The continuing disaster aid crisis in Puerto Rico, explained

The House passed an earthquake relief bill that has yet to be taken up by the Senate. Meanwhile, hundreds wait in tents for aid.

By Catherine Kimcatkim0525@gmail.com Feb 24, 2020

A man rides his bicycle pass by a collapsed house in Guanica, Puerto Rico, on January 15, 2020, after a powerful earthquake hit the island. Ricardo Arduengo/AFP/Getty Images


GUÁNICA, Puerto Rico — Puerto Ricans are still living in tents more than a month after earthquakes hit the southern part of the island on January 7, damaging more than 800 homes.

The earthquakes were devastating for an island still working to rebuild from the damage caused when Hurricane Maria hit in 2017. Earthquake recovery efforts have been slow, frustrating many. To try to speed things up, the House of Representatives passed an emergency aid bill in early February — a bill the Senate does not seem likely to take up.

In part, the bill provides block grants dedicated to reconstruction; without these funds, the southern part of the island faces major delays in long-term recovery. Homes that have crumbled from the quakes will remain piles of debris, and Puerto Ricans will be forced to remain in tent shelters with minimal resources and access to health care.

These tent shelters, which were intended to be temporary, were set up by the Puerto Rican government after a 6.4 magnitude earthquake hit the island, an earthquake that was followed by a series of aftershocks — including a 5.9 magnitude quake just four days after. And the shelters, and those who live in them, remain at the mercy of more difficult to predict quakes: Even now, earthquakes of at least a 3 magnitude continue to shake the shorelines of Puerto Rico daily.

The situation is untenable, which is why the House bill was initially a source of hope for those looking to the federal government for aid. But it now appears no such aid is immediately forthcoming, and Puerto Ricans affected by the earthquakes — lacking a say in federal policy as residents of a US territory — find themselves with little recourse.
Why the House’s Puerto Rico aid bill has stalled in the Senate, briefly explained


The House bill, which passed 237-161 on February 7, allocates $4.7 billion for disaster recovery: $3.26 billion would go toward community development block grants to help long-term reconstruction; $1.25 billion to restore infrastructure; $100 million to restart school operations; $40 million to disaster nutrition assistance; and about $20 million to assist with energy needs. The bill also contains tax breaks to help the island that is struggling with more than $70 billion in debt.

These are all hefty financial promises, considering that only about $1.5 billion of the $20 billion in aid for Hurricane Maria had been released by the end of 2019.

“Our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico need our help,” said House Appropriations Committee Chair Nita Lowey ahead of a vote on the bill. “Unless we step up to the plate right now, we further jeopardize their safety and security. With this bill, we can provide families and communities swift relief and put Puerto Rico on the path to long-term recovery.”

Father Melvin Diaz Aponte inspects the damage to his church in Guayanilla, Puerto Rico, following January’s 6.4 magnitude earthquake. Eric Rojas/Getty Images

Despite the bill’s passage in the House, it’s unlikely the Senate will take it up, several senators told Vox.

Many cite concerns about Puerto Rico that mirror those held by the White House, namely, that Puerto Rico has a history of corruption and mismanagement. And while the fairness of that characterization is easily debatable, it is true that some of the island’s officials have been accused of mismanaging resources: Several cabinet members, for example, were fired by the governor after a warehouse full of supplies for Hurricane Maria was found untouched in January.


“Puerto Rico has a long history of inadequate financial controls over regular government operations, which forced the Congress to appoint a financial control board in 2016,” a spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget said in early February. “Multiple high-profile cases of corruption have marred distribution of aid already appropriated and have led to ongoing political instability on the island.”

This stance led the White House to say President Donald Trump would veto the House bill if it were to pass in the Senate.

Despite this, there are some senators who have signaled a willingness to pass aid legislation. Most recently, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) announced he’d spearhead a new, bipartisan aid bill — although it remains unclear what it will look like or how it will be different from the House version.

#PuertoRico needs more help after the recent earthquakes added to its already existing challenges.

From my role on the Senate Appropriations Committee we will work on an aid plan that can pass in both the Senate & the House & be signed by the President.— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 10, 2020

“I hope the Senate will do its own disaster relief for Puerto Rico,” Rubio wrote in a statement to Vox. “I’ve already talked with Chairman Shelby, who is the chairman of the spending committee. He agrees we want to do something here. We’re going to be working on coming up with a spending plan for Puerto Rico aid that can pass the House, pass the Senate, and the President will sign.”

The question, however, is whether there is any bill the president would sign.
Earthquake victims’ quality of life is harmed by the aid delay

Another White House criticism of the House legislation is that it was passed too quickly. The reality, however, is that the people affected by the earthquakes have already been waiting too long for adequate aid, Helga Maldonado, regional director of Escape — a nonprofit organization that works to prevent child and domestic abuse in Puerto Rico — told Vox.

Maldonado and Escape have been working on the ground to provide food, sanitary supplies, and psychological support to earthquake areas. Increasingly, the burden of recovery has fallen on the shoulders of citizens like Maldonado as Puerto Ricans wait for more substantial federal aid than they have received so far.

Here in the city of Guánica, the epicenter of the earthquakes, at least 350 people have been living in tents provided by the government for the past month. Inside the white tents that flap in the wind, people sleep on cots and store their few belongings in plastic boxes. A single medical tent is stationed at the entrance of the shelter, with a handful of quarantine tents lined up next to it. Religious groups and nonprofits regularly set up tents on the edge of the encampment, providing over-the-counter medicine, sanitary products, water, and other necessities. 

Puerto Ricans rest in a tent shelter in a baseball stadium parking lot in Yauco, Puerto Rico, waiting on aid after a powerful earthquake hit the island. Ricardo Arduengo/AFP/Getty Images

FEMA has provided some aid to those affected by the earthquakes: As of January 16, the agency granted 7,573 applications and approved about $17 million for individual and household assistance programs. In a statement to Vox, FEMA also noted that each individual received an average amount of about $2,290.

Maldonado, however, tells a different story. So far, she said she’s seen most FEMA grant recipients receive between $500 to $600 — nowhere near enough money to rebuild a house. Those who feel they should have received more can file an appeal, but to do so, they have to pay a structural engineer out-of-pocket to check the state of their homes — a service that could cost up to $1,500.

And while Congress delays on providing additional aid to Puerto Rico, the people in these shelters simply spend their time waiting, including 49-year-old fisher Marcos A. Villa Lassala.

He’s said he’s trying to be patient, but he never anticipated living in a tent for this long. He wears a wristband that indicates his house has experienced some damage (green means little to no damage, yellow means mild damage, and red means unlivable conditions), and says the walls in his house are cracked and the balcony fell. Engineers sent by the government told him that his house was safe to live in, but given the structural damage the building suffered, he strongly doubts the evaluation.

“I thought I was going to receive help a lot quicker,” he said. “And even when I do receive any sort of financial help, I have to be slow to rebuild because I have to make sure that all the quakes are over and done with because there’s no point in building a home if it’s just going to come right back down.”

Though he finished filing paperwork right after the first waves of earthquakes, he’s yet to receive money from FEMA — and anticipates that a $500 check won’t be nearly enough to begin repairs. Although he understands bureaucracy is delaying the government’s response, he said he wished the aid process “was based on the people and what the people need.”

When the government fails, it’s the community that has to step up

The people of Puerto Rico are no strangers to the government’s delay in helping post-natural disasters. Following Hurricane Maria, some communities were left without electricity for almost a year because a long-neglected power grid took a particularly hard blow.

And the island has only recently received more than a small fraction of the $20 billion approved by Congress for long-term Maria recovery. (The Department of Housing and Urban Development finally lifted an $8 billion hold on disaster aid last month.)

That delay has meant delays in rebuilding. For instance, more than 850,000 households experienced damage to their home structure due to Maria — and about 30,000 families still live under makeshift blue tarp roofs two years after the hurricane.

The delays in Hurricane Maria aid meant community organizers knew that they had to prepare for future disasters, Maldonado said. Escape was ready when the earthquakes hit: following Hurricane Maria, the organization steadily began to collect canned goods in a warehouse, preparing a makeshift food pantry.

Preparations like these meant that when the earthquakes came, those in need could immediately receive the sort of aid seen in the viral videos of ordinary Puerto Ricans driving to the southern part of the island to deliver supplies such as food and water.

This day was dominated by Samaritans who gathered supplies, left their homes and headed into the earthquake affected zones to hand out what they could. We saw them everywhere along the southwestern coast. pic.twitter.com/6MGYumlMjb— David Begnaud (@DavidBegnaud) January 12, 2020

But while the people may have learned from the tragedies of 2017, Maldonado said the government has failed to learn from its mistakes.

“It’s frustrating because the response didn’t change,” she said. “You think that it’s the logical [response] to start preparing themselves for something else seeing that they weren’t able to respond to Maria, but it’s really sad to see that the government has been benefiting from this state of emergency. They’re filling up their pockets and in a way dancing on the pain of other people.”

The unity among Puerto Ricans is inspiring — but equally frustrating — because this responsibility shouldn’t lie on the shoulders of ordinary citizens, according to Patricia Matos López, a community organizer with the group Bici-Caño.

“The government always tells the people ‘We are going to help you, give you the funds,’ but it never comes,” she said. “You need to move, contact organizations and get the help to the people. Be real — not for the money, not for the votes. Be real and give us the help we need.”  

A man in Guánica crosses a field of rubble created by a building torn apart by January’s 6.4 magnitude earthquake. Alejandro Granadillo/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Internal reports from FEMA reveal that the agency acknowledges it failed the people of Puerto Rico, especially after Hurricane Maria. According to one report, FEMA emergency-supply warehouses around the island were nearly empty prior to the hurricane, and the agency had not held a disaster planning assessment since 2012.

This time around, FEMA has said it has learned from the mistakes of the past and “remains committed to supporting the government of Puerto Rico with its ongoing recovery efforts from Hurricanes Irma and Maria and to helping people before, during and after disasters.”

Activists, however, say that more needs to be done — especially because an unfair mental burden falls upon organizers, who are often also victims of the natural disasters, when the agency fails.

Maldonado said she’s personally had to deal with the layers of trauma caused by both being victim and a caretaker of others. Although her house survived the earthquake, she said she was disheartened to see the destroyed buildings in her town of Yauco. She told Vox she hasn’t been able to personally visit the tent shelters in Yauco yet because she’s not mentally or physically ready, but she’s taking “baby steps” to prepare herself.

Maldonado, however, said she and other community organizers will continue their work because the government has given her no other choice, adding that Hurricane Maria and the recent earthquakes have made it clear that people in the community can only count on each other.

---30---

Earthquake experts lay out latest outlook for the ‘Really Big One’ that’ll hit Seattle

BY ALAN BOYLE on February 15, 2020 

A color-coded computer simulation from 2016 shows how researchers think tsunami waves propagated from a magnitude-9 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake in the year 1700. Scientists believe such quakes occur every 500 years or so on average. (NOAA / Pacific Tsunami Warning Center)

Earthquake experts say current building codes don’t reflect the riskiest features of the Seattle area’s geology — but the outlook for survivability looks a lot better if the Really Big One can just hold off for a few more years.

That’s the bottom line from a session focusing on Seattle’s seismic hazards, presented at ground zero today during the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting. The session — titled “Is the Coast Toast?” — followed up on a 2015 New Yorker article that painted a grim picture of the possibilities, based on studies of the Pacific Northwest’s Cascadia subduction zone.

The Cascadia subduction zone, centered along a submarine fault just off the West Coast, is known to be capable of generating magnitude-9 quakes, based on the geological and historical evidence for a massive tsunami that reached Japan in 1700.

Seismologists estimate that such quakes and tsunami waves occur roughly every 500 years on average. “We say that there’s approximately a 14% chance of another approximately magnitude-9 earthquake occurring in the next 50 years,” said Erin Wirth, a geophysicist at the University of Washington and the U.S. Geological Survey.

To assess the potential effects of a Cascadia mega-quake, Wirth and other researchers are conducting a six-year, $3 million study known as the M9 Project.

One of the project’s experiments involved running 50 simulations of Cascadia quakes under a variety of conditions. The researchers found wide variation in the effects, depending on whether the undersea fault ruptured in a direction pointing away from Seattle (which would be good) or toward the city (which would be bad).

Another issue has to do with the fact that Seattle is built atop a sedimentary basin with relatively soft soil, which would amplify the strength of a seismic shock.

“A good analogy is, this is like a bowl of Jell-O,” Wirth said. “If you have a bowl of Jell-O, or a Jell-O mold on top of a plate, and you shake that plate, the Jell-O is so weak it’s going to move much more than the plate that you’re shaking. That’s kind of what’s happening here.”


And as if that weren’t bad enough, the Cascadia fault is so extended that the resulting quake is expected to last for about 100 seconds. That’s significantly longer than the duration of a typical California earthquake, and that adds to the bad news, said UW engineering professor Jeffrey Berman.

“Our building code is all built on the California experience, because that’s where we’ve had a lot of earthquakes and a lot of building and infrastructure damage,” Berman said. “So we haven’t really incorporated long-duration effects in building codes that are in use in the U.S., because we haven’t really had long-duration earthquakes. … We’re hoping that our work will actually go to change that.”

Earlier analyses of earthquake effects pegged the risk of collapse for buildings up to 20 stories tall at less than 10%. The M9 Project’s updated analysis, which takes account of longer-duration quakes as well as the Seattle area’s sedimentary basin amplification effect, would raise that projected risk to somewhere between 20% and 50% depending on building height and the standards followed for construction.

The good news is that building codes are due to be strengthened nationwide.

“They’re national codes,” Berman explained. “They have to go through a pretty intense vetting process, and they get adopted by local jurisdictions and modified. That process just takes time. This research will appear, but it won’t appear until 2023, likely. Now the city is holding some discussions on what to do, given our findings. It should be doing things ahead of that time, but that would be outside the national building code process.”

In reply to questions about where he’d rather be during a mega-quake, Berman noted that low-rise buildings in Seattle — say, up to three stories tall — would “do relatively well” in the event of a magnitude-9 quake. And when it comes to higher-rise buildings, the risk is lower for structures built after the mid-1980s.

“There was a really big transition that followed a couple of bigger earthquakes in California, and there were really big changes in the building code,” Berman explained. “So I think that’s what I would look at first: to stay out of buildings that were built before 1984 or so.”

That being said, Berman advised against obsessing over the Really Big One.

“You know, life is full of risks,” he said. “The risk of dying in a building in a earthquake in Seattle is less than [the risk of] dying in a car, if you get in a car and drive on I-5 today, right? It’s about learning and doing better as we move on, not necessarily being paralyzed.”

The loneliness of Elizabeth Warren: 'I feel like I'm living in a movie'

Alex Seitz-Wald and Ali Vitali

Elizabeth Warren was hiking on the Pacific Crest Trail in central Washington with her husband last fall and texting nature photos back and forth with Jay Inslee, the state's governor, who at that moment happened to be hiking in the San Juan Islands with his wife.

© Daniel Acke Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Iowa

Inslee had recently dropped out of the 2020 presidential race, while Warren was fresh off a sizable rally under Seattle's Space Needle, making them a part of a very small club of people on planet Earth who know what it's like to be put through the peculiar wringer of trying to become the leader of the free world. So they got lunch and talked about climate policy.


"It's a very personal experience to run. Running for president can be thrilling but also very lonely," Warren told NBC News in a recent interview.

"The candidate stands alone," she added, opening up about the experience of running. "Everyone else, they have good advice, you know, plenty of people around. But it's the candidate who's got to go out onstage. It's the candidate who has to make the final decision and stand by the fallout. And that makes it really tough."

Warren, a consummate call-everyone-she's-ever-known-on-their-birthday type, is hoping to get through the rigors of a presidential campaign and back atop the field with a little help from her former rivals-turned-friends.

"With everyone who's dropped out that I've spoken with — which I think is close to 100 percent of them — it's been in part to thank them for running and to say, as only another candidate can, I know it's hard," she added.

On the campaign trail, Warren goes out of her way to mention incorporating the signature policy issues of "Cory" (Booker) or "Julián" (Castro). It's a nod to the people she sees less often these days, but it's also a tactic to bolster her pitch that she can build coalitions from the constituencies of the candidates who've dropped out while also drawing a subtle contrast with front-runner Bernie Sanders' more strident brand of progressivism.

Sanders says he has little tolerance for what he sees as frivolous pleasantries. "If you have your birthday, I'm not going to call you up to congratulate you," he told The New York Times editorial board.

And while it's common for candidates to reach out to opponents who drop out and offer gracious platitudes, Warren's conversations with some former candidates have gone deeper.

Former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland sparred frequently with Warren over health care before he dropped out days before the Iowa caucuses. One debate back-and-forth between the two even got so tense that Delaney's "cause of death" on Wikipedia was changed to "Senator Elizabeth Warren." Still, when he dropped out, his phone was ringing — from everyone, but memorably from Warren.

"Everyone was very nice. It was just that the call with her was quite lengthy and quite in-depth," he said. "That demonstrated to me that she has a trait that you don't always find in politicians, which is that she's not entirely self-absorbed. She actually listens."

An aide to another Democratic politician called the approach "micro-touches," using the parlance of the sales world, which has long been part of Warren's modus operandi.

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

Running for president is weird. You're everywhere and nowhere all at once, smashing through time zones and news cycles with little sleep and less privacy. Almost every interaction with another human comes freighted with the possibility and peril of becoming a viral moment.

"I feel like I'm living in a movie that is running at high speed with everything coming by so quickly," Warren said.

The people who understand this best, of course, are the other candidates. But there's not much time nor trust on the campaign trail to sit down and commiserate over a beer with someone you're trying to defeat.

Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York are part of the even smaller club-within-a-club who know what it's like to run as a woman.

"Kamala and Kirsten, in particular, ask me am I getting rest? Am I eating? And am I having some fun out there?" Warren said.

But she's also gotten mathy with Andrew Yang, with whom she says he has a running joke about using some of the same data sources in their writing (she said she was impressed with his book).

It's part of a rhetorical effort to pitch herself as the only candidate who can bring together all of the Democratic Party. It was once seen as a "unity pitch," but Warren's allies and aides now talk about it as a push for coalition building, one bolstered by Warren's frequent warnings about returning to the "factionalism of 2016."
The race to see who will be the next President of the United States is well underway. Here's a look at the steps along the way that lead to Election Day on Nov. 3, 2020.

Slideshow by photo services

Warren has back-burnered the unity pitch after disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire in favor of hammering Mike Bloomberg at the last debate, which earned rave reviews and an influx of campaign cash but didn't lead to a win in Nevada. She'll have another shot at Bloomberg in Tuesday's debate in Charleston, South Carolina, but she was never expected to do particularly well in Saturday's South Carolina primary, although she can hope for better on Super Tuesday, March 3.

Warren in particular singled out Castro, who endorsed her and has become her chief surrogate since he ended his own campaign. They've known each other since the Obama era, when they'd have lunch and she would skip the small talk to push Castro, who was running the Department of Housing and Urban Development, on what she thought he could be doing differently. "Push harder, harder, harder," she told him.

Warren will need a lot more help to regain a clear path to the nomination and, despite the outreach, has received the endorsement of only one former candidate, Castro, while Sanders has those of two (New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Marianne Williamson), as does former Vice President Joe Biden (Reps. Tim Ryan of Ohio and Seth Moulton of Massachusetts).

But she takes joy in little moments, like when people on her staff noticed that a recently hired former aide to Harris still had a "Kamala" sticker on the back of her phone. "Someone laughed and said, 'You're supposed to replace that with a Warren sticker.' And my view was, no, it's OK. It is a part of the energy that they bring to our team," Warren said.

She sees a lot of phones in the hours of selfies she takes on the campaign trail with supporters, which she says both keep her grounded and are difficult, because people share their personal struggles and appeal for help.

Did she expect that when she thought about running for president?

"It has been better and worse than I thought it would be, simultaneously," Warren said.

Who caused the opium war? British merchants of Canton, argues new book by Singapore academic


A faction of merchants known as the ‘Warlike party’, not colonialist British policy or Qing dynasty intransigence, cause conflict that forced emperor to cede Hong Kong and open doors wider to trade, Song-Chuan Chen writes

Peter Neville-Hadley Published:12 Jun, 2017

A 19th century painting of Canton harbour and factories.

A faction of British merchants there orchestrated the first opium war, 

a new book argues.


Merchants of War of Peace: British Knowledge of China in the Making of the Opium War
by Song-Chuan ChenHong Kong University Press
3.5 stars

The cover of Song-Chuan Chen’s book.


Until the mid-19th century, European ideas of China came largely from the exaggerated reports of Jesuit missionaries written hundreds of years earlier and from Marco Polo’s mostly fanciful account of his travels in the 13th century.

Both parties had self-promotion in mind, Polo aiming for reflected glory by describing an empire of marvels where he claimed to have held high office, and the Jesuits seeking continued support for their mission by describing a bountiful land where a philosopher king and an administration of literati ruled a vast population ripe for conversion.

How China played a part in the birth of globalisation in the 16th century
13 Jan 2017

But from the 1830s, a new and supposedly authoritative source of information about China emerged in the form of British merchants who were trading in Canton (Guangzhou). From one frustrated faction in particular came a competing view of a backward, ill-governed China, contemptuous of foreigners, willing to offer insult to British honour, and resistant to the great British crusade for free trade despite the cost to ordinary citizens keen to engage in it.

William John Huggins’ 1824 painting The Opium Ships at Lintin (present-day Neilingding Island).

In Merchants of War and Peace, a new history of the events leading up to the opium war of 1839–42, Professor Song-Chuan Chen of Singapore’s Nanyang Technical University offers a new alternative. He ascribes responsibility for the war not to commonplace culprits such as colonialist British foreign policy or Qing dynasty intransigence, but specifically to a coterie of British merchants who came to be known as the “Warlike party”.

During the reign of the Kangxi emperor (1654–1722), European merchants were welcomed with gifts, but by the reign of the Qianlong emperor (1735–96) the mood had changed. The Qing emperors, aliens from beyond the Great Wall to China’s northeast, were sensitive to their outsider status and knew that several previous dynasties had been overthrown by peasant uprisings. Like today’s emperors, they feared the collusion of “hostile foreign forces” with domestic discontent.

A painting of the Kangxi emperor, who welcomed foreign merchants.

The result was the 1757 decision that all foreign trade should be restricted to one port. The merchants and officials in Canton who lobbied for a monopoly used arguments about Qing security to win the argument.

Just as the British merchants controlled the information about China that reached London, so the Chinese merchants in turn controlled the Qing’s understanding of foreigners. The end result was that a troubled British government in danger of losing a vote of confidence was goaded into a war in which it had little conviction, and the Qing learned too late that the 19th century’s superpower was Britain, not China.

Book review: Opium and Empire, by Richard J. Grace
11 Oct 2014

The foreign merchants chafed against high port taxes, pay-offs to innumerable officials, and duties on personal items brought in to China. But as Professor Chen points out: “Officials involved themselves very little in the trade, and neither did they regulate the market. At most, they forbade the exporting of gold and silver, limited the amount of silk foreigners could buy, and banned the import of opium.”

Even these prohibitions were never properly implemented. The merchants’ present-day counterparts would tell them they never had it so good.

Occasional moments of dryness and repetition in Chen’s otherwise lucid narrative are relieved by lively language quoted from struggles in the pages of the Warlike party’s Canton Register and the Pacific party’s Canton Press.

A painting of the Qianlong emperor, under whose rule attitudes towards European merchants changed.

The Pacific party’s morally righteous anti-war view was that China might set what laws on trade it pleased, although this was coupled with the more self-interested observation that conflict always harmed trade. “Deceive ourselves as we please, we are smugglers,” wrote one anonymous contributor to the Canton Press in October 1835.

Abstruse debates about the meaning of yí, used to denote the British in Chinese official correspondence, provided almost comical examples of Old China Hand oneupmanship. Did it mean “foreigners”, “tribes from the east” or “barbarians”? The latter interpretation was favoured by those determined to find insults to British honour as an excuse for military intervention to increase trade.

In remarkably erudite exchanges, foreigners quoted Confucius, Mencius, official documents, and the 11th-century poet Su Shi on one side of the case or the other. But in the end the Warlike party won, its petitioners selling the British government of the day a narrative of wounded honour and national interest which disguised their own commercial imperative.

Life in a Chinese treaty port: Eurasian traces great-grandparents’ journey from London slum to Hong Kong and beyond
10 Apr 2017


It also provided a successful plan for the conduct of the war based on intelligence gathered during trading trips, thus proving that the Qing had been quite justified to restrict them in the first place.

The merchants of the recently dubbed “nation of shopkeepers” won all their demands: open ports, the right to year-round residence in them, and more.

But it was the British press that coined the now time-honoured but misleading title of “opium war”, and it wasn’t until after further conflict that yí was finally forbidden in official correspondence.

As Merchants of War and Peace shows us, the war of words is still going on.





Peter Neville-Hadley
Former China resident Peter Neville-Hadley is the author of multiple guides and reference works on China, and writes on Chinese culture and on cultural travel in general for assorted periodicals. His work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The Sunday Times (UK), and numerous other newspapers and magazines around the world.

The Opium war (or how Hong Kong began)

The first Opium war left an indelible scar on China. The mainland lost Hong Kong and was forced to open up trade to foreigners.

In the 18th century, foreign trade with China was limited to Canton, modern-day Guangzhou. Foreigners were confined to towns outside of Canton, known as the '13 Factories', or Hongs (not really factories). British trade was run by the East India Trading Company; Chinese trade was dominated by the Hongs.

Here is a timeline of what happened:

1820 - Import of opium begins in earnest

China is willing to provide Britain with tea and other luxury goods, but is unwilling to accept anything but silver as payment. The British have to import silver from Europe or Mexico. They run into a trade deficit and seek ways to counter-trade. They find a solution in an Indian narcotic: opium. In the next few years, the amount of opium imported to China increases dramatically. Tensions arise because, in China, opium can only be used as a medicine. It has been banned as a recreational drug for more than 100 years.

April 1839 - Lin Zexu is sent to Canton and 20,000 chests of opium are burnt
Emperor Daoguang sends government official Lin Zexu to Canton. He has already cracked down on the use of opium in Hubei and now focuses on Canton. Lin asks the British to surrender all their opium and sign an agreement to stop trading in the drug. Charles Elliot, the British superintendent of trade, agrees and promises the merchants they will be compensated by the British government. But he has no authority to sign the bond, and he wants the British to be allowed to trade along the eastern coast of China and not be confined to Canton. He threatens to stop trade until a compromise is reached. But some traders who are not dealing in opium sign the deal.



July 1839 - The Kowloon Incident
A crew of American and British sailors arrives in Kowloon in search of provisions. They get drunk on rice wine and kill a man. Lin demands that the sailors be tried in a Chinese court, citing a Swiss law that gave them jurisdiction over all foreigners. Elliot refuses and delays their sentencing, eventually giving them prison terms that were never to be met. Tensions increase.



1839 - The first shots
One British merchant ship that has lost faith in Elliot ignores the ban. Elliot blockades the Pearl River. A second ship tries to run the blockade. British ships chase after it and fire the first shots of what will become the Opium war. The Chinese navy tries to protect the merchant ship, which is not trading in opium, and a battle ensues. The Chinese suffer many losses; the British only one injury. This is the first battle of Chuenpee.


April 1840 - Motion to go to war passed
The British government, after much delay and debate, narrowly passes a motion for war against China. The war is funded by the government and seeks to force China to open up trade along the eastern coast.


Summer 1840 - The occupation of Zhoushan and first talks of Hong Kong's cession
British forces gather off the coast of Macau with Elliot and his cousin, George Elliot, in charge. The British occupy Zhoushan and its principal town Dinghai, fighting almost unopposed. Meanwhile, Lin has fallen from the emperor's favour.


January 1841 - Negotiations
Second battle of Cheunpee happens on January 17. Lin has been replaced with Imperial Commissioner Qishan who is eager to negotiate with the British. Elliot asks for seven million dollars over six years and several inland ports. Qishan agrees to give the British six million over 12 years, but rejects the possibility of inland ports. The British prepare for battle and Qishan reconsiders. They finally agree to the Treaty of Chuanbi which cedes Hong Kong Island and six million dollars to the British. This treaty is rejected by both governments. Fighting resumes along the eastern shore.


Summer 1842 - The Treaty of Nanking
British forces beat the Chinese right up to the Yangtze, and occupy Shanghai. The Chinese suffer many casualties and are forced to surrender. On August 29, the Treaty of Nanking is signed, five ports (Canton, Ziamen, Fuzhou, Ningbo and Shanghai) are opened and Hong Kong is ceded to the British.

CHILD ABUSE
Girl, 11, brings AR-15 to Idaho hearing on gun legislation


By KEITH RIDLER, Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho — An 11-year-old girl toting a loaded AR-15 assault weapon appeared Monday at a legislative hearing with her grandfather, who is supporting a proposal that would allow visitors to Idaho who can legally possess firearms to carry a concealed handgun within city limits. 

© Provided by Associated Press CORRECTS BYLINE TO KEITH RIDLER, NOT KEN RITTER - Charles Nielsen, 58, and his 11-year-old granddaughter, Bailey Nielsen, testify before a House panel at the Idaho Statehouse on Monday. Feb. 24, 2020 in Boise, Idaho. Visitors to Idaho 18 and older who can legally possess firearms would be allowed to carry a concealed handgun within city limits under legislation that headed to the House on Monday, Feb. 24. (AP Photo/Keith Ridler)

Charles Nielsen addressed the committee that voted to send the legislation to the full House as Bailey Nielsen stood at his side with the weapon slung over her right shoulder, but did not say anything.

“Bailey is carrying a loaded AR-15,” Charles Nielsen told lawmakers. “People live in fear, terrified of that which they do not understand. She's been shooting since she was 5 years old. She got her first deer with this weapon at 9. She carries it responsibly. She knows how not to put her finger on the trigger. We live in fear in a society that is fed fear on a daily basis.”

He said Bailey was an example of someone who could responsibly handle a gun, and lawmakers should extend that to non-residents.

“When they come to Idaho, they should be able to carry concealed, because they carry responsibly,” he said. “They're law-abiding citizens. It's the criminal we have to worry about.”

Republican Rep. Christy Zito, who is proposing the measure opposed by the three Democrats on the House State Affairs Committee, said the legislation is intended to clear up confusion about state gun laws. Backers also say it will give people the ability to defend themselves if needed.

Idaho residents 18 and older are allowed to carry a concealed handgun within city limits in Idaho without a permit or training following a new law that went into place last summer. The legislation would extend that to any legal resident of the United States or a U.S. armed services member.

“I stand here before you today as a mother and grandmother who has had to use a firearm to defend their child,” Zito said. She said two men once approached her vehicle with her daughter inside.

“Even though I didn't have to pull the trigger, just the fact that they could see it, and they knew that I had it, was the determining factor,” Zito said.

Opponents say allowing teenagers to carry a concealed weapon without any required training within city limits is a bad idea and could lead to shootings. If the bill becomes law, Idaho would be among a handful of states that allow that type of concealed carry.

Post Magazine / Books
Young American’s first-hand account of second opium war: bloody battles and ‘hospitable’ Chinese

The journals of George Washington (Farley) Heard, who would go on to become chairman of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, reveal what happened when he found himself caught between Anglo-French forces and Chinese defenders in 1859

Gillian Bickley  Published: 19 Apr, 2018




The Toey-Wan during the Second Battle of Taku Forts at the mouth of the Peiho River on June 25, 1859, in a lithograph by T.G. Dutton. Picture: courtesy of George W. H. Cautherley


The second opium war, 1856-60. When in 1856, the 1844 US-China Treaty of Wangxia expired, American envoy to China William Reed set about negotiating new terms of trade, permission for diplomatic residence in Beijing and the extension of religious freedom to Christians.


Following the eventual conclusion of these negotiations, in 1859, his successor, American minister John Ward, embarked in Hong Kong aboard the USS Powhatan destined for Beijing, accompanied by the hired steamer Toey-Wan, on a mission to ratify what had become known as the Treaty of Tientsin (Tianjin).

George Washington (Farley) Heard. Picture: courtesy of Skinner, Inc.

Among those he took with him was George Washington (Farley) Heard. Ward had met Heard, an American of about 22 years of age, en route to Hong Kong from America and, having taken a liking to the young man, asked him to join the American Legation as an attaché.

Heard had been travelling east to join his uncle’s firm, Augustine Heard and Company, one of the two largest American trading companies in China from the 1840s to the 1870s. He would later manage the com­pany in Canton, and serve as the chairman of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation in 1870.

The Opium war (or how Hong Kong began)

At the same time as the American party was setting out from Hong Kong, an Anglo-French naval force began making its way north from Shanghai with newly appointed envoys for embassies in Beijing. But while the Americans – neutrals in the opium wars – were welcome, the British and French were less so.

When, towards the end of June 1859, the British began to remove barricades placed across the Peiho River by the Chinese to arrest their progress towards the capital, they came under attack. The second of three battles for the Taku Forts to take place during the second opium war ensued, an engagement that caused serious loss of British life and vessels, and which the Americans witnessed at close quarters.

Heard provided the following first-hand account of the battle in a journal he kept throughout his time with the legation, and now published by Proverse Hong Kong as Through American Eyes.

The USS Powhatan, circa 1859. Picture: courtesy of Gillian Bickley
USS “Powhatan” off Peiho 27 June 1859


On the 24th June, the “Toey-Wan” having on board Commodore Tattnall, Captain Pearson and a few of the officers of the ship – Mr Ward the Minister and Mr W[ard] his Secretary and the three interpreters, Mr Lurman and myself got under weigh at 8am to endeavour to communicate with the shore and send news of Mr W[ard]’s arrival and demand permission to proceed to Peking, there to ratify the Treaty of Tientsin [Tianjin].

Got over the bar and at 10am we were unfortunate enough, or as it turned out to be, fortunate enough to get hard aground on the mud at the entrance to the Peiho River which extends out at some distance from the shore and is bare at low water. We got on it at low high water and so we were high and dry at low tide.

When in this position the Admiral of the English sent a gunboat “Plover” 86 to our assistance with the exceedingly courteous offer – that if we couldn’t get off, to take the “86” and raise our flag on her and use her entirely as if she was an American ship. Before this, however, the tide had gone down so much it was found impossible to move her and Commodore Tattnall declined the amiable offer of the Admiral thinking he should be able to get off with the next flood.

At 2pm we sent on the barge with the Interpreters and Lieutenant Trenchard to find out whether there was anybody there of sufficient rank to communicate with.

The answer was negative. The party was received at the end of a jetty by about forty men, one of whom was spokesman. He said that there [are] very few men in the forts, no mandarin there even of the sixth rank (white button), that they had received orders from Peking not to allow any vessel to enter the river, and that they should be obliged to fire on anyone endeavouring to pass and break down the barriers.

