China’s panda diplomacy, a strategy as unique as the animal on which it centers, has long symbolized goodwill, conservation and mutual benefit in the eyes of the global public. However, beneath this charming façade lies a complex web of economic interests and diplomatic maneuvering, all of which are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. What was once heralded as a generous act of environmental collaboration is now being scrutinized for its true intentions and outcomes. Recent investigations and reports reveal a far darker reality than previously imagined.
Meric Sentuna Kalaycioglu
24 February 2025
For decades, pandas have been ambassadors of China. Historically, pandas were gifted to nations as tokens of goodwill a practice beginning in 1941 and gaining prominence after the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Under Mao Zedong’s leadership, pandas were gifted to allies such as the Soviet Union and North Korea to strengthen diplomatic ties. In 1972, China presented two pandas to the USA following President Nixon’s visit, marking a turning point in Sino-American relations. However, following concerns over declining panda populations, China transitioned in 1984 from gifting pandas to loaning them under high-fee agreements, with annual payments of around USD 1 million per pair, to fund panda conservation in China. The seemingly high cost is modest compared to lucrative trade agreements often accompanying panda loans.
Today, only about 60 pandas are housed in 20 foreign zoos, highlighting the exclusivity of these arrangements. In a high-profile instance of panda diplomacy, Chinese President Xi Jinping presented two pandas to Moscow at a ceremony with the Russian leader Vladimir Putin in 2019, underscoring the growing rapprochement between the two countries and reinforcing their alignment on global issues.
While panda loans are perceived as a symbol of goodwill, their presence often serves deeper strategic goals, often coinciding with major trade or investment agreements. In 2011, Scotland’s Edinburgh Zoo received its first two pandas. While the transfer of the pandas appeared to be the centerpiece of the event, the UK and China simultaneously negotiated billions of dollars in trade agreements, mainly concerning Scottish oil refineries. Similar deals have been observed in other countries, with many panda loans linked to uranium trade agreements, a critical component of China’s ambition to expand its nuclear capacity by 2050. Australia, who possess the world’s largest uranium reserves, welcomed a pair of pandas in 2009, three years after finalizing a uranium supply deal with Beijing. Canada’s panda loan in 2013 aligned with agreements on uranium and other energy-related exports to China. Given China’s rapid nuclear expansion, these deals have drawn considerable attention and concern. It is no surprise that pandas are often seen as “the most political animal”.
Questions have also arisen about utilization of funds generated through panda diplomacy. In November 2024, the New York Times (NYT) reported that over the past two decades American zoos have paid USD 86 million to China to host and display pandas, but not all payments have been used for panda conservation as intended. Some payments, mandated under the US Endangered Species Act of 1973, were reportedly spent on infrastructure projects such as roads, government office equipment, even museums, rather than protecting the species.
For several years the US payment overseer, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had raised concerns about China’s lack of transparency. In 2003, regulators halted payments to China due to insufficient documentation but later conceded to Chinese demands for less detailed financial reporting. By 2010, concerns escalated further, as Chinese organizations stopped reporting their expenditures entirely. In response, American regulators froze USD 12 million in payments over a two-year period but monies to Beijing later resumed to avoid jeopardizing American zoos’ access to pandas.
The NYT revelation prompted a flurry of activity in Washington. On 19 December 2024 the Republican Chairs of the House Committee on Natural Resources, and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations issued a formal letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, as well as the FWS Directorate. The letter expressed serious concerns regarding the lack of transparency and inadequate tracking of payments made under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and called for greater accountability over monies sent to China. However, due to the recent change in the US administration on 20 January 2025, the current status of these investigations is unclear. Could this be another case of waste fraud and abuse for Musk’s DOGE team?
Moreover, China’s use of panda diplomacy has been criticized as a one-sided exchange. While recipient zoos pay millions of dollars for the privilege of housing pandas, they also shoulder substantial costs in caring for these animals. Pandas are notoriously expensive to maintain, requiring specialized diets, enclosures and veterinary care. Additionally, any cubs born abroad legally belong to China and must be returned before their fourth birthday. Despite this, zoos often view pandas as a worthwhile investment due to their unmatched ability to draw crowds and boost revenue. American zoos, including those in Washington D.C., Atlanta and San Diego, have long participated in panda loan agreements. On 24 January 2025, giant pandas Bao Li and Qing Bao made their public debut at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington D.C., drawing large crowds and widespread media attention.
The international community faces a critical challenge: how to ensure that conservation efforts genuinely benefit endangered species, rather than becoming purely vehicles for political and economic leverage. Pandas may delight zoo visitors around the world, but their journeys tell a far larger story about where China’s interests truly lie. Growing scrutiny surrounding panda diplomacy now casts a shadow over their symbolic role.
