Is China serious about ending the trade in tigers and other endangered animals?
The question posed itself last Saturday as I sat at an auction in Beijing watching the hammer go down on cases of spirits and tonics fortified with tiger, rhino horn and pangolin.
Sales of such products are forbidden by Chinese law and international convention, yet even though the event at the Kunlun Hotel had been advertised the previous night on state television and flagged up by outraged conservation groups, uniformed police were initially conspicuous by their absence.
However, the buyers had turned up in droves, or more precisely in Audis and BMWs, for this was a sale aimed very much at the affluent middle class.
Nobody could be mistaken about the contents. The auction house — Googut — had devoted more than a dozen pages in its catalogue to tiger bone wine. Many other liquors up for sale included tiger as a medicinal ingredient to “stave off chills, improve circulation and eliminate fatigue.”
The starting prices ranged from 5,000 yuan (US$786) to 200,000 yuan per case.
On the screen at the front of the hall, a photograph of each item flashed up on the screen and a counter in four currencies clicked upward as the auctioneer called out bids from the audience.
I watched silently at first, recalling that exactly one year earlier I had been listening to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) reaffirm his country’s ban on such products at a global tiger summit in St Petersburg, Russia. I also knew that overhead two giant pandas were being flown in a chartered plane to Edinburgh, Scotland, where they would be presented as symbols of China’s commitment to conservation.
I decided to reveal that I was a journalist, so I could ask the backroom auction staff about the apparent illegality of the items on sale. They told me they were produced before the State Council banned all trade in tiger and rhino horn products in 1993 and are therefore legal.
However, this was a half truth. The State Council also ordered that older items be sealed and removed from sale. Ahead of the auction, conservation groups raised this issue with the government.
“It doesn’t matter whether the tiger bone products are pre-ban or not, their trade is forbidden by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and domestically in all tiger range states,” Grace Ge Gabriel of the International Fund for Animal Welfare said. “Moreover, the sale of tiger products of any kind confuses the public, stimulates market demand and fuels poaching of tigers.”
The non-governmental organization protest made a difference. On the day of the auction, the security bureau of the State Forestry Administration ordered Googut to halt the auction of tiger bone wine.
However, it was only a partial clampdown — and I wonder how seriously it would have been taken if the auctioneers had not realized that there was a reporter present. Up until the moment I revealed I was a journalist, the auctioneer had coasted through an earlier part of the catalogue, covering cases of spirits (not wine) that contained tiger ingredients.
However, once my journalistic identity was known, the police arrived and made a show of locking one of the doors. The staff quietly insisted I leave the hall because I was not a buyer.
I do not question their right to do so, but I doubt their motives. (I was not the only person watching without a bidders’ card and nobody had cared about my presence before I started asking questions). I whispered back that I wanted to stay a few extra minutes so I could be sure that the bidding for tiger wine would be halted, as the authorities had ordered. Three plainclothes security men then flanked my chair and kept nudging me to leave.
I quietly held my ground, guessing they would be reluctant to make a fuss in such upmarket company. Soon after it was clear that I had no intention of moving, one of the backroom staff went to the front and whispered something to the auctioneer. It may have been mere coincidence, but a few minutes later, just as the sale of the tiger wine was due to begin, the auctioneer announced a postponement. There were audible groans among the audience.
“It’s a real pity,” one man told me as he walked back to his car. “I came here just for the tiger bone wine. It’s really good stuff, but I haven’t been able to buy any for a long time.”
Looking back, the curtailed auction was encouraging and disturbing. Conservationists have rightly praised the government for taking action, but serious questions remain.
Why didn’t the authorities intervene earlier? Why did the sale of some tiger products go ahead, while others were halted? Will the unsold bottles now either be confiscated or will “pre-ban items” be sold on the quiet?
The authorities acknowledge outstanding difficulties with enforcement.
“We don’t know yet whether the liquor will be taken off the market for good,” said an official at the State Forestry Administration, who declined to give her name. “We cannot guarantee that. All I can say is that we are trying to take measures to stop it.”
The auction showed that demand is strong, but — more hopefully — the risks to suppliers and middlemen are rising.
Googut staff said they had not yet decided what to do about the tiger wine. When the Guardian posed as a customer and called them, one staff member said it may be possible to arrange a sale directly from the owner. Another later said this would not be allowed.
“Tiger wine causes us too much trouble. I don’t think we will sell any after this,” the person said.
That kind of corporate thinking could make a difference. The chief executive of Googut and (knowingly or not) the management of Jinjiang International — the company behind the Kunlun Hotel — surely have more to lose than to gain through their involvement in an illegal trade that is killing off one of China — and Asia’s — best-loved animals. Saving the tiger should be good business sense.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers