At a dinner event in San Francisco on Nov. 15 with a swathe of US business leaders and political heavyweights, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) failed to deliver any tangible benefits that people had expected, nor did he offer reassurance to corporate leaders feeling uneasy about the prospects of the sputtering Chinese economy.
However, one of the highlights from the evening was that Xi called pandas “the ambassador of friendship,” hinting at the possibility that China could be willing to resume its “panda diplomacy” by sending more of the animals to the US.
Ever since then-US president Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 and the gift of two pandas to the Smithsonian’s National Zoo the same year, Beijing has adopted “panda diplomacy” by using the endangered black-and-white bears as tools for international “united front” work.
For the sake of wildlife conservation, Beijing announced that it would stop sending pandas abroad in 1982, and has suspended all leasing practices. The 60 or more pandas in zoos across the US and Europe are all loaned for “mating” or “conservation” purposes. The two pandas (later named Tuan Tuan [團團] and Yuan Yuan [圓圓], their names combined meaning “reunion” in Chinese) that were given to Taipei Zoo were offered as a gift for a mutual exchange of endangered animals.
Classified as an “endangered” species, pandas are expensive animals to keep. The US has to pay an annual rental fee of about US$500,000 to US$1 million, not to mention provisioning and regulatory services as well as providing a tailored environment and provision of fresh bamboo leaves. As a result, pandas come with a hefty price tag.
When Western countries and China were in their honeymoon period, people overlooked the economic burden that pandas bring. However, as the honeymoon bubble has burst, the global community no longer harbors delusions about China and in turn, pandas have gone out of favor.
In February, when a giant panda died of heart failure at Memphis Zoo in Tennessee, the incident triggered a wave of anger among Chinese nationalists on the Internet, accusing the zoo of “abuse.” Ya Ya (丫丫)who went to Memphis from Beijing Zoo in 2003, was expected to be returned to China in April, when the zoo’s loan agreement expired.
The National Zoo also returned its three pandas — Mei Xiang (美香), Tian Tian (添添) and their three-year-old male cub, Xiao Qi Ji (小奇蹟) — to China earlier this month. By the end of the year, only four giant pandas will remain in the US: the two adults and two cubs at Zoo Atlanta. The lease agreement is set to expire next year.
In the UK, the two giant pandas that have been housed at Edinburgh Zoo since 2011 will return to China this month, which would mean no more pandas in the UK. As people’s enthusiasm for pandas has taken a nosedive over the years, China’s global image and influence have done the same. The trend is marked contrast to that of “panda-huggers,” an epithet used to refer to those deemed too soft on China, one which no US politicians would want to be saddled with.
In July, Xi held a state banquet for former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, the meeting can be read as a move of the last panda huggers finding refuge in each others’ arms.
As the relationship between the US and China spirals downward, Xi is now looking to reboot panda diplomacy now that he has no cards up his sleeves. Even if pandas are successfully sent to the California Zoo, it is apparent that the days of the panda huggers are a thing of the past.
Chen Yung-chang is a company manager.
Translated by Rita Wang
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS