In Chapter 3, you learned about the global reach of Starbucks when considering the Geography of Breakfast. In this unit, we explore some of the cultural issues associated with globalization through the story of Starbucks in Beijing's Forbidden City.

Begin this unit by reading the following stories, all of which appeared in the year 2000 when the controversy concerning Starbucks in the Forbidden City first broke. The stories are from CNN, The New York Times, ABC News and China's People's Daily:

• http://www.cnn.com/2000/FOOD/news/11/29/forbidden.city.frapp.ap/
• http://www.bebeyond.com/KeepCurrent/Recommended/StarbucksBeijing.htm
• http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82033&page=1
• http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200011/24/eng20001124_56044.html

Clearly, the opening of a Starbucks in the Forbidden City, China's Imperial Palace, struck some kind of nerve in China. It was right at this time that KFC, which had been operating a restaurant in Beijing's ancient imperial garden, Beihai Park, was told that its lease would not be renewed in 2002 (KFC has operated successful franchises at the Great Wall, and near Mao Zedong's Mausoleum in Tiananmen Square). And in Nanjing, a McDonald's restaurant had opened in the city's newly refurbished Confucian Temple, shocking many visitors who had eagerly awaited the Temple's reopening. In November, 2001, Beijing Review hosted an on-line forum on the Starbucks controversy. Unfortunately, this forum is no longer accessible on-line, but a sample of some of the comments is reproduced below (at the time, the forum was found at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/bjreview/EN/Forum/ZM200103-It.htm).

Beijing Review on-line forum on Starbucks in the Forbidden City:
Several comments clearly felt that Starbucks was a threat to China's cultural integrity:

• "A netizen: The Forbidden City is a symbol of China's traditional civilization and its image should not be tarnished even a tiny bit. Opening a café in the royal palace is ridiculous, and it has really damaged the image."
• "Helen and Mike (American tourists): McDonald's restaurants are very cheap fast food eateries in the United States, just like the roadside food stalls here. It's odd to see them in tourist attractions with a strong Chinese cultural flavor. This would never happen in the United States."
• Ricky (a French tourist): Everything has a place where it can exist and where it can't. Why isn't there a teahouse in the Forbidden City?

A number of Chinese commentators, on the other hand, did not find the Starbucks to be a problem:

• "Li Li (a tourist from Dalian): The coffee shop is quite small and inconspicuous. I don't think it will affect the overall environment."
• "Wang Xing (a tourist): If there was no people drinking coffee at the door, I wouldn't have recognized that it was a café. It needs a sign."
• A netizen: The United States can tolerate a big China town, why can't the Forbidden City take in one small café? The Forbidden City should be a place that is able to meld a wide range of things. Pu Yi, the last emperor of China, even rode a bicycle in the palace. If there had been a Starbucks at that time, I am sure he would have pedaled there to taste the coffee."

Clearly, the controversy sparked a range of opinions about the nature of heritage preservation and national identity in the face of globalization. This is also clear from the comment made by officials from the Forbidden City Museum who participated in the on-line forum:

• "Officials from the Forbidden City Museum: Introducing Starbucks into the Forbidden City is in itself an experiment in our drive to improve the environment and service facilities here. All the views we have received on the café are quite helpful for the protection of this biggest and most intact ancient architectural compound in China. We have decided to add this coffee shop mainly because there is virtually no supply of drinks all the way from Tian'anmen Gate to the three major halls. The fact that the Starbucks café has been enjoying good business shows that there is a strong demand for such a service. The chamber where the café is located lacks significant cultural value and has been a shop for a long time. In 2000, it was transformed into a curio store, selling calligraphy, paintings and duplications of antiques. We decided to set aside a corner in the store to sell drinks to tourists. After contacting several cafés, we finally chose Starbucks given its good prestige and reputation. We told Starbucks explicitly that this café should not be furnished the same way as its other shops and the chamber's exterior should not be altered at all. Therefore, Starbucks merely put up outside the chamber a 50-cm logo, which was recently removed. The coffee shop that has attracted so much attention is actually merely two coffee tables and six chairs at the western end of a 200-square-meter curio shop."

This comment seems to suggest an interesting outcome of globalization: globalization compels people to become more aware of their own cultural heritage. Thus, the Forbidden City officials put a positive spin on the controversy by claiming that the contending views "are quite helpful for the protection of this biggest and most intact ancient architecture compound in China."

As the People's Daily article points out, the Forbidden City was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1987, making it one of the first sites in the world to be recognized as such.

• See the World Heritage list and learn about the World Heritage campaign. In the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the idea of "world heritage" is defined in the following way: "countries recognize that the sites located on their national territory, and which have been inscribed on the World Heritage List, without prejudice to national sovereignty or ownership, constitute a world heritage 'for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate'."

In these terms, the Forbidden City's protection is the responsibility of not just China, but the international community as a whole.

• Do you think that globalization can also entail not simply the increased trade and linkages which bring Starbucks to the Forbidden City, but also new ideas about "global heritage" (as opposed to, say, national heritage)?
• Do people around the world have a responsibility toward protecting heritage sites that aren't part of their own cultural or national identity?
• Does the idea of world heritage help sort out the Starbucks controversy? Who gets to decide whether or not the Forbidden City's Starbucks café threatens the heritage of China and the world? When thinking about this question, recall the various opinions expressed in the Beijing Review on-line forum.
• It may also be useful, when considering these questions, to imagine an equivalent situation here in the United States. Both the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall in Philadelphia are inscribed on the World Heritage List. Imagine if a Chinese restaurant and tea-house opened in either of these places? It might help spur your imagination if you sit down and write an imaginary newspaper article about the ensuing controversy. Even more fun might be to write the newspaper article as if you were a report from China's People's Daily. What would a Chinese newspaper make of such a controversy?

Finally, you may want to visit the Starbucks home page. There you will find statements and information regarding the company's claims of social responsibility, and its policies for international franchises.

Since the controversy over Starbucks, cultural unease over the dominance of foreign corporations in China has continued, particularly as China contemplates the further opening of its borders to the global marketplace under the auspices of the World Trade Organization. In February, 2002, for instance, the city of Beijing ordered 30 large McDonald's "Golden Arches" signs to be taken down, claiming they were an "eyesore". The city claimed, perhaps ironically, that the signs were in violation of new guidelines established for the preparation of the 2008 Olympics.

And the discussion and debate over Starbucks in the Forbidden City. Read, for example, blog posted by P.S. Babcock in July, 2004, in which he vigorously defends the presence of Starbucks in China's Imperial Palace.