Image Credits: Stacey
A furry friend for relationships. Animals (more specifically domestic pets) may be man's best friend, but in a world of tensions and chaos, there is so much more a furry friend can do to soften relationships between world leaders. For decades, animals have been used as a friendly gesture from one country to another. However, with greater awareness of animal welfare, environmentalists are raising questions on the ethicality of such practices. This makes one wonder exactly how important are these seemingly small creatures in our global world order? And, how will these new concerns influence the continuity of this age-old practice?
A brief history on animal diplomacy
Animal diplomacy is defined as the use of living animals by governments as a gift between heads of states in international relations. While China’s adorable giant pandas are the most iconic example of this diplomatic strategy, used since the Tang Dynasty (618-907), pandas are not the only ones in circulation of this trade. To fully understand the history of animal diplomacy, we have to go back to the very beginning.
Since the Egyptian Queen, Cleopatra’s era, animals, more specifically exotic animals have been used as an olive branch in international relations. From Cleopatra’s giraffes to Julius Caesar in Rome (and many more to Uzbekistan and Florence), to the 1970s Canadian Black Beavers sent to her majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and Australian Koala bears to the United States, animals have often been a symbol of friendship, bolstering relations between countries.
Cleopatra’s giraffes to Rome.
Image Credits: New York Public Library Collection
Why the practice gained popularity in various eras
Historically, animals have been used as a symbol of power. Lions, tigers and other ferocious animals were commonly used in arena fights with gladiators in Ancient Rome, which continues to live on today in the form of bullfights. In a time where animals were only accessible by the highest ranks of society, the gift of such powerful creatures signified deep respect to the receiver, and hence was often used to build relationships with other world rulers.
However, as zoos became popular in the 18th century, animals became public property, easily accessible to the common populace. Coincidentally, this period marked the rise of colonialism from the West. Bringing in exotic animals was hence more than just to create excitement amongst the people, especially in times of difficulties. It was the living proof of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution which highlighted the concept of natural selection where our environment will favor individuals with the most suitable traits which will then be passed down to the next generation. In other words, Darwin believed in the concept of the survival of the fittest, which played well against the backdrop of colonization and the concept of the White Man’s Superiority: the more superior westerners with the aim of civilizing the uncivilized in underdeveloped countries for the betterment of their wellbeing.
In today’s context, exotic animals no longer hype up the crowds in zoos, especially since virtually any animal can be seen via the internet (or even better, travel to their native countries). Nonetheless, animals continue to rank high in gifts countries enjoy sending to each other. These furry creatures are symbols of blossoming or strengthening friendships, a sign of respect and a great way to lighten the mood in diplomatic visits worldwide. At the same time, such soft-diplomacy also serves as a great opportunity to promote one’s country around the world. Just as Koalas are associated with the Down Under, animals are often used as national symbols which can be easily promoted within international zoos.
A closer inspection of China’s famed Panda Diplomacy
Captive-bred baby giant pandas in Chengdu’s captive-breeding facility
Image credits: Joshua Doubek via Creative Commons License
No article on animal diplomacy can ever be complete without inspecting China’s unique approach to animal diplomacy. In most cases of animal diplomacy, animals are gifted with no expectation of its return. However, in China, the furry Giant Pandas have been classified as Chinese property on loan to other countries since the 1990s. Their national treasure is often loaned in breeding pairs via a 10-15 year contract at a cost of US$1 million annually. This does not include the costs of food and general upkeep. The decision to place pandas on a loan basis has been justified by China as a means to raise funds for local Chinese conservation efforts which cost around $255 million a year.
So far, we have established that animal diplomacy is used mainly as a gesture of friendship between countries. This hence makes one wonder why any country would pay this exorbitant price to “Rent a Panda”? Simply put, the pandas are often part of a larger package deal. In 2012, China sent 4 furry friends to Toronto and Calgary zoos following the successful trade talks, and a Foreign Investment Protection Agreement which was negotiated after 20 years. In the Adelaide Zoo, the panda’s incoming arrival was announced by Chinese president Hu at the APEC summit in 2007 following the announcement of yearly “security dialogues” between the two countries. Furthermore, the price paid is small compared to the economic gains zoos will receive through increased visitor flows, and the research opportunities local science, environmental and veterinary industries will gain by receiving the pandas.