We managed luckily to get off at about 8.30pm and we anchored outside the English ships, between the “Coromandel” and the junks which contained the English marines and their reserve forces of sailors and troops.

During the night, the first barrier was blown up by the English, who received a shot from the forts.

The barriers appeared to be three in number – the first: Iron stakes of this form connected with heavy chains, which was the one blown up by the English during the night of the 24th; the second barrier was of stakes; and the third, as I learned, was composed of heavy booms and logs chained securely together. Captain Wills swam up to it and found it a hundred and fifty foot wide and very strong. The forts were of this form and arrangement –

A sketch by George Washington (Farley) Heard, circa 1859. Picture: Baker Library, Harvard Business School


– seven in all – see over

Another sketch by Heard to illustrate the formation of the forts, circa 1859. Picture: Baker Library, Harvard Business School

At daylight the following morning the English began disposing of their forces. – Their ships outside the bar were:–

“Chesapeake” “Highflyer” “Magicienne”, “Fury”, “Assistance”, “Cruiser” and “Hesper”. The gunboats inside were:– “Kestrel” 69, “Janus” 76, “Plover” 86, “Banterer” 79, “Opossum” 94, “Forester” 87, “Lee” 82, “Starling” 93. In addition to these forces were the “Nimrod”, “Cormorant”, two large dispatch boats, and the “Coromandel” (the Admiral’s tender which was afterwards used as the Hospital ship).

The French had their gunboat with sixty-four men on board – the “Nosagari” in cooperation with the English forces.

The “Toey-Wan” remained at the same anchorage she had taken during the night. The gunboats all moved in towards the forts about 8am, with the exception of the “Coromandel” and the “Nosagari”. The Admiral Hope had transferred his flag to the “Plover” 86, and we saw him sitting amidships on a coil of rope going in ahead of everybody else. The gunboats soon got in near the forts, where some of them got aground and the rest anchored near them.

All the eight forts opened their fire at nearly the same time and they all seemed to direct their fire on the Admiral’s ship, which they distinguished by his square blue flag. The execution by the heavy guns of the forts was terrible

The “Coromandel” and “Nosagari” went in about noon and took up their position on the extreme left of the squadron, the “Nosagari” being inside of the “Coromandel”.

No movement was made till 2.30pm on either side, when the “Plover”, followed by the “Kestrel” and “Cormorant”, steamed up by the first barrier to the second and commenced pulling up the stakes. One had already been pulled out and the second one loosened when at 2.40pm the middle fort number three fired a heavy gun at the “Plover”. The fire was returned by the “Cormorant” and the cannonading became general throughout the forces on both sides. The forts discharged their guns almost as rapidly as the English and did great execution. All the eight forts opened their fire at nearly the same time and they all seemed to direct their fire on the Admiral’s ship, which they distinguished by his square blue flag.

The execution by the heavy guns of the forts was terrible. The men were twice swept away from their quarters on board the “Plover” and in less than an hour she only had three men left. The Admiral transferred his flag on board the “Opossum” 94 and she was terribly shot. Six men killed outright and many more severely wounded. He then went on board the “Cormorant”, where he remained till night. He himself was severely wounded in the beginning of the action but like a gallant fellow, as he is, refused to be carried below, but remained on deck among his men. The first shot fired from the forts took the head off the Captain of the “Plover” 86. [Rayson] his name was and a fine young sailor, as I ever saw. He came on board the “Toey-Wan” the day previous, when we were aground, to offer his assistance in the name of the Admiral.

Dark legacy of Britain’s opium wars still felt today amid fight against drug addiction and trafficking

We found we were just out of range of shot where we were at anchor and so we remained there. At about 4pm as we were sitting down to dinner, a young fellow from the Admiral’s ship, the “Plover”, at that time, came on board of the “Toey-Wan”, told us the state of the things, and asked us for the Admiral, to assist in towing up the reserve boats of the English. The tide and wind were both against them, and in rowing they would not have been able to reach the scene of battle for a great while. The boats were lying just astern of us and [we?] were hanging on to the junks.

Commodore Tattnall consulted with Mr Ward, and both concluded to do it, thinking it a course which met with their “unqualified approbation”. The Commodore then ordered us to the junks – I mean the US Legation to go to the junks – saying a steamer about to tow up the English boats into the middle of the fire was not the proper place for Mr Ward when the English and French Ministers were both aboard their respective vessels ten miles off.

As the order was peremptory we were obliged to obey and the barge pulled us on board.

They paddled up to the “Cormorant” on the debris of the boat and found the Admiral lying on the deck and heads, arms and legs lying round in every direction, and the decks streaming with blood

The “Toey-Wan” then towed up the boats of the English and anchored herself between the “Nosagari” and the “Coromandel”, both of whom were firing very rapidly. The “Toey-Wan” remained there three-quarters of an hour and while in that position the Commodore went to pay a visit to the Admiral to offer his sympathy to a wounded brother officer, who was severely wounded and who was suffering a mortifying defeat. He pulled up in the middle of one of the hottest fires that ever came from the forts, and when nearly alongside of the “Cormorant”, the ship on which the Admiral was at the time, a shot struck his boat, knocking the stern sheets out of it, throwing the Commodore and Lieutenant Trenchard out of their seats and killing the coxswain. They paddled up to the “Cormorant” on the debris of the boat and found the Admiral lying on the deck and heads, arms and legs lying round in every direction, and the decks streaming with blood.

While the Commodore was on board, a lieutenant was brought up dead and laid on deck and two men were struck down at a gun. An English boat came alongside at this time and the officer in charge offered to take the Commodore and his barge’s crew back to the “Toey-Wan”. Three of the barge’s crew could not be found in the excitement: they came back to the “Toey-Wan” in the middle of the night, and when asked where they had been they replied that –

“They found themselves in the way and they thought their only way to get out of the way was to go to the guns”.

The Toey-Wan during the Second Battle of Taku Forts at the mouth of the Peiho River on June 25, 1859, in a lithograph by T.G. Dutton. Picture: courtesy of George W. H. Cautherley

By this time the fire from the forts had slackened considerably and the English determined to bring out all their boats, land a storming party, and endeavour to carry them. For this purpose two gunboats, the “Opossum” and another came out of the fire as did the “Toey-Wan” for the rest of the boats.

Mr Ward determined to remain no longer on the junk but get back to the “Toey-Wan” and go in to danger with her, and of course we (i.e. young Ward, Lurman and me) determined to go too. Mr Ward went to the “Toey-Wan” in the boat of Captain Wills of the “Chesapeake”. The Interpreters remained on the junks. Young W[ard], Lurman and myself all got on the “Opossum” at first, but afterwards went to the “Toey-Wan” in a boat sent for us.

We had about a hundred marines on board the “Toey-Wan”.

As we approached the forts, the firing did not seem to increase, and nearly everybody seemed to think an easy victory would be gained by the stormers.

The boats all collected within the lee of the ships and giving three cheers pulled in to land.

Who caused the opium war? British merchants of Canton, argues new book by Singapore academic

Then it seemed as if a flame burst out all over the eight forts, so rapid was the fire, and such execution it made. We could see the shot strike in and around the boats in every direction, and every shot took effect. Whole rows of poor fellows were mowed down at a time. One boat was cut in two by a shot and many men killed in her and the rest were picked up by the other boats.

The “Nimrod” and the gunboats were firing shot and shell, and rockets to protect the stormers and cover their landing. The red sun was just going down behind the middle fort, as they landed, and it was a wild-looking sight. The whistling of the small balls, the fierce roar of the heavy ones, and the bursting of the shell and rockets made the little “Toey-Wan” tremble all over. A great many shots struck all about the “Toey” but not one hit the boat itself. One shot passed between the awning and the deck between Mr Ward and myself and fell into the water within ten or thirteen feet of her counter and a great many fell between us and the Frenchman, who was anchored on our right.

Then it seemed as if a flame burst out all over the eight forts, so rapid was the fire, and such execution it made [...] One boat was cut in two by a shot and many men killed in her

As we found afterwards the boats of the storming party could not approach near the shore as the water was so shallow, and as soon as the boats touched, a good many of the men jumped out and sank in up [to] their necks in the mud and water, in which position several were drowned before they could extricate themselves. Those who got to the shore wet their powder so none of them could return a shot and the fire from the forts was so fatal that a great many were killed. It is estimated that a hundred men were lost during the landing alone.

