Du Xiaofan (National Program Officer for Culture Heritage, UNESCO): It is common to see such small snack shops at places of cultural importance where visitors can take a rest. Actually, in the grand Forbidden City, a place to have a rest is essential as long as it does not disturb the surroundings. I have visited the Starbucks in the Forbidden City before, finding it was very tasteful and in no way inconsiderate of its surroundings.

I don't agree with those who see American fast food style represented by Starbucks and several other famous brands as culturally insignificant, as most restaurants are the same, only differing when it comes to distinct cuisine styles. The Starbucks in the Forbidden City is a delicate combination of Eastern and Western styles, rather than a clash of different cultures. My work allows me to travel a lot around the globe where I have found a number of Chinese restaurants in other world cultural heritage sites.

Xiong Xin (China Business News): Rui Chenggang argued that a Starbucks outlet in the Forbidden City is an eyesore when seen beside the ancient architecture, and it possibly damages Chinese culture.

Late Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong noted that culture contains materials, institutions and spirit. We are open to the first two categories of culture, but spirit could be hard to be affected and changed by outside influence since it has been developed for thousands of years.

The cafe, merely a place for the convenience of visitors, is common enough. Despite a different style, it can neither damage the historical value of the Forbidden City, nor tarnish the magnificence of Chinese traditional culture.

Of course, the exterior of a Starbucks here should be coordinated with the surroundings, but it's not about cultural erosion. If the Starbucks is moved out, should all businesses in the Forbidden City be removed?

The Louvre Museum in Paris has openly embraced a Chinese teashop. If the Starbucks in the Forbidden City does not clash with the surrounding style, we should allow its presence.

Wei Yingjie (Shenzhen Economic Daily): People who are bashing the Starbucks outlet ignored the existence of other shabby snack shops in the Forbidden City. If Starbucks represents the secular culture of American style, how about such small snack shops? Is there a standard giving privilege to Chinese folk culture over its foreign counterparts? If elegance should be the permission to pass through the Forbidden City, ordinary people, who are not aristocrats, should also be barred outside the royal place. It is a little bit far-fetched to refuse Starbucks to be on the premises.

This Starbucks is essentially a business. With the contract signed, the authorities cannot evict it on a whim. If it did, Starbucks has the right to seek legal assistance.

We are seeing more and more willingness for Chinese and other cultures to talk, which reflects the growing strength of China's global influence. The Starbucks in the Forbidden City adds a modern element to traditional culture, showing the openness of China's society.

Zhu Shugu (Beijing Youth Daily): I guess, the business people, who introduced Starbucks into the Forbidden City six years ago, were not motivated by the idea of cultural invasion, not to mention damage to Chinese tradition.

Admittedly, the Forbidden City is a symbol of ancient China, and a Western-style coffee shop is not well coordinated. But the argument that a small café can negatively impact on the roots of China's grand civilization is a little far-fetched.