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.
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused