Barack Obama cancels meeting with Dalai Lama 'to keep China happy'

@Robert Gentel,

Actually I do think I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with your position at all.

To me, Robert, not meeting with the Dalai Lama legitimizes those human rights abuses. Who else is presenting these concerns to the world?

Given the position of the Chinese government, what approach do you think would actually help "our ability to use our influence to help the situation" ?

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Quote:

Have you diligently worked towards lightening the oppression of Australian aboriginals in Australia who have lost all their land and most are living in poverty or is it you have racial dislike of China?

My position has absolutely nothing to do with a "racial dislike of China".

You don't know me at all , nor where I stand on issues of human rights. Go check out my thread topics & you might get some idea. You might get a surprise.

BTW what "oppressive" racial situations have you, personally, diligently worked toward eradicating recently?

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Actually I do think I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with your position at all.

I know, and I don't hold any illusions about being able to change your mind, which is why I think we'll ultimately just have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

To me, Robert, not meeting with the Dalai Lama legitimizes those human rights abuses. Who else is presenting these concerns to the world?

I don't see the Dalai Lama as a legitimate leader. He is not an elected leader of the Tibetans, and he has waffled about getting out of the way for the elected leaders (which I think would be a good idea) for a while now. He said:

"I have grown old and already taken semi-retirement. It is better if I retire completely and get out of the way of the Tibetan movement. The future course of the Tibetan movement will be decided by the elected government under Prime Minister Samdhong Rinpoche."

I thought that was a great idea and I don't see him as a special source of information or leadership, he is not in Tibet and gets his news through the grape vine just like everyone else.

Quote:

Given the position of the Chinese government, what approach do you think would actually help "our ability to use our influence to help the situation" ?

Exactly what we are doing, continue to snub the "free Tibet" movement and continue to work with China and use what influence we have to support more human rights and personal freedoms.

I think secession is just not in the cards, so I'd rather see us encourage China to provide more religious and personal freedoms for all their citizens, not just the Tibetans.

China has made progress on these issues, though very slowly, and I think things like economic contagion make a bigger difference than the Dalai Lama. For example, in August they backed down on their mandatory "Green Dam" internet monitoring software, after pressure from US computer manufacturers.

I think more engagement with China does more than meaningless meetings with the Dalai Lama. The meetings to give him awards mean more to him and his Western fans than the Tibetans.

And China has legitimate concerns about secession. The CIA used to support the Dalai Lama as a part of being geopolitical enemies with China and everyone quick to want to break apart other people's countries, but rarely their own (Australia is willing to give the indigenous Australians more autonomy, but won't grant them statehood, America will let American Indians call themselves separate nations, but they really aren't truly autonomous either) and I think China has legitimate reasons to reject this kind of self-determination that everyone's so quick to want to foist on the other country. I think a middle ground of more personal freedoms is a much more reasonable request and I favor calling for more personal freedoms for all Chinese than adopting a secessionist movement that just isn't going to happen.

So in the case of this meeting I think there's no reason to strain relations with China over a meaningless meeting with a largely meaningless religious figurehead for a failed cause. I think there are more practical ways we can use our influence with China.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

... I don't hold any illusions about being able to change your mind, which is why I think we'll ultimately just have to agree to disagree.

You're absolutely right about that, Robert.
I can't agree with you. I just can't.

But, you know, I just wonder .....
What does this mean for tiny a little nation who is invaded by a stronger power in the future? What the hell do they have to go through to be listened to?
Who, if any country (say nothing of the UN) , is going to defend their right to have the life they want & believe in?

Amnesty International can't save them. Perhaps it's impossible.

1 Reply

Quote:

Was Dalai Lama snub debt-related?

When it comes to the White House’s decision not to have President Barack Obama meet with the Dalai Lama during his visit to Washington this week, some are seeing an $800 billion elephant in the room.

That, of course, is the amount of U.S. Treasury debt held by the Chinese government. That makes China the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, and the country’s willingness to buy more is essential to the ability of the United States to finance its deficit spending.

And naturally, the Chinese do not want the new American president to meet with " and lend credibility to " the Dalai Lama, who is a longtime adversary of the Chinese government.

This week will mark the first time since 1991 that the Dalai Lama has come to Washington and not met with the U.S. president.

That leads one former Federal Reserve official to suspect that Chinese fiscal leverage over the American government is at the root of the decision. “Bottom line,” says the official, “don’t piss off your banker.”

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a co-chairman of the Congressional Tibet Caucus, blasted “the administration’s unwillingness to meet with an internationally respected human rights leader in order to placate Chinese tyrants.”

“The U.S. has permitted China to have a one-way free-trade policy for decades, and now we are not only suffering the serious economic damage caused by that policy; we are finding ourselves politically vulnerable to a regime that is the world’s worst human rights abuser,” Rohrabacher said.

The former Federal Reserve official said the situation is delicate: The United States angered China with a tariff on Chinese-made tires, which prompted the Chinese to threaten retaliation at the World Trade Organization. The administration, he says, simply didn’t want another flash point in the tricky bilateral relationship. “Given that atmosphere and the stakes, why on earth would Obama meet with the Dalai Lama, which would surely infuriate the Chinese?”

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

To me, the standard statement holds up... it is silly to meet with the Dalai Lama right before meeting with the Chinese if that is going to sour those meetings. He can meet the Dalai Lama afterwards without raising a fuss.

As to money, the US and China are tied at the hip. China cannot really hold the US over a monetary barrel since the US is critical to the Chinese economy. China is not going to let the dollar crash and that is what would happen if China decided to dump dollars or not buy US debt. Today's China is already more capitalist than communist. Sacrificing all of that money because of the Dalai Lama is not going to happen.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

of course that's merely YOUR opinion...

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Not by you, you ole sharp eyed devil you.

I guess your response to a post of mine needed an ad-hominem.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

What does this mean for tiny a little nation who is invaded by a stronger power in the future?

Nothing at all. Obama meeting the Dalai Lama means nothing at all for it, so canceling the meeting also means nothing at all for it.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I disagree. Whether right or wrong, HH Dalai Lama is the exiled leader of Tibet. Not meeting with him, even in a cursory manner, demonstrates that he does not hold him in the same esteem as say Chavez, Khadafi, or Ahmanutjob.

It may look good to the Chinese, but should we be beholding to the Chinese?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Whether right or wrong, HH Dalai Lama is the exiled leader of Tibet.

What makes him the leader of Tibet to you? That he is supposedly reincarnated?

Lobsang Tenzin won their elections, not the Dalai Lama.

And people in Tibet are listening to him less and less. When he threatened to step down over their violence his aides then had to backtrack and redefine what he meant when he was promptly ignored and the Tibetans continued to attack Han Chinese.

The Tibetan Youth Congress has publicly rebuked him for his advocating of peaceful methods.

His position on Tibet, which I actually support, is called the "Middle Way" where he doesn't advocate separatism but real autonomy instead. The Westerners who support the "free Tibet" movement largely don't even realize this (which is no surprise, as their understanding of the situation is largely superficial) and the Tibetan people largely reject his goals as well. They want 'independence', he advocates 'autonomy'.

So in summary, the Tibetan people didn't elect him, and the Tibetan people largely reject both his goals and his methods. And then there's the part about him not really doing anything except visiting Western countries and being a Dalai Lama.

He is a supposed reincarnation that is more of a leader of the Western "free Tibet" movement than a leader of the Tibetan people. He has no mandate for Tibet and really should step out of the way like he keeps waffling about.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Whether right or wrong, HH Dalai Lama is the exiled leader of Tibet.

What makes him the leader of Tibet to you? That he is supposedly reincarnated?

Lobsang Tenzin won their elections, not the Dalai Lama.

Tenzin is also a reincarnation. As your link says: "he was recognised as the reincarnation of the 4th Samdhong Rinpoche and enthroned in Gaden Dechenling Monastery at Jol." So, I hope that is not the reason you think the Dalai Lama could not be the leader.

A close associate of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader, he was elected to his current position in 2001. He is prime minister, perhaps much like Putin is PM in Russia. He may be the defacto leader, but the Dalai Lama remains the leader. It was the Dalai Lama himself who suggested the exiled Tibetans should elect a leader as he has taken more of a global role.

Quote:

And people in Tibet are listening to him less and less. When he threatened to step down over their violence his aides then had to backtrack and redefine what he meant when he was promptly ignored and the Tibetans continued to attack Han Chinese.

If I were continually oppressed and world leaders refused to help, I too would most likely continue fighting. Instead, leaders who win the Nobel Peace Prize resist meetings with the Dalai Lama for some reason or another.

Quote:

The Tibetan Youth Congress has publicly rebuked him for his advocating of peaceful methods.

Lots or world leaders get rebuked by various groups. Does that mean they are not actually leaders? I suppose that means Obama is not really President.

Quote:

His position on Tibet, which I actually support, is called the "Middle Way" where he doesn't advocate separatism but real autonomy instead. The Westerners who support the "free Tibet" movement largely don't even realize this (which is no surprise, as their understanding of the situation is largely superficial) and the Tibetan people largely reject his goals as well. They want 'independence', he advocates 'autonomy'.

So in summary, the Tibetan people didn't elect him, and the Tibetan people largely reject both his goals and his methods. And then there's the part about him not really doing anything except visiting Western countries and being a Dalai Lama.

He is a supposed reincarnation that is more of a leader of the Western "free Tibet" movement than a leader of the Tibetan people. He has no mandate for Tibet and really should step out of the way like he keeps waffling about.

Your opinion and you share it well. I doubt that "the Tibetan people largely reject both his goals and his methods." and is more likely select groups just as any populace have different desires for their nation. The Dalai Lama is a world leader and should be afforded the respect and honor that position requires. Just like Chavez...

I am sure that the Dalai Lama holds no ill will on this, he would probably say that it was nothing and he felt no disrespect, but it is up to others to express our concern with these events.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Tenzin is also a reincarnation. As your link says: "he was recognised as the reincarnation of the 4th Samdhong Rinpoche and enthroned in Gaden Dechenling Monastery at Jol." So, I hope that is not the reason you think the Dalai Lama could not be the leader.

I don't think that belief in being a reincarnation disqualifies them from being a leader, I just don't think it qualifies them on its own.

I have my qualms with the election process itself, which was pretty much an expat election, but that is inevitably going to be flawed as they can't conduct legitimate polls within Tibet and it's a step in the right direction. If the cause is Tibetan self-determination then it should be determined by more than just supposed reincarnation.

Otherwise it's just a movement to reinstate a theocracy, a cause I don't think is worthy of support.

Quote:

Lots or world leaders get rebuked by various groups. Does that mean they are not actually leaders? I suppose that means Obama is not really President.

This is more than just a single instance of a rebuke, there is a growing divide between the Tibetan people and the Dalai Lama that he himself recognizes but that Western Tibet supporters typically don't pay enough attention to pick up on.

Quote:

The Dalai Lama is a world leader and should be afforded the respect and honor that position requires. Just like Chavez...

So now he's not just a leader of Tibet but he's a "world leader"? Not a single country on earth recognizes his "government in exile", all countries recognize Chavez as the leader of a sovereign state. What is the basis of your comparison?

And, by the way, I don't see much use in Obama meeting Chavez right now either, just less of a downside.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

The Dalai Lama is a world leader and should be afforded the respect and honor that position requires.

And I'm sure he'll receive it after the China visit. He is not such a figure that his visit trumps an upcoming visit with China.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

If we take the Dalai Lama out of this issue, and simply look at whether or not one country ought to accede to pressure from another country about whom its leader sees, what is your opinion Robert?

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Depends on who the person to be seen is and who is doing the pressuring of course. The country being pressured should weight the value of the meeting against the risk of the pressure and make an intelligent decision that corresponds to their objectives.

I don't think there's anything wrong with pressuring other countries to diplomatically isolate someone per se if that is your question. And I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with visiting with the Dalai Lama either (China sees it as foreign meddling in an internal affair, which I don't think is inherently wrong either and again needs to be weighed for strategic value).

3 Replies

@dyslexia,

Quote:

of course that's merely YOUR opinion...

er ... no, actually, dys.
I have seen this same view (or similar) expressed by a number of bloggers on a number of different internet sites. And these bloggers' views have nothing what so ever to do with internal US politics. (Neither do mine, actually.)

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Yes...it's complex and difficult.

We engaged with China way before you guys did.

Thing is, your arguments remind me of decades of Australian politics re Indonesia. And the US. and, now, China.

I have no idea if our...ummm...."careful" approach did any good.

Indonesian democracy activists said it didn't.

The East Timorese don't seem to have appreciated it.

Politics and nuance aside, do you have a general ethical position on this?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I should add, that I understand why some might view it as untoward to try to pressure other countries about who they visit. The thinking goes that it's unwelcome external meddling, but diplomatic meetings like this are not internal issues, they are inherently external in nature. It's simplistic to wish for other nations not to exert their influence on geopolitical matters like that.

Diplomatic isolation is one of the oldest moves in the play book. It generates resentment and nationalism, just like any other external pressure does, which I find understandable but isn't something that makes me consider it fundamentally wrong.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Strategic value being a guesstimate, of course?

I ask these questions genuinely.

I am really struggling on this one for a variety of reasons, and I think this a truly valuable and reasonable discussion, so I am not meaning to attack ANYONE.

Of COURSE countries pressure others.

And I have been enraged by such pressure on free thought by the US, Indonesia, China etc. etc.

Thing is, when does "reason" turn into craven surrender?

1 Reply

Barack Obama cancels meeting with Dalai Lama 'to keep China happy'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know