What can help to protect women’s health, boost the incomes of impoverished families and thus allow girls to avoid early marriage? What — when it disappears — can set back children’s education, damage mental wellbeing, drive conflict within communities and become a vector for racial hatred?
The humble donkey has rarely been in the spotlight. However, Chinese demand for its skin proved so destabilizing that African governments agreed to a continent-wide ban on the slaughter of the animal for its hide last year. This week, officials are meeting in Ivory Coast to discuss implementation.
A recent paper by Lauren Johnston of the University of Sydney outlines the extraordinary rise and fall of the Sino-African trade in donkey skins, and its repercussions. Ejiao — donkey hide gelatine — was first developed about 3,000 years ago and is used in traditional Chinese medicine and more recently in beauty products. Longstanding demand was supercharged by growing prosperity and media influence, reportedly surging after characters in a popular Chinese TV period drama, Empresses in the Palace, were shown taking it. However, while production of ejiao had been industrialized, a problem soon emerged: Donkeys are notably hard to breed. Ejiao consumption equates to 4 million to 5 million hides per year, equivalent to almost one-tenth of the global donkey population. China’s stock of animals plummeted from 11 million in the early 1990s to just 2 million — and attention turned to African hides.
The continent is home to almost two-thirds of the world’s 53 million donkeys. Their use as beasts of burden there dates back even further than the invention of ejiao; owners describe them as priceless. Despite governments’ attempts to regulate the trade in hides, there were repeated complaints not only of inhumane treatment but also crime; on one estimate, as many as one-third of the exported hides were stolen. Families woke to find their animals had vanished, or been slaughtered and skinned on the spot.
Many could not afford to replace them, because the price of new animals had soared. Without the creatures, women are often forced to carry heavy loads of firewood or water; children may be kept home to help with chores; families can no longer rent donkeys to Neighbours, reducing their incomes. Former owners reported reduced wellbeing and increased stress. Some suspected their neighbors of stealing their donkeys, and in South Africa, online posts about Chinese gangs involved in the illicit trade attracted comments inciting racial hatred. The African Union ban might tackle some of these problems, but it might also be shifting them. In Pakistan, the price of the animals has rocketed.
The case of the missing donkeys might sound like a niche concern, but is really a particular instance of a pressing global issue. Oil and minerals might get the attention, but growing competition for resources — driven by increasing prosperity in economies such as China and India, and the pace of consumer culture — can pop up in unexpected areas, hit the poorest hardest and create new diplomatic, social and economic tensions. Addressing such cases would take not only determination, but ingenuity and a willingness to work with unlikely allies: Africa’s ban was driven by a coalition of farmers, animal rights campaigners, economists, gender activists, religious leaders and others. It would also need to be done at speed. The donkey shock is not a one-off, but a warning of other potential flashpoints ahead.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS