By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Are all Giant Pandas Chinese?
A silly question. But one that has a bearing on current issues.
My wife and daughter saw the Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo last week. It costs Scotland almost a million quid a year to rent the pandas from China. All the money goes to conservation. That's good.
But, if the Edinburgh pandas have a baby, is the baby Panda Scottish or Chinese?
The contract says Chinese.
But from a moral point of view, could a baby Panda born in Scotland claim to be British?
It's contractual agreement between Chinese Gov. and countries abroad since 1987, when Chinese initiated 'pandas study':
http://wwf.panda.org/?13588/History-of-the-Giant-Panda
1984 The Chinese government decides that the panda is a lucrative commodity and begins to loan pandas to zoos with fees of up to US$1 million per year
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/23/5742002/panda-diplomacy-china-soft-power-ka...
Yet despite their American credentials, the cubs are the property of the Chinese government — as are their parents and all other giant pandas in zoos around the world. And if, a few years from now, the US does something that displeases the Chinese government, one or both cubs could be taken away.
It's happened before. In 2010, China took 4-year-old US-born cub Tai Shan (née Butterstick) from the National Zoo— the only time China has ever permanently repatriated a panda in the modern era. Only a few days before Tai Shan was taken to China, the Chinese government had warned President Obama not to meet with the Dalai Lama on a diplomatic visit — and threatened that it would strain US-China relations if he did. The meeting happened anyway.
Over the last several years, China's become much more generous in rewarding its trade partners with pandas — and more aggressive in using them as a bargaining chip when political relations get tense. Many experts in what's called "panda diplomacy" believe that Tai Shan was taken to China in retaliation, as a reminder to the American government that the most popular animal in its own zoo was only there thanks to Chinese generosity.
Lord_hanson:
There is nothing stopping a country from refusing to return the panda. In fact countries should clone the loaned pandas. Then they can return the originals and only breed with the other foreign owned pandas cutting China out of the loop.
icnif77:
It must be some high UN agreement that countries can't do that (refuse to return pandas).
Diplomatic matter similar to 'diplomatic immunity'.
ScotsAlan:
It's a good model if it brings conservation funds in. But it interesting also, because foreign zoos do the difficult job of trying to get them to make babies, but the baby pandas will always be Chinese. The business model is fantastic. But if they do go extinct, who will china blame?
Lord_hanson:
Oh, of course. Every country listens to the super effective UN.
icnif77:
@handsome: you should find one example, when country disobeyed Chinese orders to return the 'dog'. But, there's none. High diplomacy involved.
Shining_brow:
Nothing stopping countries doing lots of things when China does something the others don't like - and yet, they still don't!
I mean, FFS, how many politicians refuse to give an audience to the Dalai Lama cos BJ kicks up a stink???
Under law, animals are property not people. Killing a dog isn't murder, and stealing a cat isn't kidnapping. They are both crime.
-Property can't claim asylum.
Yeah, for some reason China seems to think Pandas are government property and that they can claim ownership of them. It is a shame really. They think they can use pandas as a resource and since they have a monopoly on them they can make massive profits. I suggest foreign governments accuse the Chinese of breaking anti-monopoly laws and seize the furry assets. Then an effective program can begin without Chinese interference.
It's contractual agreement between Chinese Gov. and countries abroad since 1987, when Chinese initiated 'pandas study':
http://wwf.panda.org/?13588/History-of-the-Giant-Panda
1984 The Chinese government decides that the panda is a lucrative commodity and begins to loan pandas to zoos with fees of up to US$1 million per year
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/23/5742002/panda-diplomacy-china-soft-power-ka...
Yet despite their American credentials, the cubs are the property of the Chinese government — as are their parents and all other giant pandas in zoos around the world. And if, a few years from now, the US does something that displeases the Chinese government, one or both cubs could be taken away.
It's happened before. In 2010, China took 4-year-old US-born cub Tai Shan (née Butterstick) from the National Zoo— the only time China has ever permanently repatriated a panda in the modern era. Only a few days before Tai Shan was taken to China, the Chinese government had warned President Obama not to meet with the Dalai Lama on a diplomatic visit — and threatened that it would strain US-China relations if he did. The meeting happened anyway.
Over the last several years, China's become much more generous in rewarding its trade partners with pandas — and more aggressive in using them as a bargaining chip when political relations get tense. Many experts in what's called "panda diplomacy" believe that Tai Shan was taken to China in retaliation, as a reminder to the American government that the most popular animal in its own zoo was only there thanks to Chinese generosity.
Lord_hanson:
There is nothing stopping a country from refusing to return the panda. In fact countries should clone the loaned pandas. Then they can return the originals and only breed with the other foreign owned pandas cutting China out of the loop.
icnif77:
It must be some high UN agreement that countries can't do that (refuse to return pandas).
Diplomatic matter similar to 'diplomatic immunity'.
ScotsAlan:
It's a good model if it brings conservation funds in. But it interesting also, because foreign zoos do the difficult job of trying to get them to make babies, but the baby pandas will always be Chinese. The business model is fantastic. But if they do go extinct, who will china blame?
Lord_hanson:
Oh, of course. Every country listens to the super effective UN.
icnif77:
@handsome: you should find one example, when country disobeyed Chinese orders to return the 'dog'. But, there's none. High diplomacy involved.
Shining_brow:
Nothing stopping countries doing lots of things when China does something the others don't like - and yet, they still don't!
I mean, FFS, how many politicians refuse to give an audience to the Dalai Lama cos BJ kicks up a stink???
Well, the panda renting actually benefit countries as they can attract the locals to the parks and it enhances the countries' fame too. It also showed they are in a good relationship with China. China doesn't rent pandas to any country. So if they break the agreement...I suppose they ruin their own reputation and there could be war and financial/people loss and more. So totally not worth it.
Speaking about cloning a panda. How much will that cost? You will end up with most likely an unhealthy or dead panda and might kill the original during the process too, and it's an extremely controversial thing, you really think any government wanna do that if they have the mature clone technology?
Plus Pandas are not really that friendly, they'll kill if they don't have adequate food. They eat way too much food and only the Chinese Panda survived naturally. So even if you do get millions of pandas, then what? They'll die eventually and may kill innocent people too.
Just let it be, I'm pretty sure when they start to rent pandas they already thought about all the possibilities and they remained it like this for good reasons.
Lord_hanson:
I think the cloning would be a good idea. It can be a great example of using the technology to bring back an animal close to extinction.
It seems evil that Pandas should be the property of the Chinese govt. But remember that all land is also their property or to put another way the property of the Chinese people.
When Karl Marx was growing up in Germany he saw a shift from feudalism to capitalism. What happened was that local villagers gathered firewood in the forest, a place that didn't belong to anyone, enabling the villagers to cook and keep warm. However with the onset of capitalism the forest became owned by a landowner and a resource and the villagers were prohibited from collecting firewood from this forest or even entering it, as it was now someone else's property, a resource.
Despite what they actually do, the fundamentals of Marxism are at least paid lip service in China, and being probably the only place a Giant panda can survive naturally The land is never owned by a corporation or individual only rented, meaning that any Panda could and should at sometime be returned to China. if that money goes into the preservation of the Giant Panda and its habitat and not buying a new Maserati for some corrupt govt douche, great. Although I hate them being used as political footballs.
Lord_hanson:
During feudalism, what happened to the villagers if they caught a deer in a forest?