When they got to the shore, they found there was a deep ditch, through which they had to wade, waist deep – then a little hard mud, then another ditch filled with mud and water, that could only be passed in swimming, and then there was a third ditch filled with mud and water, and sharp iron spikes and lances. Very few of the men got up to the walls of the forts, which were about twenty-five foot high, and swarming with men, who fired at them with rifles, gingalls [a type of gun], and arrows, which were very long and barbed in such a manner that when the arrow entered the flesh, the head detached itself and remained in the wound.
The few men who succeeded in getting to the walls tried to scale them with ladders but the ladders broke and they found there was no safety but in flight. Captains Commerell of the “Nimrod” and Heath of the “Assistance” told me that when they were at the foot of the walls they had to lie close in under them, and as soon as a head was seen, the Chinese sent a bullet through it – that the Chinese were armed with real Minie Rifles, [and] were large men wearing fur caps. Captain Commerell, who was in the Crimea, says he repeatedly heard the Russian word for “powder” cried within the walls, and a good many of the marines who were in the same position heard the same word used. Several men declare they heard in good English, “Why in the devil don’t you pass that powder up?”

From opium wars to HSBC, writer Maurice Collis brought Asia to vivid life

Whether this latter was the effect of their imagination or not I don’t know, but I am inclined to believe what Captain Commerell says. I think there were other men than Chinamen inside the walls probably some runaway sailors or mercenary Russians. They understood the science of gunnery too well not to have been trained to their guns, and they stood to them well. The Chinese burnt blue lights etc. as soon as it was dark and shot down the men by their lights.

They began to come off from the shore about 10pm and kept coming off all night. Several boats came to the “Toey-Wan”, where the crews were supplied with food and shelter; other boats made fast to her stern and lay there all night.

The “Nimrod” and the “Coromandel” anchored close by us during the night. The firing from the forts continued at intervals all night, and during the day. In the morning we did all we could to assist the English, in getting their wounded off etc., etc. We could see in the morning the Chinese walking about on the beach in front of the forts cutting off the heads of the dead and wounded; others were picking up the swords, guns and pistols etc. that were lying about on the beach.

We came out to ships about 11am, towing out two large launches filled with wounded and bringing out the first news of the battle to the English and French Ministers.

Hart the Commodore’s Coxswain was buried in the evening: and it was a solemn one after the scenes we had passed through.

An engraving of the attack by Anglo-French forces on the Chinese fortifications at the mouth of the Peiho River, on June 24 and 25, 1859. Picture: courtesy of George W. H. Cautherley


USS “Powhatan” off Peiho River 29 June 1859

The Chinese had told us, when we sent our boat on shore [on] the 24th, that the real Peiho River was ten miles farther North. The Commodore determined to send the “Toey-Wan” up there to see if there was a river and endeavour to communicate with the authorities, and leave a letter from Mr Ward to the Governor General of this Province to announce his arrival “dans ces parages” [in this area].


I got leave to accompany the party which consisted of Messrs W.W. Ward, Martin, Aitchison, and Dr Williams and Lieutenant Habersham. It was sort of a Men of Wars cruise “there and back again”.

We left the “Powhatan” at 10.30am and got under weigh at 11.30. It was a beautiful day though rather windy and rough. Our course was North about five knots an hour and we carried on this course five fathoms of water as far as six miles from the “Powhatan”. The flood tides in this part of the Gulf of Pechelee sets to the North outside the bar. [The] Wind was North North West.

A good many large junks were seen about four miles North of the forts at the mouth of the Peiho, and large piles of salt dotted the shore in every direction. The shore was very low and there seemed to be a dike along the shore as we could see in almost every part of it junk masts above the land.
When our party told the Chinese they were from the United States of America, the Chinese asked them where it was, saying they had never heard of that country

The water shoaled very gradually, but as we stood into toward land we got to ten foot water where we anchored to take bearings etc. We were about three to four miles from shore, and could distinctly see a large entrance, the mouth of it crowded with junks’ masts, of which there was a whole forest. In the middle of the entrance there were two islands apparently, one of which was very thickly covered with houses and the other entirely covered by an immense square fort, made of the same material as those at the mouth of the Peiho – mud – junks’ masts all round, hulls down out of sight. –

On the left bank of the entrance as you approach it from the sea, was a large round fort with long wings extending away back out of sight, and seemingly connecting with another square fort also on the left bank. It looked like a very strongly fortified place and a place too of much importance if one may judge from the great number of junks, in and around the entrance. Behind the fort was a very large village containing several Joss houses whose peaked roofs stand above the surrounding houses. There were a number of tall trees resembling poplars near the village.

Country looked fertile and populous – vast number of junks. We were near enough the forts to see men at work on the tops of the bastions with our glasses (binoculars or telescope).

After getting bearings of the forts etc. we stood to the Northward, and found ourselves in a bight of the coast, and at the water’s edge were a number of villages. I counted six of them in sight and near us at the same time. [The] country looked fertile and apparently swarming with population. We anchored in two fathoms about two and a half miles from one of them and sent an armed boat in, with Messrs Merchant, midshipman, Martin, Interpreter, and Ward, Secretary of Legation.

Coin stash that puts new spin on China’s 100 years of humiliation

As they approached the shore the Chinese streamed out of the village; men, women and children running as fast as they could go. Three junks were anchored near shore, and as the boat got near them, their crews jumped out and waded and swam ashore.

The boat soon grounded and as the gentlemen in it couldn’t get the boat in further, got into the water to wade ashore. The crew remained in the boat. As the three got near the shore three-quarters of a mile from their boat, two carriages drawn by four horses each started off full gallop, from the village – and everyone was in full flight. However, two or three men remained and came down to meet the party. They were very large men, two of them almost giants – there were soon about twenty collected round their party and the interpreter found no one of them could read (having different dialects, characters were often used to communicate).

Another man came down from the village who was one of the local authorities. He received the letter for the Governor General and then told the party that [there] were four thousand troops encamped in the vicinity and that a courier had gone off to call for their cavalry and advised them to run for their boat as fast as possible, saying that the villagers were all well disposed enough towards foreigners, but the soldiers were Tartars who recognized no distinction between foreign barbarians. The Chinese all called out to them to run fast – and so they did. Before they could get to their boat the shore seemed alive with cavalry two of whom chased our party in the water till they got up [to] their waists. They got to the boat safely but very much fatigued and pulled back to the “Toey-Wan”.

Two or three men remained and came down to meet the party. They were very large men, two of them almost giants – there were soon about twenty collected round their party and the interpreter found no one of them could read

When our party told the Chinese they were from the United States of America, the Chinese asked them where it was, saying they had never heard of that country.

This part of the country seemed very fertile indeed and there was a great number of inhabitants. A good many junks were seen standing to the Northward, and I saw one under full sail just behind the beach where our party went ashore. We could also [see] many masts over the land. There were not many trees to be seen, but a number of shrubs and bushes.

Returned to the “Powhatan” at 8.30pm.

An engraving of the attack by Anglo-French forces on the Chinese fortifications at the mouth of the Peiho River, on June 24 and 25, 1859. Picture: courtesy of George W. H. Cautherley
USS “Powhatan” Off Peiho River 4 July 1859

The “Glorious Fourth” – as they call it, and no doubt every village, town and city in the United States is ringing and shaking from bells, crackers, guns and cannon today. We are celebrating the day in a quiet manner enough. The American Ensign waves from each mast head, and the spanker gaff, and at noon we fired a salute of twenty-one big guns. This, together with a bottle of champagne at dinner, comprised our celebrations. All the English and French ships at the anchorage hoisted the American flag at the main mast head out of compliment to us and kept it there all day.

The English have been employed all the week in getting their gunboats off and in taking care of their wounded etc., etc. They had six boats ashore and sunk on Sunday morning the 26th. The “Lee” 82, “Plover” 86, “Starling” 93, “Kestrel” 69, “Haughty” 89, and the “Cormorant”.

They have succeeded in saving all but the “Lee”, “Plover” and “Cormorant” which they have destroyed. The forts have been firing on them all the week, and I understand have killed several more men.

The English estimate their loss at 452 – 87 killed, wounded 363 and missing [sic].

On the 2nd July the Chinese sent a junk with a letter from the Taoutai of the village, to announce that the letter given by our party to the men on the beach had been forwarded to the Governor General at Tientsin. The Taoutai sent another junk containing twenty sheep, twenty pigs, sixty ducks and chickens and 2,500 lbs of rice and flour and a great quantity of fruit etc.

The “Glorious Fourth” – as they call it, and no doubt every village, town and city in the United States is ringing and shaking from bells, crackers, guns and cannon today. We are celebrating the day in a quiet manner enough

USS “Powhatan” off Peiho River 7 July 1859

On the 5th July, two white button mandarins (sixth order) came off to the ship with an answer to Mr Ward’s letter, written by the Governor General – and inviting Mr Ward to an interview. Mr Ward has appointed tomorrow as the day and we are going on board the “Toey-Wan” this evening to stand in and so go in tomorrow morning.

The mandarins were shown all over the ship and they were apparently much pleased and astonished at the guns and machinery.

I went on board the “Chesapeake” last night with Lurman, Habersham and Semmes to make a visit and aid young Wish. –

“Fury” sailed on Monday 4th, “Du Chayla” and her tender, and “Assistance” on Tuesday 5th, “Magicienne” [on] Wednesday 6th. Mr Bruce and Rumbold came on board on Monday to see Mr Ward.

