The Xiangshan Forum is the Chinese equivalent of the Munich Security Conference. Except that things are much more martial there. One particularly striking aspect this time was that no defense minister was present. After the official ousting of Li Shangfu, there is still no successor.
But this could have been the door opener for the participating United States. After all, Washington had sanctioned Li. Therefore, our author Joern Petring observed a slight rapprochement between Beijing and the USA at the forum. Meanwhile, clear threats were made against Taiwan.
German Research Minister Stark-Watzinger has made the following remark: “The Communist Party could be hiding behind every Chinese researcher.” Of course, we don’t want to let that stand. Tim Gabel asked around the research community – which was horrified by this superficial and undifferentiated statement.
In our opinion piece, Doris Fischer and Hannes Gohli from the China Competence Centre of the University of Wuerzburg also speak out against a generalization of research cooperation with Chinese researchers. They warn that the general rejection of scholarship holders from the China Scholarship Council (CSC) threatens to turn into unintentional social profiling.
Beijing used the Xiangshan Forum to send a signal of détente towards Washington. The most important sentence at the defense summit, a kind of Chinese version of the Munich Security Conference or the Asian Shangri-La Forum, came from Zhang Youxia. The 73-year-old is vice chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission. The only person above him as head of the Commission is State and Party leader Xi Jinping.
On the one hand, Zhang said in his opening remarks on Monday that China will expand strategic cooperation with Russia. On the other hand, China is “willing to, on the basis of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, develop military ties with the US.“
This statement is significant because military communication between Washington and Beijing has recently been paused, at least at the highest level. China refused to talk to high-ranking US representatives because the US sanctioned former Chinese Minister of Defense Li Shangfu. The sanctions date back to a time when Li was not yet minister.
However, Zhang’s speech also struck harsh tones regarding Taiwan. “No matter who attempts to separate Taiwan from China in any form, the Chinese military will never agree and will never show leniency,” he said. Taiwan is in China’s core interest.
If China’s government were forced to resolve the Taiwan issue by force, it would be a legitimate and reunifying war, Lieutenant General He Lei told the state-run Global Times newspaper earlier on Sunday.
So now China’s extended hand at the Xiangshan Forum. This was only possible because Li was deposed last week. Before that, he was not seen in public for weeks. He thus shares the fate of former Foreign Minister Qin Gang. He, too, was ousted from office in late July without any explanation from Beijing to date.
A new defense minister has yet to be appointed. However, it is already clear that the new one will not be under US sanctions and talks will thus be possible once again without any problems. Noteworthy: While only the defense attaché of the German embassy attended the forum, the USA sent a small delegation.
So, the thaw between Beijing and Washington continues. After Wang Yi’s visit to Washington, a meeting between Xi Jinping and Joe Biden in November at the APEC summit in San Francisco is within reach. The visit of California Governor Gavin Newsom to China in the past few days was also harmonious. He even showed up at a basketball game with Chinese schoolchildren.
Zhang left no doubt in his speech that there was a need to talk. Because he did not just offer dialogue. He also attacked the United States, at least indirectly. “Some countries deliberately create turbulence and interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, and instigate color revolutions,” Zhang said without mentioning any names.
Sergei Shoigu joined him. Speaking in Beijing on Monday, the Russian Defense Minister accused the US of fuelling geopolitical tensions in order to maintain its “global domination by any means necessary.” Shoigu also accused NATO of expanding its presence in the Asia-Pacific region under the pretext of dialogue and cooperation with countries in the region.
The US delegation is familiar with such speeches and probably took them in stride. After all, an important goal has been achieved. Washington has been pushing for a long time to resume talks with the Chinese military. This is the only way to avoid serious misunderstandings.
German Research Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger has once again called for vigilance in scientific cooperation with China. “The Communist Party could be hiding behind every Chinese researcher, we have to be clear about that,” the liberal politician told the German newspaper “Die Welt.” For this reason, she stated, it is necessary to review existing cooperative relationships, including those of universities, especially with scholarship holders of the state-run China Scholarship Council.
Nobody was willing to comment on the matter publicly to Table.Media yesterday, but there was clear criticism and accusations of populism from scientific institutions and universities. In background discussions, interlocutors expressed shock at the fact that the Research Minister was placing all Chinese researchers under blanket suspicion with such statements. This, they said, was detrimental to both constructive relations and the urgently needed build-up of China expertise.
Meanwhile, experts at the University of Wuerzburg see a significant risk that the debate about China could gradually devolve into racial profiling. In today’s China.Table opinion piece, China researchers Doris Fischer and Hannes Gohli elaborate on how the general rejection of CSC postgraduate students could also turn into unintentional social profiling. Statements that would place Chinese scientists under general suspicion of espionage are in no way constructive for fostering trust-based research collaborations.
In the interview with “Welt,” Stark-Watzinger warned that China was increasingly becoming a systemic rival. “There should continue to be cooperation on global challenges such as climate change. Economic cooperation with China is also desirable in principle.” However, she argued that the situation was different in sensitive areas that had military relevance or concerned human rights, such as facial recognition with the help of artificial intelligence.
“We have started the debate with the scientific community on research security,” said Stark-Watzinger, adding that universities and research institutions seek guidance and support. “We are making offers here. Together with the scientific community, we are working out what other measures make sense,” she said. The interview provided no information on what concrete offers and concepts the Federal Ministry of Education and Research provides to universities and research institutes.
The scientific community also has different views on how sensitive the issue is. Anyone with concrete insights into research security would have to say that these clear announcements were necessary, Nicolas Lunz, export control officer at RWTH Aachen University, told Table.Media last week. He referred to the situation at German universities: “We have a very strategic state behind the Chinese doctoral students, which also includes clear instructions by giving out scholarships, such as regular reporting. These PhD students often have free access to sensitive areas like semiconductors, robotics, and quantum computing.”
Scientific institutions such as the HRK and the DFG, on the other hand, have rejected the accusation of being naïve in recent days. Research institutions have become “wised up to the ‘ambivalent’ relationship Berlin now has with Beijing,” HRK President Walter Rosenthal told the trade magazine ScienceBusiness. “We are getting beyond a naïve approach in general,” he said. The German Research Foundation (DFG) also considers individual scientists and universities responsible for evaluating the situation.
The debate gained momentum after a German Rectors’ Conference event where Bettina Stark-Watzinger and her Dutch counterpart Robertus Henricus Dijkgraaf, Minister of Education, Culture and Science, were among the participants. Dijkgraaf, who was interviewed by “Die Welt” with Stark-Watzinger, is currently responsible for a bill that envisages a general review of non-EU academics seeking to conduct research in the Netherlands.
Asked why the legislative project is currently stalling, Dijkgraaf told Die Welt that the devil is in the detail. “We have to dissect very finely to not unnecessarily curtail the opportunities for international cooperation and not to burden it with too much bureaucracy.” The screening in the Netherlands is supposed to be a combination of the personal background of the respective researcher. “We are careful to proceed in a country-neutral way, we don’t want to exclude individual countries,” Dijkgraaf stressed.
In the interview, Stark-Watzinger rejected the screening of research cooperations in Germany. She pointed out that academic freedom has constitutional status in Germany. However, she added that this also entailed responsibilities on the part of the institutions and the researchers. University and research institutions have already become much more aware of the risks. “In addition, the science system is also subject to export controls. This is particularly important for dual-use goods,” said the Federal Research Minister.
The decision by the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU) to temporarily stop accepting PhD scholarship holders from the China Scholarship Council (CSC) has drawn international attention. According to media reports, CSC-funded doctoral students will not be granted access to research at FAU for the time being due to security concerns.
FAU’s decision apparently follows criticism from the German Federal Office of Export Control (BAFA) regarding the implementation of its rules in connection with admitting CSC scholarship holders. The decision is also placed in the context of the German government’s China strategy, which calls for heightened vigilance when dealing with Chinese universities.
Accordingly, German Research Minister Stark-Watzinger emphasized the risks of collaborating with China in an August article in the German newspaper “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” and, more recently, in Monday’s edition of the German newspaper “Die Welt.” Among other things, she spoke about the possible abuse of research, foreign influence and the unwanted drain of know-how and technology to foreign countries.
The fear is that CSC fellows, because they receive a government scholarship, are under particular pressure to report to the government. The concern is that this reporting obligation is not limited to their research progress, but that they are also expected to report research secrets they obtain from participating in research teams at German universities.
In such a case, the difference to espionage is not far anymore. By the same token, the presumed exertion of pressure poses an ethical problem, as it is incompatible with our ideas of freedom of research. So far, so simple. However, upon closer inspection, there are several things to consider: Espionage can happen in many ways. It is not tied to a specific nationality.
Other countries may also pressure their scholarship recipients if they deem it suitable. And locals may be inclined – for whatever reason – to pass on information. Further, spying is not tied to any particular form of funding. Students or postgraduate students funded in other ways may also be willing to report back home, either because they are loyal to the state even without a scholarship or because the Chinese state finds different ways to exert pressure.
To put it somewhat drastically: Children of wealthy party cadres are not dependent on government scholarships. The suspension of accepting CSC-funded postgraduates is, therefore, no guarantee for avoiding risks. At the same time, it carries the risk of unfairly casting general suspicion on promising young scientists who depend on scholarships. In addition to the risk of the China debate sliding more and more into racial profiling, rejecting CSC postgraduates can become an unintentional form of social profiling.
Risks can never be fully eliminated in the complex interdependencies of interests that prevail in global (not only Chinese) research collaborations. The task of evaluating the opportunities and risks of transnational research is, therefore, about identifying existing risks, anticipating future risks and raising awareness among researchers. The German scientific landscape is currently well-prepared to deal with risks.
Some universities, such as the University of Wuerzburg, have founded dedicated China Competence Centers, which support researchers working with Chinese partners (both on an individual and institutional level). In regular meetings of the association of China centers at German universities, board members of each competence center exchange information with administrative staff of international offices, export control, and the commissions for ethical issues.
Guiding questions (HRK), guides (KIWI Compass), instructions (DVCS), information brochures (Joint Committee) and manuals on export control (BAFA) have also been developed to provide solutions to issues that arise when collaborating with China. New projects funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research through the “RegioChina” program aim to use various formats to raise awareness among researchers and administrative staff and to better prepare them for cooperating with China.
In the many discussions developed in the aforementioned exchange forums, there is a broad consensus that it cannot be a question of terminating cooperation with China in research and teaching. No one is forced to cooperate with China, but there is also no denying that collaboration is attractive in many research areas. In addition to the professional knowledge exchange, German and Chinese scientists benefit from the “broadening of horizons” that goes hand in hand with research stays in the other country.
Equipped with tools for risk minimization and interdisciplinary exchange, German academia therefore benefits from the exchange with China not only professionally, but also on a human level. This leads to the conclusion that, in addition to advanced training, it is essential to examine each individual case. However, decisions on individual cases are time-consuming and easier to organize at universities with China Competence Centers and/or sinologies.
Other universities and research institutions require additional and longer-term support. Although the German government’s China strategy emphasizes the need to build China expertise, it is unclear how this support will be provided organizationally and financially in the longer term. This raises the concern that institutions and scientists will feel abandoned in the face of repeated calls not to work “naively” with China and will simply discontinue collaboration.
We do not intend to deny the existing risks; research in and with authoritarian regimes is subject to special rules, so separate safety mechanisms and institutionalized evaluation structures must be created. At the same time, however, we would like to point out the potential benefits of research collaboration with China, which blanket measures such as excluding CSC-funded postgraduates ignore.
Prof. Dr. Doris Fischer has held the Chair of China Business and Economics at the University of Würzburg since March 2012 and has been Vice President for Internationalization and Alumni since April 2021. Her research focuses on China’s economic policy and industrial policy.
Dr. Hannes Gohli is a research assistant at the Chair of China Business and Economics. His primary research interests are sustainable development and urbanization, as well as policy design and implementation in the People’s Republic of China.
China also mourns the death of Matthew Perry, who played the role of Chandler Bing in the TV series Friends. The US sitcom has a special place in the hearts of many Chinese. In the early 2000s, it was first introduced as a way to help people learn English. For the reunion special in 2021, major streaming platforms iQiyi, Tencent Video and Youku immediately secured the broadcast rights. Chinese fans in Beijing and Hangzhou have even recreated the “Central Perk” café from the series down to the last detail. All Friends episodes run on a continuous loop on a TV set there.
The Xiangshan Forum is the Chinese equivalent of the Munich Security Conference. Except that things are much more martial there. One particularly striking aspect this time was that no defense minister was present. After the official ousting of Li Shangfu, there is still no successor.
But this could have been the door opener for the participating United States. After all, Washington had sanctioned Li. Therefore, our author Joern Petring observed a slight rapprochement between Beijing and the USA at the forum. Meanwhile, clear threats were made against Taiwan.
German Research Minister Stark-Watzinger has made the following remark: “The Communist Party could be hiding behind every Chinese researcher.” Of course, we don’t want to let that stand. Tim Gabel asked around the research community – which was horrified by this superficial and undifferentiated statement.
In our opinion piece, Doris Fischer and Hannes Gohli from the China Competence Centre of the University of Wuerzburg also speak out against a generalization of research cooperation with Chinese researchers. They warn that the general rejection of scholarship holders from the China Scholarship Council (CSC) threatens to turn into unintentional social profiling.
Beijing used the Xiangshan Forum to send a signal of détente towards Washington. The most important sentence at the defense summit, a kind of Chinese version of the Munich Security Conference or the Asian Shangri-La Forum, came from Zhang Youxia. The 73-year-old is vice chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission. The only person above him as head of the Commission is State and Party leader Xi Jinping.
On the one hand, Zhang said in his opening remarks on Monday that China will expand strategic cooperation with Russia. On the other hand, China is “willing to, on the basis of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, develop military ties with the US.“
This statement is significant because military communication between Washington and Beijing has recently been paused, at least at the highest level. China refused to talk to high-ranking US representatives because the US sanctioned former Chinese Minister of Defense Li Shangfu. The sanctions date back to a time when Li was not yet minister.
However, Zhang’s speech also struck harsh tones regarding Taiwan. “No matter who attempts to separate Taiwan from China in any form, the Chinese military will never agree and will never show leniency,” he said. Taiwan is in China’s core interest.
If China’s government were forced to resolve the Taiwan issue by force, it would be a legitimate and reunifying war, Lieutenant General He Lei told the state-run Global Times newspaper earlier on Sunday.
So now China’s extended hand at the Xiangshan Forum. This was only possible because Li was deposed last week. Before that, he was not seen in public for weeks. He thus shares the fate of former Foreign Minister Qin Gang. He, too, was ousted from office in late July without any explanation from Beijing to date.
A new defense minister has yet to be appointed. However, it is already clear that the new one will not be under US sanctions and talks will thus be possible once again without any problems. Noteworthy: While only the defense attaché of the German embassy attended the forum, the USA sent a small delegation.
So, the thaw between Beijing and Washington continues. After Wang Yi’s visit to Washington, a meeting between Xi Jinping and Joe Biden in November at the APEC summit in San Francisco is within reach. The visit of California Governor Gavin Newsom to China in the past few days was also harmonious. He even showed up at a basketball game with Chinese schoolchildren.
Zhang left no doubt in his speech that there was a need to talk. Because he did not just offer dialogue. He also attacked the United States, at least indirectly. “Some countries deliberately create turbulence and interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, and instigate color revolutions,” Zhang said without mentioning any names.
Sergei Shoigu joined him. Speaking in Beijing on Monday, the Russian Defense Minister accused the US of fuelling geopolitical tensions in order to maintain its “global domination by any means necessary.” Shoigu also accused NATO of expanding its presence in the Asia-Pacific region under the pretext of dialogue and cooperation with countries in the region.
The US delegation is familiar with such speeches and probably took them in stride. After all, an important goal has been achieved. Washington has been pushing for a long time to resume talks with the Chinese military. This is the only way to avoid serious misunderstandings.
German Research Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger has once again called for vigilance in scientific cooperation with China. “The Communist Party could be hiding behind every Chinese researcher, we have to be clear about that,” the liberal politician told the German newspaper “Die Welt.” For this reason, she stated, it is necessary to review existing cooperative relationships, including those of universities, especially with scholarship holders of the state-run China Scholarship Council.
Nobody was willing to comment on the matter publicly to Table.Media yesterday, but there was clear criticism and accusations of populism from scientific institutions and universities. In background discussions, interlocutors expressed shock at the fact that the Research Minister was placing all Chinese researchers under blanket suspicion with such statements. This, they said, was detrimental to both constructive relations and the urgently needed build-up of China expertise.
Meanwhile, experts at the University of Wuerzburg see a significant risk that the debate about China could gradually devolve into racial profiling. In today’s China.Table opinion piece, China researchers Doris Fischer and Hannes Gohli elaborate on how the general rejection of CSC postgraduate students could also turn into unintentional social profiling. Statements that would place Chinese scientists under general suspicion of espionage are in no way constructive for fostering trust-based research collaborations.
In the interview with “Welt,” Stark-Watzinger warned that China was increasingly becoming a systemic rival. “There should continue to be cooperation on global challenges such as climate change. Economic cooperation with China is also desirable in principle.” However, she argued that the situation was different in sensitive areas that had military relevance or concerned human rights, such as facial recognition with the help of artificial intelligence.
“We have started the debate with the scientific community on research security,” said Stark-Watzinger, adding that universities and research institutions seek guidance and support. “We are making offers here. Together with the scientific community, we are working out what other measures make sense,” she said. The interview provided no information on what concrete offers and concepts the Federal Ministry of Education and Research provides to universities and research institutes.
The scientific community also has different views on how sensitive the issue is. Anyone with concrete insights into research security would have to say that these clear announcements were necessary, Nicolas Lunz, export control officer at RWTH Aachen University, told Table.Media last week. He referred to the situation at German universities: “We have a very strategic state behind the Chinese doctoral students, which also includes clear instructions by giving out scholarships, such as regular reporting. These PhD students often have free access to sensitive areas like semiconductors, robotics, and quantum computing.”
Scientific institutions such as the HRK and the DFG, on the other hand, have rejected the accusation of being naïve in recent days. Research institutions have become “wised up to the ‘ambivalent’ relationship Berlin now has with Beijing,” HRK President Walter Rosenthal told the trade magazine ScienceBusiness. “We are getting beyond a naïve approach in general,” he said. The German Research Foundation (DFG) also considers individual scientists and universities responsible for evaluating the situation.
The debate gained momentum after a German Rectors’ Conference event where Bettina Stark-Watzinger and her Dutch counterpart Robertus Henricus Dijkgraaf, Minister of Education, Culture and Science, were among the participants. Dijkgraaf, who was interviewed by “Die Welt” with Stark-Watzinger, is currently responsible for a bill that envisages a general review of non-EU academics seeking to conduct research in the Netherlands.
Asked why the legislative project is currently stalling, Dijkgraaf told Die Welt that the devil is in the detail. “We have to dissect very finely to not unnecessarily curtail the opportunities for international cooperation and not to burden it with too much bureaucracy.” The screening in the Netherlands is supposed to be a combination of the personal background of the respective researcher. “We are careful to proceed in a country-neutral way, we don’t want to exclude individual countries,” Dijkgraaf stressed.
In the interview, Stark-Watzinger rejected the screening of research cooperations in Germany. She pointed out that academic freedom has constitutional status in Germany. However, she added that this also entailed responsibilities on the part of the institutions and the researchers. University and research institutions have already become much more aware of the risks. “In addition, the science system is also subject to export controls. This is particularly important for dual-use goods,” said the Federal Research Minister.
The decision by the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU) to temporarily stop accepting PhD scholarship holders from the China Scholarship Council (CSC) has drawn international attention. According to media reports, CSC-funded doctoral students will not be granted access to research at FAU for the time being due to security concerns.
FAU’s decision apparently follows criticism from the German Federal Office of Export Control (BAFA) regarding the implementation of its rules in connection with admitting CSC scholarship holders. The decision is also placed in the context of the German government’s China strategy, which calls for heightened vigilance when dealing with Chinese universities.
Accordingly, German Research Minister Stark-Watzinger emphasized the risks of collaborating with China in an August article in the German newspaper “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” and, more recently, in Monday’s edition of the German newspaper “Die Welt.” Among other things, she spoke about the possible abuse of research, foreign influence and the unwanted drain of know-how and technology to foreign countries.
The fear is that CSC fellows, because they receive a government scholarship, are under particular pressure to report to the government. The concern is that this reporting obligation is not limited to their research progress, but that they are also expected to report research secrets they obtain from participating in research teams at German universities.
In such a case, the difference to espionage is not far anymore. By the same token, the presumed exertion of pressure poses an ethical problem, as it is incompatible with our ideas of freedom of research. So far, so simple. However, upon closer inspection, there are several things to consider: Espionage can happen in many ways. It is not tied to a specific nationality.
Other countries may also pressure their scholarship recipients if they deem it suitable. And locals may be inclined – for whatever reason – to pass on information. Further, spying is not tied to any particular form of funding. Students or postgraduate students funded in other ways may also be willing to report back home, either because they are loyal to the state even without a scholarship or because the Chinese state finds different ways to exert pressure.
To put it somewhat drastically: Children of wealthy party cadres are not dependent on government scholarships. The suspension of accepting CSC-funded postgraduates is, therefore, no guarantee for avoiding risks. At the same time, it carries the risk of unfairly casting general suspicion on promising young scientists who depend on scholarships. In addition to the risk of the China debate sliding more and more into racial profiling, rejecting CSC postgraduates can become an unintentional form of social profiling.
Risks can never be fully eliminated in the complex interdependencies of interests that prevail in global (not only Chinese) research collaborations. The task of evaluating the opportunities and risks of transnational research is, therefore, about identifying existing risks, anticipating future risks and raising awareness among researchers. The German scientific landscape is currently well-prepared to deal with risks.
Some universities, such as the University of Wuerzburg, have founded dedicated China Competence Centers, which support researchers working with Chinese partners (both on an individual and institutional level). In regular meetings of the association of China centers at German universities, board members of each competence center exchange information with administrative staff of international offices, export control, and the commissions for ethical issues.
Guiding questions (HRK), guides (KIWI Compass), instructions (DVCS), information brochures (Joint Committee) and manuals on export control (BAFA) have also been developed to provide solutions to issues that arise when collaborating with China. New projects funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research through the “RegioChina” program aim to use various formats to raise awareness among researchers and administrative staff and to better prepare them for cooperating with China.
In the many discussions developed in the aforementioned exchange forums, there is a broad consensus that it cannot be a question of terminating cooperation with China in research and teaching. No one is forced to cooperate with China, but there is also no denying that collaboration is attractive in many research areas. In addition to the professional knowledge exchange, German and Chinese scientists benefit from the “broadening of horizons” that goes hand in hand with research stays in the other country.
Equipped with tools for risk minimization and interdisciplinary exchange, German academia therefore benefits from the exchange with China not only professionally, but also on a human level. This leads to the conclusion that, in addition to advanced training, it is essential to examine each individual case. However, decisions on individual cases are time-consuming and easier to organize at universities with China Competence Centers and/or sinologies.
Other universities and research institutions require additional and longer-term support. Although the German government’s China strategy emphasizes the need to build China expertise, it is unclear how this support will be provided organizationally and financially in the longer term. This raises the concern that institutions and scientists will feel abandoned in the face of repeated calls not to work “naively” with China and will simply discontinue collaboration.
We do not intend to deny the existing risks; research in and with authoritarian regimes is subject to special rules, so separate safety mechanisms and institutionalized evaluation structures must be created. At the same time, however, we would like to point out the potential benefits of research collaboration with China, which blanket measures such as excluding CSC-funded postgraduates ignore.
Prof. Dr. Doris Fischer has held the Chair of China Business and Economics at the University of Würzburg since March 2012 and has been Vice President for Internationalization and Alumni since April 2021. Her research focuses on China’s economic policy and industrial policy.
Dr. Hannes Gohli is a research assistant at the Chair of China Business and Economics. His primary research interests are sustainable development and urbanization, as well as policy design and implementation in the People’s Republic of China.
China also mourns the death of Matthew Perry, who played the role of Chandler Bing in the TV series Friends. The US sitcom has a special place in the hearts of many Chinese. In the early 2000s, it was first introduced as a way to help people learn English. For the reunion special in 2021, major streaming platforms iQiyi, Tencent Video and Youku immediately secured the broadcast rights. Chinese fans in Beijing and Hangzhou have even recreated the “Central Perk” café from the series down to the last detail. All Friends episodes run on a continuous loop on a TV set there.
