China’s vow to shut down its commercial ivory trade by the end of this year was welcomed by environmentalists as a turning point in the fight against poachers. Activists cheered the government’s pledge for swift action, and the state-run news media called it a “monumental win for elephants.”
However, in making the decision, announced on Friday last week, to bring the world’s largest ivory market to a halt, the Chinese government also saw benefits for itself.
The ban reinforced Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) campaign against corrupt officials, who have been known to use ivory products as bribes.
It galvanized support among African allies, which have long pressed Beijing to help curb poaching, as China looks to expand its influence on the continent.
The decision also allowed China to burnish its image as a global guardian of the environment, at a time when environmentalists have raised doubts about the ability of the US to lead on environmental issues.
Peter Knights, the executive director of WildAid, which lobbied heavily on the ivory issue, said Chinese leaders had come to realize that taking action on environmental matters such as climate change and the illegal wildlife trade was essential to cementing China’s place as a global superpower.
“With power comes responsibility,” said Knights, whose organization has spent US$3 million over the past four years on an advertising campaign in China against the ivory trade. “They know it’s not worth damaging China’s international image to be involved in this business.”
For years, Chinese leaders resisted taking strong action to curb ivory sales, convinced that conservationists were overstating the country’s role in fueling a trade that has, by some estimates, killed more than 100,000 elephants over the past decade.
Ivory carving is considered a fine art and cultural tradition in China, where sales have thrived for decades.
However, attitudes among top leaders shifted over the past several years, advocates said, as a wave of bad publicity revealed the nefarious activities of Chinese smugglers and as evidence mounted that China’s economic boom had led to a surge in demand for ivory.
The stockpile of legal ivory in China is estimated at about US$150 million, according to advocates.
Environmentalists in China, many of them affiliated with US organizations, including WildAid, led a concerted effort to raise awareness about the issue, investing in subway ads and TV documentaries. Celebrities such as basketball player Yao Ming (姚明) spoke out, urging the government to ban sales of commercial ivory.
Still, there were doubts among Chinese officials about the need for more forceful action, and some argued that the problem was not booming sales of ivory in China, but lax enforcement in Africa.
“Their position was: ‘It’s not our problem, it’s the African countries’ problem, and we’re doing everything we can,’” said Susan Lieberman, the vice president for international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York.
However, it became increasingly clear to Chinese officials that smugglers were transporting ivory into the country illegally and marketing it as a legal product. Ivory had become a status symbol among the rapidly growing middle class, used in products such as necklaces and table lamps. Wealthy businessmen and officials were purchasing elaborate carvings as luxurious gifts or, in some cases, bribes
In 2014, the Chinese ambassador to Tanzania, in an unusually public rebuke, denounced Chinese in the country for “bad habits” and said officials worried constantly about people being arrested on suspicion of smuggling.
As China forged closer ties with African nations, its role in enabling the ivory trade provoked resentment, with some officials accusing Beijing of contributing to violence and terrorism in the region. It did not help that in 2014, reports emerged that members of Xi’s entourage had, on a presidential visit to Tanzania the year before, bought thousands of kilograms of poached tusks to take home.
“China became quite aware that even in their ‘legal market’ there was tremendous laundering through an illegal system,” Lieberman said. “They didn’t want to be the ones to blame.”
Chinese leaders seemed eager for a change. Officials burned stockpiles of ivory before phalanxes of news cameras, and they began discussing the possibility of imposing a ban on ivory imports.
At the same time, the US was pressing China to join forces to combat poaching, and in 2015, US President Barack Obama and Xi announced that they had agreed to shut down the markets in their respective countries.
For Xi, who has pushed the idea of creating an “ecological civilization” in China in response to severe air, water and soil pollution, the idea of closing the domestic market brought several advantages.
It dovetailed with the president’s vigorous nationwide campaign against corrupt officials, who have traded exotic wildlife in money laundering and graft schemes. It also allowed China a chance to show compassion toward allies in Africa, a continent whose oil, gas and copper reserves it is increasingly dependent on.
“It’s a good image-enhancing exercise,” said Martyn Davies, a managing director for Deloitte in Johannesburg who specializes in emerging markets. “People are looking for a visible clampdown in China and results in terms of arrests and prosecutions.”
China’s eagerness to act also reflected a desire by the government to raise its profile on environmental issues, analysts have said.
China has already emerged as a global power broker on climate change. Now, it might look to other concerns, such as illegal wildlife trade, advocates say.
Lin Li (李琳), a Chinese environmentalist who leads the Beijing offices of the WWF, said China seemed more willing to tackle international matters under Xi.
“The top leaders are really looking to be environmental leaders,” she said. “They want to mobilize the masses, not just within China.”
Now China will be judged on how effectively it can carry out the ivory ban. Enforcement is a constant challenge in China’s legal system, and analysts said there was likely be some resistance, given the influence of the ivory industry.
Gao Yufang (高煜芳), a researcher at Yale University who has studied the ivory market in the country, said that while the ban represented progress, China would need to follow through with a holistic plan of action.
“The ivory trade is a great opportunity for China to show its commitment to its global responsibilities,” he wrote in an e-mail. “It is necessary that we keep an eye on it to make sure China keeps its promise.”
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS