The West’s admiration for China’s rush for wealth is becoming like the left’s interwar praise for Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union. It is a triumph of materialism over humanity. If there is one place on earth I have long wanted to visit, it is old Kashgar, fulcrum of the silk road, author Peter Fleming’s “oasis of civilization” hovering between the Pamir mountains and the Taklamakan desert. It was used for the Afghan movie The Kite Runner, NATO having rendered the real location, Kabul, too dangerous for filming. Now the old city is to be systematically demolished. The steamroller of destruction that is China’s rush for wealth is claiming yet another casualty for world culture.
Reports from Beijing indicate that 65,000 houses, dating in layers back over two millennia, are decrepit and at risk from earthquakes. They will be cleared and their native Uighur inhabitants forcibly removed from the maze of alleys, mud-brick walls, courtyard houses and 40 mosques to new estates 8km from the city. Already the city walls and moat have gone. Now the old city itself is coming down, with only a zone to be rebuilt “in Uighur style” for the million tourists who visit Kashgar in search of silk road romance. They will be shown what a local official calls “an international heritage scenery.”
Kashgar was deliberately omitted from Beijing’s list of candidates for World Heritage status. As in Tibet’s Lhasa, Han Chinese are expected to replace the original Uighur citizens in the new city. The message is that minorities will not only have their political aspirations repressed but their cultural inheritance wiped out as well. The Washington Post quoted a bold Beijing architectural professor, Wu Dianting (吳殿廷), to commend the old mud buildings of Kashgar and warn that “if they are torn down their affiliated culture is destroyed.”
Western lobbyists rightly championed civil rights in China during the brief (and mostly sycophantic) period of the Olympics, to scant obvious effect. It is tempting to say that civil rights command headlines, but cultural heritage — where foreign pressure can sometimes shame a regime into caution — goes by the board. The monuments of the silk road, their oases, caravanserais, bazaars and towns, were not just memorials of old Asia but of Europe and Asia combined, a true entrepot of civilizations.
Visiting Chengdu in Sichuan in 1982, I was taken to see how the authorities were bulldozing the last remaining sector of “rice-paper houses,” an ancient area of delicate overhanging properties and courts with persimmon-lined streets, kept immaculate by residents for whom house and communal street were one living space. Desperate people were frantically packing their belongings in advance of the invader.
I pathetically pleaded with my guides to stop, if only because they were destroying what would one day be a tourist jewel of the city. They seemed utterly mystified, as might Romania’s dictator, Ceausescu, to pleas for the salvation of old Bucharest or, I suppose, the Greater London Council to pleas to save Covent Garden. To those in power, old is always past and new is always good. Demolition is potency and rebuilding is glory.
To prepare for the obscenity of extravagant chauvinism that is the Olympics, the Chinese promised the International Olympic Committee that they would spend US$30 billion redesigning an entire quarter of Beijing and build a dozen pavilions and a new thoroughfare, Jinbao Avenue. The avenue alone consumed 22 hectares and evaporated the homes of 2,100 families.
The Geneva-based Center on Housing Rights and Evictions said some 1.25 million people were evicted to make way for last year’s Olympics, a devastation chronicled in Michael Meyer’s moving new book, The Last Days of Old Beijing. This astonishing clearance was bigger even than Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) extension of Tiananmen Square to create a desert of tarmac for the ritual glorification of his regime. Former British prime minister Tony Blair viewed the Olympics in much the same light.
The common accusation from those who shrug shoulders at the overseas destruction of historic buildings is that it reflects a civilization that does not care. Commenting on the cultural poverty of Hong Kong, the writer Jan Morris could dismiss it as a “dismally philistine colony.” Chinese people are charged not only with a lack of concern for human rights but with a dismissive view of their past. They care nothing for art.
This may be true of all societies at some time in their emergence from poverty. Yet it is one thing to want one’s house repaired, plumbed and electrified, quite another to see superior authority arrive with a bulldozer and architect in tow and, without a word, destroy house, neighborhood and civic identity in one fell swoop.
I have never believed that Chinese people are any different from others in their concern for the past. Westerners just say so. Much of the campaign to draw attention to the fate of Kashgar has been led by conservationists in Beijing, whose safety I respect by not naming them. But it is noticeable that in the freer climate of Hong Kong, it is Chinese who are teaching a lesson in heritage to the British who so shockingly ignored it when ruling the place.
Long ago I pleaded with such Hong Kong governors as David Wilson and Chris Patten that, if they bequeathed nothing else, at least install the British law protecting historic buildings without compensation. Each told me that there was no point. The Chinese cared only for money and would overturn any such designation for corrupt profit.
Two weeks ago I visited heritage sites in Hong Kong now being meticulously protected by the local Chinese government — including such relics of British rule as the central prison, the Tai O police station and Kowloon magistrates court. Old shop-houses and early council flats are being restored for new uses. The dynamic development secretary, Connie Lam, has heritage in her official title and declares emphatically that heritage, tourism and development are of the same coin.
Most remarkable is the central police station, a great colonial survival left derelict and doomed by Britain. This rambling warren of barracks, cells, prisons and courtyards lies in the shadow of mighty skyscrapers as if abandoned overnight. Giant woks lie idle in the kitchens. Rows of plastic scissors adorn the wall in the women’s prison workshop. Racks mourn for their rifles, stables for their horses. Trees still shade the parade ground.
The council houses are to be youth hostels, and Kowloon magistracy a US college. Plans are afoot to reopen the central police station as possibly a museum, hotel or apartments. What the British would have demolished, as they tore down the Victoria Barracks and the Repulse Bay Hotel, the Chinese are trying to save.
Sensitivity to the past is not some Western foible, nor is it a barrier to economic growth. It is a response to what should be the civilizing force of wealth and, in a leisure economy, a source of further wealth. Thousands of Hong Kong people demonstrated against the demolition of the old Star ferry terminal. They can be sure to support the saving of what few relics of the colonial past remain. It is not the right culture these places need, just the right politics.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS