Politicians, diplomats and pundits this week have been all over the significance of panda diplomacy between Canada and China. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his wife and other VIPs, including the Chinese ambassador to Canada, were on hand to greet the arrival of the charming animals at Pearson airport on Monday.

Harper clearly took personal pride in getting the two pandas to Canada, announcing that “over the coming years these pandas will help us learn more about one another while serving as a reminder of our deepening relationship, a relationship based on mutual respect and growing collaboration.”

While I admire such efforts and desire to promote Canada-China friendship — and have no wish to pour cold water on the enthusiastic response to the arrival of these cuddly creatures from China — the truth is that the history of panda diplomacy does not reveal a positive correlation between the arrival of pandas and an improvement in the host country’s relations with China.

Take Japan, for instance. Giant pandas were the most popular attraction at Tokyo’s Ueno Zoo way back in the 1980s, something both the Chinese and Japanese governments hailed as symbolic of bilateral friendship. The Japanese love them — I had a hard time finding a viewing spot when I visited the place. And, over the years, China has overtaken the United States to become Japan’s largest trading partner. Millions of people from both countries live, work and visit each other. The two countries have a deepening, interdependent relationship.

But, at the same time, an overwhelming majority of people in both countries is on record in public opinion surveys as having negative feelings toward the other. And the territorial dispute in the East China Sea has pushed the two sides to the edge of armed conflict.

The United States is another example. Two pandas from China are the star attractions at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. They have special and prominent display zones and the public loves them. But the U.S.-China relationship often is filled with mistrust and mutual suspicion, evident in ongoing disputes over currency, trade, security issues and human rights.

What dominates Beijing’s relations with Tokyo and Washington are not pandas but perceived national interests as defined by each capital, and great power politics at the regional and global levels.

Here in Canada, let’s not forget that Harper himself has not been consistent in his dealings with China. Back in 2006 when the Conservatives first came to power, they wanted little to do with those godless Communists across the Pacific. The prime minister himself was a China skeptic. But in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis and with a bit more experience in government, Harper began to see China as a dynamic and complex place, an investment and trading giant full of opportunities for Canada. And after he had visited China a couple of times, Harper probably saw a Communist country with hardly any Communists left. He seemed to become a panda hugger.

But the heated debate over CNOOC’s purchase of Nexen last fall stimulated Harper’s political instincts once more. By approving the Nexen deal while announcing that no state-owned enterprise (SOE) would be allowed to take a majority stake in the oilsands, Harper adopted the populist position of viewing Chinese SOE investment as a threat to national security.

Thus, the arrival of pandas in Canada does not in any way indicate that the Harper government has developed a strategic vision regarding China. The zoos in Toronto and Calgary have put together a 10-year plan for the pandas, but in order to make panda diplomacy work in Canada’s favour, we urgently need a well-defined China engagement strategy from the federal government that is balanced, domestically well-coordinated, internationally competitive and sustainable over time.

Developing such a strategic vision will require more than photo ops with pandas, charming though they are.

Wenran Jiang, currently on leave from the University of Alberta, has been director of the Canada-China Energy and Environment Forum and its annual conference since 2004.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: