All this talk of ‘panda diplomacy’ ignores the welfare of the animals in question
Hong Kong Free Press
By Pit Hok Yau
On the 27th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule, Chief Executive John Lee announced that Beijing would gift another pair of giant pandas to Hong Kong. This follows previous gifts of pandas in 1999 and 2007, with the next pair expected to arrive by China’s National Day on October 1.
Lee said the animals had brought laughter and joy and were “collective memories” for Hongkongers. Meanwhile, Ocean Park’s chairman Paulo Pong said the new giant pandas would “not only enhance Hong Kong’s tourism appeal, but also expand the breadth and depth of Ocean Park’s conservation and education work.” Lawmakers were quick to express their gratitude to the central government.
However, these discussions have reduced the giant pandas to political tools, forgetting that they are sentient beings with feelings and neglecting how such gifting violates animal welfare. Amid political narratives, the possible adverse effects of “panda diplomacy” have been forgotten.
Pandas are adored worldwide for their cute appearance, making them one of Beijing’s most attractive diplomatic tools. International relations scholar Falk Hartig analysed this strategy in “Panda Diplomacy: The Cutest Part of China’s Public Diplomacy,” explaining how Beijing used the animals to “win hearts and minds.”
During former US president Richard Nixon’s historic “ice-breaking” visit to China in 1972, then-premier Zhou Enlai gifted two giant pandas to the US. The pair was later exhibited at the National Zoo in Washington DC, drawing 20,000 visitors on the first day. Since the 1980s, China has replaced gifting with a loan programme, attracting criticism from animal advocates.
Amid current China-US tensions, Beijing announced last year that pandas Mei Xiang and Tian Tian and their cub Xiao Qi Ji would return from Washington DC. Messages on Reddit mocked their recall as a “favour” from China, noting the high price of the lease – Beijing received the equivalent of US$1 million per year for Mei Xiang and Tian Tian. Despite the high price tag, many zoos are willing to pay since pandas are valuable attractions.
Nevertheless, since the 1980s, there has been widespread criticism of zoos for profiting from the captivity of animals, which many deem unjust. Thus, zoos often have to justify their cruelty with politically correct reasons such as for “educational” or “conservational” purposes. As in the case of giant pandas, zoos fail to achieve these two outcomes.
Regarding education, zoos have never been scientifically proven to enhance visitors’ ecological and conservation knowledge. Naturalist Jacques Cousteau once remarked: “there is as much educational benefit in studying dolphins and whales in captivity as there is in studying humans by observing prisoners in solitary confinement.”
Indeed, the behaviour of captive animals often significantly differs from those in their natural habitat.
The differences not only undermine educational outcomes but also conservation efforts. For example, a 2017 study found that the natural breeding success rate of pandas is 60.7 per cent, while artificial insemination has a success rate of 18.5 per cent. Artificial insemination also carries risks, such as the death of a panda at the Oji Zoo in 2010 in Japan during sperm retrieval.
To truly conserve pandas, efforts should be channelled to addressing the major threats they face in the wild, such as habitat fragmentation, rather than placing – if not imprisoning – them at a zoo.
Scholar Lung Yuan-chih pointed out that pandas raised in captivity lose their survival skills in the wild and cannot pass on these skills to the next generation, resulting in more giant pandas that can never be released into their natural habitats. As Lung trenchantly puts it: “Zoo ‘conservation’ is an expensive and ineffective ‘fake conservation’.”
Simultaneously, when zoos “conserve” pandas, the focus often isn’t on animal welfare but on attracting visitors and satisfying human desires. Returning to Hong Kong, Ocean Park bluntly states that the new giant pandas would “enhance Hong Kong’s tourism appeal,” a claim that renders the species mere resources.
The objectification of the giant pandas is again revealed in a video titled “Learn about Breeding of Giant Panda” on Ocean Park’s website. Rather than the reproductive facts of the animal, the emphasis is placed on how the park has assisted, if not forced, the pandas to mate with all the advanced techniques they used: scent marks, artificial insemination, and so on.
It is as if the giant pandas could not have survived without humans, although it is humans who have destroyed their natural habitats and practiced over-hunting in the first place. Worse still, the giant pandas have become objects that manifest human technological advancement instead of live-bearing subjects. Simply put, Ocean Park’s “conservation and education work” is a mask to cover the cruel captivity of animals for the sake of making money.
Putting concerns of animal welfare aside, gifting pandas could also lead to negative political ends. Pandas are solitary animals that tend to remain alone, apart from a very short period during mating season. Yet, Pandas are always sent and “kept” in pairs with one male and one female.
Such practice can only be explained through humanity’s fetishisation and romanticisation of companionship, at the expense of pandas’ inherent solitary nature. Such neglect of animal nature reached peak irony in 2008, when China gifted a pair of pandas named Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan – whose names together mean “unity” – Taiwan, a self-governed democratic island that Beijing sees as its own. Isn’t it paradoxical to gift a pair of animals that dislike unions the most to an island with which China strives to unify?
Regarding Hong Kong, while the nation’s love for Hong Kong is undeniable, the gift of pandas also carries irony. Gifting pandas convey misleading conservation messages, and using animal oppression and cruelty to represent the central government’s “support” for Hong Kong is paradoxical.
Pro-Beijing party the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has suggested naming the pandas “governance” and “prosperity,” reflecting the official narrative of the city’s situation.
Chinese Confucian philosopher Mencius said: “Without benevolent governance, one cannot bring peace and flourishment to the world.” According to Confucian teachings, “benevolence” is best manifested through compassion. To govern and move from governance to prosperity, rulers must win people’s hearts through virtue. Perhaps genuinely caring for giant pandas’ welfare is the key to winning the hearts and minds of Hongkongers.
Which brings me back to my very unpopular opinion: the gift of giant pandas to Hong Kong violates animal welfare.
Pit Hok Yau is a researcher for The Hong Kong Animal Law and Protection Organisation and an MPhil student in Cultural Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
| HKFP is an impartial platform & does not necessarily share the views of opinion writers or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views & regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Press freedom is guaranteed under the Basic Law, security law, Bill of Rights and Chinese constitution. Opinion pieces aim to point out errors or defects in the government, law or policies, or aim to suggest ideas or alterations via legal means without an intention of hatred, discontent or hostility against the authorities or other communities. |
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.