zhang described mechanisms of surveillance, detention, and coercion from inside the system itself. His account aligns with a substantial body of evidence built over years by survivors, leaked documents, and independent researchers.

Analysis by Dr. Adrian Zenz, drawing in part on Zhang’s testimony, showed that these are not isolated abuses but components of a broader architecture of control, one that includes large-scale forced labor programs integrated into domestic and global supply chains. Economic production and political repression in the Uyghur region are deeply intertwined.

This is no longer a question of evidence. It is a question of response.

The independent Uyghur Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, concluded beyond reasonable doubt that crimes against humanity and genocide have been committed. The United States government has formally recognized genocide and acted through the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which restricts goods linked to forced labor from entering U.S. markets.

In the United Kingdom, however, a gap remains between parliamentary recognition and government action.

Policy responses remain fragmented. Measures addressing forced labor in supply chains are limited in scope and unevenly enforced. Import controls lack the consistency required to address systemic abuses, while corporate due diligence frameworks remain largely voluntary or insufficiently robust.

At the same time, economic engagement with China continues. Trade, investment, and industrial cooperation proceed alongside Parliament’s recognition of genocide, a contradiction that increasingly defines U.K. policy toward China’s actions against the Uyghur people.

This inconsistency reflects a broader challenge across liberal democracies: aligning economic policy with human rights commitments in an era of strategic competition with China.

The gap between recognition and action has tangible consequences.

It weakens the credibility of human rights commitments. It signals to Beijing that the costs of repression remain manageable. And it allows systems of coercion, including forced labor, to continue operating within global markets, distorting fair competition and embedding exploitation into supply chains.

The implications extend beyond the Uyghur region. Reports of transnational repression, including surveillance, intimidation, and pressure on diaspora communities demonstrate that the reach of these systems does not stop at China’s borders. For Uyghurs living abroad, including in the U.K., repression is not only a distant reality but an ongoing presence.

Testimonies like Zhang Yabo’s matter because they disrupt the assumption that such systems can remain hidden or denied. When individuals from within these structures speak out, they expose both the mechanics of repression and the fragility of the silence that sustains it.

But exposure alone is not enough.

Five years after Parliament recognized the Uyghur genocide, the U.K. government should do the same – and act accordingly. This requires moving beyond declaratory politics toward enforceable measures: strengthening import restrictions linked to forced labor, implementing mandatory human rights due diligence, and aligning trade and investment policy with legal and ethical obligations.

It also requires greater international coordination. Without alignment between major economies, goods produced through coercion will continue to be diverted across markets, undermining accountability and limiting impact.

This is not only a human rights issue. It is a question of economic integrity.

Unchecked forced labor distorts global markets, undercuts responsible businesses, and places U.K. workers at a disadvantage. A stronger response is therefore not only about protecting Uyghur lives; it is about protecting fair competition, consumer trust, and the credibility of market systems.

There is also a deeper question of values.

The U.K. has a long tradition, particularly within the labor movement, of standing for workers’ rights, fairness, and dignity in labor. Those principles cannot sit comfortably alongside supply chains tainted by coercion and exploitation. If they are to retain meaning, they must extend beyond borders.

For those whose families remain within this system, delay is not a matter of policy sequencing. It is lived time measured in uncertainty, absence, and irreversible loss.

The evidence is clear. The legislative pathways exist. The question is whether governments are prepared to act.

Until then, the burden of speaking will continue to fall on those who have already lost the most.

Rahima Mahmut