10.30pm
I went on board the “Toey-Wan” this afternoon at three with Messrs Wards, Martin, Lurman and Commodore Tattnall and Lieutenants Habersham and Trenchard. Got under weigh at 3.20pm, the “Powhatan” having got up her anchor, and following us into an anchorage nearer shore. Found a good anchorage for her in twenty-seven feet [of] water, and then we stood in towards land. Saw the forts and we anchored in two fathoms [of] water. Several junks were in sight two and a half miles from us, and we sent the boat to them. I went in her with some others. Rough water and we sailed very fast. Heard on board the first junk [that] there were several mandarins on board another one further in.

Went on board of her and found a blue button, crystal and white button mandarin on board with a numerous retinue. We went in the dirty little cabin where they spread several cushions etc. for us to sit on and they squatted down too. Passed round some delicious tea and some very nice little sponge cakes, which were very palatable as we were rather hungry. Then there was another kind of cake made of beans – it looked like brick dust and tasted very much like it too. One of them had a very small bottle filled with some kind of white snuff which he passed over to me. I tried it and found it rather agreeable – it was a powder that might have been composed of camphor and musk. The blue button mandarin had on a tunic, or whatever they call it, of blue navy cloth, very fine texture, and Mr Martin said it was Russian cloth, and that he [Martin] had bought it at Ningpo and cheaper than he could have done in America or Europe.

These Mandarins were as hospitable as possible and all smiles etc. – no allusion was made on either side to the battle of the 25th June

They called the American flag, the “flowery flag”, and said they should know us very well. They are going to send us a boat tomorrow, and they have buoyed the whole channel [plotting a safe path]. I have got a line of soundings from the anchorage of the “Toey-Wan” to the junks. They tell us there is 30 foot of water in shore under the batteries and that there is water communication from this place up to Tientsin. I don’t know the name of the place – but it’s the same place so strongly fortified we saw on the 29th June. We go in tomorrow in full uniform to an interview with the Governor General. The Mandarins told us we must be particularly careful not to go anywhere, where the guides do not take us, as the city is all a mass of ambuscades for the English.

These Mandarins were as hospitable as possible and all smiles etc. – no allusion was made on either side to the battle of the 25th June. Tomorrow I shall have something to write about, I think, but there’s nothing now.

Text © Proverse Hong Kong 2017.

Through American Eyes, edited by Gillian Bickley and transcribed by Chris Duggan is published by Proverse Hong Kong.

Hong Kong history: the fortunes built on opium – including those of many of its richest families

During the 18th and 19th centuries, most of those involved in commerce on China’s coast had connections to the opium trade, whether they like to admit it or not

A man smokes opium in Peking, with an attendant holding a tobacco pipe, circa 1905. Picture: Alamy

Opium – for numerous economic and political reasons – has loomed large in Asia for more than three centuries. Importation from India to China and the wider balance-of-trade dynamics, regional power struggles and eventual international conflicts that surrounded the trade have generated entire libraries of historical research.

Young American’s first-hand account of second opium war: bloody battles and ‘hospitable’ Chinese


Less acknowledged – especially by inter­net trolls who, like Pavlov’s dogs, salivate and bark at the slightest mention of the so-called opium wars – is the basic historical fact that virtually everyone involved in 18th- and 19th-century commerce on the China coast was connected with the trade. Individuals or firms were either directly involved or they brokered deals, banked or arranged letters of credit, or were tangled up in the shipping, refining and warehousing of opium, or its retail sale.

Opium being weighed in China in the 1880s. Picture: Alamy


Their descendants become skittish at any mention of their forebears’ business activities – the original source of their own affluence. Few are as principled as, say, Austrian-British mathematician and philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who renounced a family fortune made in steel production and the armament industry; that repudiation would be a bridge too far, especially for “pragmatic” Hongkongers. Corporate “histories” that document local firms and their founding families with connections to the opium trade usually airbrush out inconvenient facts and play down those that can’t be completely hidden while retaining any credibility.
The Opium war (or how Hong Kong began)

Finding businessmen of any ethnicity who were not involved is a challenge. Prominent among this tiny minority was Olyphant and Co; and the firm’s co-founder, David Olyphant, who was a vocal opponent of the opium trade. This stance was respon­sible for its Canton offices being known to com­peti­tors as “Zion’s Corner” – a snide reference to the moral standpoint maintain­ed by the company’s American principals.

As well as Canton, the firm had offices in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Foochow (principally for the tea trade), Australia and New Zealand. Olyphant and Co dealt mainly in silk, hessian and other heavy fabrics; it also owned a small fleet of clippers used primarily to transport tea and silk to the United States. Due to a reduction of business activity in China, and a series of ill-advised invest­ments in Peru, the firm collapsed in 1878.
How cotton once rivalled opium in importance for Hong Kong – and helped build city’s textile trade

H.N. Mody, co-founder of Kowloon Wharf and Godown Co and opium trader.In Hong Kong, the Tung Wah Hospital, established in 1870, numbered many opium-merchant philanthropists among its early committee, which was drawn from the Chinese community. Opium, for them, was just one of many profitable enterprises, which ranged from dealing in cotton and dried seafood, medicinal herbs and preserved foodstuffs to pawn­broking, remittance services and emi­grant passage agency.



China, by the mid-1920s, produced more opium, mainly in Yunnan and Sichuan, than ever had been import­ed from India, Persia and elsewhere. And this latter-day trade was almost entirely in Chinese hands. Government corrup­tion played a key part. Opium suppression movements in the 30s were just so much tawdry political theatre, with the most enthu­si­astic anti-drug campaigners often being the greatest profiteers. “Key­board warriors” looking for a convenient anti-foreigner starting point for their ravings neatly overlook all these facts.

The University of Hong Kong’s Main Building, pictured in 1911, was built with funds donated by Parsee businessman H.N. Mody.


Like all social evils, some lasting good came from opium-trade investments and the economic diversification that followed. To cite one example, H.N. Mody, Hong Kong’s leading late 19th-century Parsee businessman, the co-founder of Kowloon Wharf and Godown Co (now part of the Wharf conglomerate) and an opium trader, was a major early bene­factor of the University of Hong Kong; its Main Building, opened in 1912, was personally paid for by him.

China has positioned itself as a leader in the fight against climate change, but is it really prepared for the role?

Climate crisis
Following the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, China, the world’s second-largest economy, was expected to take the environmental lead
As the deadlock at the recent COP25 conference shows, Beijing has other plans

Stuart Lau Published: 9 Feb, 202


Infernos have burned  through the Amazon and much of Australia. Island nations from Vanuatu to the Virgin Islands are inhaling as deeply as possible before disappearing under a rising sea.Climate break­down is proving to be every bit as dramatic as Al Gore was when he stood on a crane beside his stage-sized chart in order to keep up with the rising temperature line flying off the graph, in An Inconvenient Truth (2006).

Neither that documentary film nor the former United States vice-president’s 2017 sequel got everything right but some of Gore’s grimmest warnings have come to pass in the intervening 14 years. The US, the world’s largest economy, and the fossil-fuel industry have an obvious interest in seeing business continue as usual but the tension between those demanding drastic measures to mitigate climate collapse and those fighting to protect the status quo is, in some ways, working to the advantage of the second-largest economy.

China likes to cast itself as a world leader in tackling climate change –
witness the recent initiative to ban single-use plastics – particularly in the wake of
US President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2016
Paris climate agreement. For scientists and environmentalists, however, the truth is less convenient.

China remains – by far – the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, with total emissions in 2018 standing at about 14 gigatonnes, according to United Nations statistics. That’s more than twice those of the US, although China’s per-capita emissions roughly match those of Japan and the European Union.

A firefighter surveys a bush fire around the town of Nowra, in the Australian state of New South Wales, on December 31, 2019. Photo: AFP

While many countries have been phasing out the use of coal, China increased its capacity for the emission-intense fossil fuel by 42.9 gigawatts in the 18 months to June 2019. This rendered the 8.1GW reduction made by the rest of the world in the same period almost irrelevant. Furthermore, under the geopolitical Belt and Road Initiative, China plans to finance a quarter of all new coal projects in the rest of the world, including plants in South Africa, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

And so in December, at the UN’s most recent round of climate talks,
COP25 – hastily rearranged in the Spanish capital, after the Chilean government deemed the original venue, protest-wracked Santiago, too risky a proposition – the Beijing delegation rolled into the Feria de Madrid conference complex with conflicting priorities. China had to at least appear to be embracing measures to tackle climate change but any new plans that could work against the interests of the politically influential domestic coal industry had to be stalled.