Looking at the bigger picture, the loan is part of a ‘captive breeding programme’ whereby receiving countries are to attempt to promote the successful breeding of the endangered species. This conservation effort certainly makes sense, especially since the majority of the pandas are going to countries with a well-established science industry that zoos can leverage on. By spreading the costs of research in breeding methods, as an international community, we can work together to find ways to save this diminishing species, and perhaps even pass this knowledge on to other species all around the world.
China’s conservation efforts through panda diplomacy and local efforts have proven successful: In 2016, Giant Panda’s status was upgraded from ‘endangered’ to ‘vulnerable’.
Yet, controversy continues to plague this method. According to a joint China-US study, the loan programmes have helped raise $709 million in a single year of 2010. Additionally China’s local efforts have also raised $1.9 billion. After local expenditure has been taken out of the equation, China has been found to essentially be making a profit of 923%, which makes it unjustifiable for them to loan pandas out at such a high rate. Furthermore, any panda cubs born successfully from overseas breeding programmes are deemed Chinese property, akin to citizenship rights for humans. After a period of time for mother and child to bond and stabilize, the cub is then sent back to China to continue the lucrative trade.
Recently, worsening Sino-US relations had led the US to the brink of losing further deals to obtain pandas. Even though a deal was eventually reached due to efforts on both sides to remedy their relationship, these envoys of friendship shows how China makes use of pandas to gain national objectives.
Rising ethical concerns
China’s deepest reasons for Panda diplomacy is a reflection of what most countries aim to achieve through such exchanges. More often than not, these gifts come with hidden price tags in the form of favors and other sorts of benefits. In 1487, the Egyptian sultan sent a female giraffe to Lorenzo de’ Medici in Florence to encourage them to turn against the Ottoman Turks (which they did). In the case of Malaysia, Orangutans are planned to be gifted to major palm oil importing nations to signify their desire to preserve wildlife while developing their economy through palm oil which makes up 5% of their GDP. On the surface, gifting animals seems a win-win situation for all parties. Countries get their curry favors, build relationships all whilst being able to place animals, especially those close to extinction in a country with greater capacities to care for such animals.
Yet, environmentalists argue that such methods are only promoting the propagation of the reason why these animals are going extinct: environmental degradation of wildlife’s natural habitat in pursuit of greater development for humankind. In many countries, by shipping these animals off somewhere else, they are able to shed their moral responsibility to protect the natural habitats, encouraging destructive behaviors such as deforestation to continue. In the case of Malaysia, their aims for preservation has been argued by environmentalists as flawed, considering how sending Orangutans to their trading partners frankly does nothing but promote greater demand for destroying land to produce palm oil.
Even in cases where countries give animals despite having capacities to care for the animals, there comes another ethical question: Is it right to displace animals away from their natural habitats and put them enclosed within four walls for other people to watch them? This seemingly runs contrary to the notion of promoting these animal’s wellbeing. After all, the best place for animals to grow and prosper is in their natural habitat where they belong, of which no zoo can ever completely replicate artificially. Worse still if an animal is being transported to a country with completely different natural climates that they struggle to adapt to.
Furthermore, in cases of endangered species,the rigorous breeding programmes have sometimes gone to the extent of using artificial reproductive treatments. Since each country is usually given just a few of a single species, unsurprisingly, it is almost impossible for natural mating. Zoos have hence often resorted to IVF treatments, which in itself is already hotly debated in its ethical use for humans, much less for animals who perhaps had no intention to become parents in the first place.
With breeding programmes, there also comes the question of what happens to their offspring. As seen in China, the offspring are usually kept to continue the breeding programme, rather than being released back into the wild.
But what makes environmentalists and conservationists most annoyed is the underlying attitudes governments have to such animals. By using animals as gifts, often in exchange for favors, animals are being degraded to nothing more than a pawn used in the big chess board of international relations, politics and economic gains. Animals have lives too, and making use of them for favors or for breeding is morally incorrect.
International Efforts
CITES
Image Credits: CITES Facebook https://www.facebook.com/cites/
That is not to say no efforts have been put in place to regulate this practice. Since 1973 the UN has been conducting the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which has 183 parties involved. International trade of selected endangered species have to be authorized through a licensing system. Additionally, every party of the convention has to designate a scientific authority to advise them on the effects of trade on the status of the species.
However, these only apply to designated endangered species. Additionally, as mentioned on the CITES website, there is only so much international efforts can do to safeguard the wellbeing of animals. It all boils down to national efforts within countries that can ensure the continuity of protection of animals’ rights within animal trade after they have arrived in their new homes. We see this in the case of China who refused to transfer their pandas under the CITES protocol to Taiwan as it was classified as a domestic transfer
rather than an international one.
Changes to animal diplomacy?
While the ethical concerns with regard to animal diplomacy are valid, animal diplomacy itself is not all that bad. The benefits that come from animal diplomacy including the raising of awareness of different species of animals, the promotion of the preservation of endangered animals and the countless political benefits countries can reap from this practice are still crucial in the bigger picture.
Perhaps, the answer to these rising concerns may not necessarily be an end to the practice. Rather, stronger international and national regulations are what is lacking within this diplomatic practice. Governments need to be committed to safeguarding the wellbeing of animals, both locally and in the cases of animal trade or gifting. In cases of animal diplomacy, governments should conduct checks if the receiving country has the necessary finances and suitable climate for the animals to thrive in. Between the two nations, collaboration in designing comfortable environments to house these animals through the transfer of pre-existing knowledge of these native animals can help boost the quality of these animals' lives. Within the international sphere, greater efforts must be put into creating a code of conduct for breeding programmes and the protocol with regard to their offspring.
In the long run, our society needs to look towards eventually returning animals back to the wild where they belong, promoting greater preservation of our environment. This is not solely for the animals’ well being, but also for the Earth. After all, we humans also belong to the food chain where animals are essential for the survival of our beautiful planet we call home.
References
CITES. (n.d.). How CITES Works. https://cites.org/eng/disc/how.php
CITES. (n.d.). Legislation. https://cites.org/eng/legislation
CITES. (n.d.). Parties to CITES. https://cites.org/eng/disc/parties/chronolo.php
Clark-Shen, N. (2020, January 10). Panda Diplomacy: Gifting Pandas to Further China’s Politics. https://kontinentalist.com/stories/panda-diplomacy-gifting-pandas-to-further-chinas-politics
Forbes. (2018, June 29). Pandanomics: What Is Giant Panda Conservation Worth? Billions Every Year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2018/06/29/pandanomics-what-is-giant-panda-conservation-worth-billions-every-year/?sh=5e27f7a477fc
Huges, R. (2024, May 24). 'Disconnected from Reality': Why Wildlife Protection Groups Want Animal Diplomacy to Stop. https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/05/24/disconnected-from-reality-why-wildlife-protection-groups-want-animal-diplomacy-to-stop
Kingsland, A. (2020, June 20). Diplomacy and Animal Gift-Giving: A 20th Century Evolution. https://medium.com/anne-marie-kingsland/diplomacy-and-animal-gift-giving-a-20th-century-evolution-7e483c2c4980
Khan Academy. (n.d.). Darwin, Evolution, and Natural Selection. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/natural-selection-ap/a/darwin-evolution-natural-selection#:~:text=Darwin%20proposed%20that%20species%20can,over%20very%20long%20time%20periods.
Lavelle,P. (2018, October 16). Returns on Panda Conservation for China. https://america.cgtn.com/2018/10/16/returns-on-panda-conservation-for-china
Ryan, J. (2019, May 16). Why Paying for Pandas Is Not So Black and White. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190516-why-paying-for-pandas-is-not-so-black-and-white
Tan, C. (2024, May 30). Orangutan Diplomacy: Why Malaysia’s Scheme Is Attracting Criticism Before It Starts. https://theconversation.com/orangutan-diplomacy-why-malaysias-scheme-is-attracting-criticism-before-it-starts-230150
Tunstall, L. (2013, April 10). A Long History of Animal Diplomacy: It’s Not Just Pandas. https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/a-long-history-of-animal-diplomacy-its-not-just-pandas_b_3049488