More than half a million Chinese internet users have rushed to agree with Rui Chenggang, who sparked the nationwide controversy with his blog entry "Why Starbucks needs to get out of the Forbidden City”, posted on January 12.

Mr Rui wrote that a Starbucks was obscenely out of place among the 178-acre (71-hectare) complex of throne rooms, pavilions and gardens that was home to 24 emperors before the end of imperial rule in 1911. “This is not globalisation but an erosion of Chinese culture,” said Mr Rui, who is an anchorman on CCTV9, an English-language state television channel. Now China’s cultural mandarins are considering closing the coffee shop.

The majority of respondents agreed with Mr Rui’s view that a foreign café was inappropriate inside a 15th-century building that is a symbol of Chinese civilisation. Some attacked its presence as a disgrace while others criticised the Palace Museum, that administers the Forbidden City, as a “slave of money”.

At first the museum defended the coffee shop, saying that it had done no damage and blended in well with its surroundings. “We allowed it because we wanted to have a more international service available,” it said. Nearly
9 million visitors tramped through the sprawling palace last year, including 1.6 million foreigners. But yesterday it appeared ready to bow to the weight of public opinion. Feng Nai’en, a museum spokesman, said: “The museum is working with Starbucks to find a solution by June in response to the protests. Whether or not Starbucks remains depends on the entire design plan that will be released in the first half of the year.”

The Forbidden City branch is extremely low-key, occupying barely
20sq m. It occupies a small corner of a giftshop that visitors come upon only if they seek it out, about halfway through their tour of imperial pavilions. Many Chinese coffee shops and snack bars are also scattered around the Forbidden City and about a third have already been ordered to move out in a reorganisation of services.

Mr Rui told The Times that he was astonished at the response to his blog and at the power of the internet. “I’m not attacking Starbucks. It’s not that. Personally, I welcome Starbucks to China and hope they will be successful, but I just think it’s not proper to open a Starbucks in the Forbidden City.” He cited the hostility to Starbucks when it first opened in Britain and France and said that in China all foreign brands should be welcome if consumers liked them. “But there should be a limit to protect our cultural traditions.”

The Starbucks outlet opened in 2000 amid a media furore so severe that the museum authorities considered revoking its lease after a couple of months. The company has no plan to leave the site, Eden Woon, Starbucks vice-president for Greater China, said: “Starbucks appreciates the deep history and culture of the Forbidden City and has operated in a respectful manner that fits within the environment. We have provided a welcome place of rest for thousands of tourists, both Chinese and foreign, for more than six years.”

Responses to Mr Rui’s blog varied from complete support to disagreement. One commentator, SJ, wrote: “Cultures can be exchanged but not everything can become mixed up or the flavour just becomes weird.” Another respondent, Taoye, said: “The Forbidden City tries a lot to serve foreigners. When will the Chinese Government try equally hard to serve its own people?” But Yaya commented: “This is sheer nationalism. Can you stop linking Starbucks with Chinese culture and foreign money? It’s just a cup of coffee. As simple as that.”

Times Recommends

• Anti-Iran wave sweeps Iraq over disputed oil well
• Comic strip promises young Kenyans fresh outlook
• ‘Ceausescu looked in my eyes, and he knew that he was going to die’