Behind the armoured vehicles of the Spanish military and the glass exterior of the Feria de Madrid, China circled the wagons, forming an alliance with Brazil, India and South Africa to emphasise its role as a “developing country”, and blocking proposals supported by the EU on clear targets to cut greenhouse-gas emissions and the creation of a global carbon-trading market. In contrast to the growing despair of the environmental groups and activists who attended the 12 days of talks, China’s delegation of more than 60 celebrated their nation’s ability “to safeguard the interests of developing nations”, which they believed sent “a very good warning to developed nations on certain issues”, a member told mainland media.

Given Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, China had been seen by other powers as a crucial partner on climate policy going into the conference. Emmanuel Macron told Chinese President Xi Jinping in November that, “cooperation between China and the European Union in this respect [joint commitments to reduce emissions] is decisive”. But the French president’s call appeared to have fallen on deaf ears when Beijing’s
new top climate negotiator, Zhao Yingmin, walked into the Madrid talks, flanked by ministry officials and technocrats.

Read more 

China’s role ‘critical’ if world is to meet climate change targets

Read more 

China’s green bonds show how we can fund climate change goals

Read more 

How long do we really have to save the planet from global warming?

“China insists that, in order to realise the global goals set by the Paris Agreement after 2020 […] developed nations shall take action first, drastically pushing up the strength of action and setting the time for achieving carbon neutral­ity much earlier,” a confident Zhao told an audience of mostly Chinese businesspeople and policymakers in the China Pavilion. “There would therefore be a technologically and economically viable policy path for developing nations to follow.”

Having just turned 55, the tall, bespectacled Zhao is a lifelong Communist Party member whose career has focused entirely on environment-related work, accordi

“Behind closed doors, Zhao is a cheerful but cautious figure,” a negotiator from the Benelux region of Europe told me, as he took a break from lengthy talks to refuel at the conference centre’s Burger King. Judging by the packed restaurant – and the ubiquitous brown paper bags seen around the venue – it’s hard to conclude that many partici­pants found the presence of a fast-food joint at a climate conference distasteful. The European negotiator, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media, continued, “But [Zhao’s] negotiating tactics were less impressive than [those of] his predecessor, the very well known Mr Xie.”

One of the architects of the Paris Agreement,
Xie Zhenhua had helmed China’s climate policies since 2007. He abruptly stepped down as special representative for climate change in late October due to “poor health”, according to a Chinese delegate in Madrid, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Through extensive mingling with experts and policymakers worldwide, Xie had established an image of being affable in person but hard-headed during negotiations. His successor is apparently even less of a pushover.

“It was very difficult to talk to the Chinese side this year,” Bas Eickhout, chair of the European Parliament delegation to COP25, told Post Magazine. “It seems to me they are trying to postpone things until COP26. I doubt that would do any good to China’s international image.”

The next round of climate talks, COP26 will be held in Glasgow, Scotland, this November, with the opportunity to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, the aspirational goal set out in the Paris Agreement, fast disappearing. There are no legal obligations for countries to submit improved plans to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by the end of the year, however, and the following deadline is not until 2025, by which time, the drafters of the agreement hoped, the world would be ready to significantly raise annual goals above those established for 2020 and would have put mechanisms in place to achieve that scaling up.

At the Copenhagen UN climate talks in 2009, the goal was set for the world to raise US$100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to back efforts by vulner­able, poorer states to shift their economies onto a greener path and adapt to a harsher climate. The amount rich nations and private-sector donors raised in 2016 exceeded US$70 billion, according to data in a biennial UN assessment.

Xie Zhenhua, China’s chief negotiator at the Paris Agreement. Photo: AFP

This money is being put to use in places such as Fiji. The South Pacific island nation is “one of the smallest contri­butors to global carbon emissions”, says the UN, yet it faces “some of the most devastating consequences of extreme weather patterns”. In 2012, residents of Vunidogoloa, on the shore of the second-largest island, Vanua Levu, became the first village in Fiji to have to relocate due to climate breakdown. UN projects include helping Fiji transition completely to renewable energy sources by 2030 and adopt a reforestation policy, intended to store carbon in the planted trees.

Lest there remained any doubt the world’s second-largest economy considered itself a developing country, a statement released days before the end of COP25 reinforced the idea that Beijing needs money from the developed world to reach emissions levels rich nations have laid out but have yet to achieve themselves. Released jointly with China’s three allies, the statement read, “There has been a lack of progress on the pre-2020 agenda, adaptation and issues related to […] climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building support. This imbalance needs to be immediately rectified.”

The quartet alleged wealthier nations had failed to adequately help the developing world both deal with rising carbon emissions and adopt less polluting power infrastructure.

China and her allies had not themselves been idle, they insisted. “[The four countries] have already set forth climate policies and contributions reflecting our highest possible ambition, above and beyond our historical responsibilities.”

According to Climate Action Tracker, run by the Germany-based NewClimate Institute, China’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agree­ment, to be achieved by 2030, is rated “highly insufficient”, which means that the official commitment is “not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5 degrees Celsius limit”. However, “China’s next step could be to submit a strengthened NDC to the Paris Agreement by 2020, something it has indicated it intends to do, which would set a positive example for others to follow”, the institute says, on its website.

A corner of the China Pavilion at the COP25, in Madrid, Spain. Photo: Xinhua

In Madrid, China and her allies urged rich countries to set their own positive example, and quickly: “The time for action is now, and not next year or thereafter.”

The man leading the struggle to persuade the developed world to act more decisively on its climate pledges made a low-key debut. Zhao gave only one major speech during COP25 and did not hold a press conference, giving inter­views only to Chinese state-run media. His other appear­ances were to present the opening remarks – mostly formulaic speeches about how much China has already achieved on climate change, how willing Beijing is to cooperate at the UN level and pledges made by Xi – at the China Pavilion, one of 33 rooms constructed in the Feria de Madrid for delegate groups.

The Chinese pavilion was designed with a rounded doorway of the type seen in imperial-style parks across China and was next to that of the Arctic Council. It played host to talks such as “The Chinese Story of Ecological Civilisation” and “Experience Sharing of the Synergizing Action on the Environment and Climate”, and Zhao’s appearances drew few non-Chinese listeners.

When pushing his way through a media scrum on December 11, surrounded by security guards, Zhao did speak to the press, to claim China wanted to make progress with regard to the most controversial clause in the Paris Agreement, Article 6, which expresses the desire to estab­lish an emissions trading system. And in remarks made at the China Pavilion, Zhao emphasised his country’s readiness to roll out, some time this year, domestic carbon-trading, under which provinces could trade emission credits between themselves. Beyond that, though, Zhao wasn’t giving much away.

It may never be publicly known what he feels about the “endless rows over agendas, ongoing unresolved splits over who should pay and insufficient attention and funding for adaptation and resilience” that beset climate meetings, according to former British COP President Claire O’Neill.

Environmentalist, documentary maker and former US vice-president Al Gore. Photo: Shutterstock


“It was particularly awful at the last COP in Madrid,” wrote O’Neill, in a fiery letter to the British prime minister, dated February 3, in the wake of her sacking. “While half a million climate action protesters gathered in the streets, I sat in plenary sessions where global negotiators debated whether our meeting should be classified as “Informal” or “Informal-Informal”; others argued over the structure of tabs, tables and colours in reports (rather than the commitments countries would make) and some of the world’s wealthiest oil-rich countries made their annual demand for global funding to offset the damage all this low carbon planning would do to their economy.

“Some teams did rise above the negativity [...] You can’t fault the negotiators for doing their jobs sometimes under awful circumstances – it’s a systemic failure of global vision and leadership.”

One of the few non-Chinese speakers invited to take the stage at the China Pavilion in Madrid was Mr Inconvenience himself. Gore, now 71, showered his hosts with diplomatic deference and recounted the good memories he had of former climate envoy Xie. Zhao and other Chinese delegates listened attentively, some through interpreting headphones.

Addressing Zhao directly from the dais, Gore then said, “We had a candid conversation earlier about the difficult issue of financing the building and development of the coal plants in other countries in the world, and, please allow me even in the midst of this warm hospitality, to express my heartfelt opinion, Mr Vice-Minister, that it would redound to China’s everlasting credit if this policy of financing the construction of so many new coal plants in other countries could respectfully be reviewed and reconsidered.

“Perhaps the traffic light is now showing green – but blink yellow and then blink red, and decisions might be made in favour of alternative sources of energy in the way China finances development in other countries.”

As soon as Gore finished speaking, Zhao rose to shake his hand. Then China’s top climate negotiator walked away alone, hurrying onto other meetings. And despite the ever-so-polite rebuke delivered by the world’s second-most famous climate activist (sorry, Al, Greta has you beaten), Zhao left Madrid for Beijing able to savour his first inter­national diplomatic victory. No commitments were made and China won another round of deferment.

Whatever climate horrors befall us between now and November, it seems likely Zhao will walk into the COP26 talks with his head held high and perhaps more to offer an ever-more desperate world. Gore has yet to confirm his attendance.