Pandas as China's most valuable and vulnerable diplomats

AllAfrica

2 days ago

Anthony Albanese's recent visit to Chengdu's panda breeding base showed the enduring power of China's panda diplomacy.
China has been sending pandas to other countries, sometimes for obviously political reasons, since the 1940s. The term 'panda diplomacy' became widespread when China gifted two pandas to the United States on Richard Nixon's 1972 visit.
In a new paper published in The Pacific Review, we explain the importance of panda diplomacy for the Chinese state. This importance persists during times of high political tension between China and other countries that host pandas, such as the United States. And it persists despite growing concerns about it in China.
No other animal can match the giant panda's combination of universal appeal and national distinctiveness. The global popularity of pandas is a rare source of soft power for China, inspiring warm feelings and cultural acceptance.
But the flipside of cuteness is vulnerability. Pandas are seen as 'national treasures' in China, and nationalist netizens are becoming upset about the practice of entrusting them to foreign powers. This is not the only case where Chinese popular nationalism has been at odds with the official nationalism of Chinese foreign policy.
In our article, we explore these issues by looking at the Chinese government's response to the death of a panda in an American zoo. And we examine how the panda came to be such an emotionally charged and politically powerful symbol in the first place.
In February 2023, the 25-year-old giant panda Lele died of heart disease in Memphis Zoo, shortly before he was due to return to China at the end of his 20-year loan. His female companion, Yaya, went back to China soon after.
Yaya had suffered from a skin condition for many years, and in 2020 American animal rights groups In Defense of Animals and Panda Voices began posting photos of the pandas appearing dirty and emaciated, with missing fur.
These photos generated rumors on Chinese social media that the pandas were being fed substandard bamboo and contaminated water. Much of the outrage and concern, expressed across millions of social media posts, was couched in nationalist terms.
One Weibo user commented:
our national treasure panda begging for food while kneeling is the same as us 1.4 billion Chinese people begging for food while kneeling!
Another complained:
pandas are claimed to be national treasures, but they are more like princesses in diplomatic marriages. In the face of national interests, whether a panda is doing well or dying is fundamentally unimportant.
Many called for the abolition of panda diplomacy.
The Memphis Zoo controversy happened at one of the lowest points in the recent history of relations between the US and China.
Former President Joe Biden had just ordered the destruction of a Chinese surveillance balloon that had spent weeks in American airspace. Planned diplomatic talks had been cancelled, and both sides were accusing each other of infringing their sovereignty.
Under these circumstances, we might expect the Chinese government to exploit popular nationalist outrage directed at the United States. Instead, its response to the death and illness of the Memphis pandas was measured and conciliatory.
Following Lele's death and just before Yaya's return, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters the pandas had received
good care from the zoo and great affection from the American people […]. China stands ready to continue to work with cooperation partners including the US to play our part in protecting endangered species.
Chinese zoological authorities confirmed Lele and Yaya's conditions were normal for pandas 'in the geriatric phase of their lives.' They declared that the Memphis Zoo's care of the pandas was 'excellent.'
The hawkish state-owned newspaper Global Times ran editorials exonerating the Americans, even while acknowledging nationalist concerns. It would also exonerate a zoo in Thailand where a panda died a few months later. Other newspapers ran stories about the broader benefits to China of panda diplomacy.
Both the online nationalist outrage and the calming state response to the Memphis controversy show the emotional weight and political importance of pandas in China.
How did they get to be so important? Historians have documented that pandas were virtually absent from Chinese art, literature and culture until the 20th century.
In historical terms, the panda is an unusual political symbol. Many national animal symbols are chosen for their ferocity, such as lions, eagles, and the dragons that long symbolised Imperial China.
Pandas, on the other hand, are loved for their roundness, innocence and clumsiness. If a dragon can be seen as a nation's protective parent, a panda is more like its vulnerable child.
The fact that wild pandas are only found in China deepens this attachment, much as it does for Australians with koalas or New Zealanders with kiwis.
Our search for mentions of xiongmao (panda) in China's People's Daily newspaper shows a developing consciousness of pandas as a rare national animal from the 1950s onwards. This was accelerated in the 1970s by the popularity of pandas gifted to other countries, and the widespread commercialization of panda images.
In 1983, the wild panda population in Sichuan was brought to the brink of starvation by the flowering and death of bamboo plants. This led to the mass mobilisation of the population to save the precious bears through donations and volunteering.
This incident enshrined the language of pandas as 'national treasures.' It also elevated the panda as a global icon of wildlife conservation. Today, conservation research is China's main public reason for sending pandas abroad.
The 21st-century panda has many layers of accumulated symbolism. It is a symbol of China, a symbol of international friendship, a symbol of global environmental consciousness and a symbol of the universal power of cute.
These symbolic layers have generated complex and contradictory political emotions around pandas in China.
In 2023, there was widespread speculation that pandas would not be returning to the United States and Australia because of their poor relationships with China. That speculation turned out to be premature.
But the question of whether 'national treasure' pandas should be diplomats will remain a difficult one in a world defined by both environmental and human vulnerability.
David Smith is associate professor in American politics and foreign policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney and Minglu Chen is senior lecturer in government and international relations, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.