China's 'panda diplomacy' losing its appeal, says Indian strategist

China's decades-old practice of lending giant pandas to foreign zoos is losing its diplomatic appeal as governments increasingly question the political and commercial interests behind the program, Indian strategic affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney has argued.

In an opinion article published Tuesday in Project Syndicate, Chellaney said Beijing had long used pandas to project a friendly international image while retaining control over the animals and their offspring.

He pointed to a decline in active international panda-leasing programs, from 21 countries in 2019 to 16 in 2026, as evidence that the practice is becoming less attractive.

The financial stakes are substantial. China earned almost $300 million from its panda-rental program between 1994 and 2023, according to figures cited by Chellaney.

Foreign zoos can pay up to $1.1 million annually to host a breeding pair, while China retains ownership of both the adult animals and any offspring born overseas.

The arrangements have long been promoted as symbols of friendship. Chellaney, however, argued that they also provide Beijing with financial benefits and a means of exercising diplomatic influence.

A multimillion-dollar business

Under China's panda-leasing arrangements, participating zoos generally pay substantial annual fees to display and breed the animals.

Chellaney said a zoo could be required to pay approximately $600,000 for each cub born during the agreement, even though the cub remains Chinese property.

Additional sponsorship and research commitments can cost facilities as much as $2 million.

The contracts are negotiated through the state-run China Wildlife Conservation Association, which oversees international panda cooperation.

According to Chellaney, some agreements allow China to terminate arrangements prematurely and recall animals under a range of circumstances, including unauthorized disclosure of information.

He also claimed that certain agreements restrict zoos from publicly describing the arrangements as leases or rentals.

The combination of ownership restrictions, breeding fees and termination provisions gives Beijing considerable control over animals displayed in foreign institutions.

Chellaney questioned whether the financial commitments were justified by the diplomatic and conservation benefits.

He noted that the Guinness World Records organization has described the giant panda as the world's most expensive species in captivity.

From Nixon's China visit to today's tensions

Pandas became a prominent symbol of Chinese diplomacy after US President Richard Nixon's historic visit to Beijing in 1972.

China subsequently presented two giant pandas to the Smithsonian's National Zoo in Washington, establishing a relationship that helped introduce the animals to generations of American visitors.

The arrangement became one of the most recognizable cultural symbols of improving relations between Washington and Beijing.

Over the following decades, pandas were sent to zoos in Europe, Asia, North America and the Middle East.

The animals attracted visitors, generated publicity and provided a highly visible expression of bilateral goodwill.

But Chellaney argued that panda diplomacy has also reflected shifts in political relations.

He cited China's decision in 2010 to accelerate the return of two US-born panda cubs following Washington's announcement that President Barack Obama would meet the Dalai Lama.

He presented the episode as an example of pandas being used to convey diplomatic displeasure.

In 2023, the Smithsonian's National Zoo returned its three remaining pandas to China, temporarily ending a tradition that had continued for more than half a century.

Japan has experienced a similar development.

Its last two giant pandas were returned to China this year, leaving the country without the animals for the first time since the normalization of diplomatic relations between Tokyo and Beijing in 1972.

Chellaney contrasted these developments with China's decision to send pandas to Qatar before the 2022 FIFA World Cup, when Qatari officials described the arrangement as a reflection of close bilateral relations.

Xi's latest panda initiative

The latest example came during Chinese President Xi Jinping's recent visit to Washington.

Xi announced that China would send a breeding pair of giant pandas, Ping Ping and Fu Shuang, to Zoo Atlanta in the United States.

The animals arrived several days later.

The announcement was another demonstration of Beijing's continued interest in using pandas to maintain a positive international image.

But Chellaney argued that the initiative received relatively little American media attention compared with earlier panda exchanges.

He suggested that policymakers increasingly regard such gestures as symbolic rather than meaningful indicators of bilateral relations.

Chellaney also noted that zoo attendance can level off after the initial excitement surrounding a panda's arrival.

He argued that the declining number of participating countries raises questions about whether the costs and restrictions associated with the program continue to justify its diplomatic value.

The Tibet connection

Chellaney's criticism extends beyond the commercial arrangements.

He also questioned China's presentation of the giant panda as an exclusively Chinese national symbol, pointing to the animal's natural habitat in areas historically associated with Tibet.

One important habitat is Wolong, located on the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau in present-day Sichuan province.

The area falls within the Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture and contains mountain forests that provide suitable conditions for pandas.

Chellaney noted that Wolong historically formed part of the Tibetan region of Kham.

He argued that China's promotion of the panda as a national symbol forms part of a broader effort to incorporate the Tibetan Plateau's geography, wildlife and cultural associations into mainstream Chinese identity.

The claim is part of Chellaney's wider criticism of Beijing's policies toward Tibet and should be distinguished from the established zoological fact that giant pandas inhabit mountain forests in southwestern China.

The giant panda is classified as vulnerable, while the red panda, another species associated with Himalayan habitats, is endangered.

Chellaney also raised concerns about the use of vulnerable wildlife in commercial and diplomatic arrangements.

He argued that the costs of captive breeding, the limitations of reintroducing captive-born pandas into the wild and the political conditions attached to international loans warrant closer examination.

--