Dalai Lama snub appeasement to China?

[applecorped]

The Buddhist monk arrived in Washington on Monday for a week of meetings with Congressional leaders, celebrity supporters and interest groups, but the president will not see him until after he has made his first visit to China next month.
Samdhong Rinpoche, the Tibetan prime minister-in-exile, has accused the United States and other Western nations of "appeasement" toward China as its economic weight grows.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ting-with-Dalai-Lama-to-keep-China-happy.html

 

[Praktik]

am I "appeasing" the loan shark that has me by the balls?

Or is it just smart policy to be nice to the guy who owns you?

 

[theprestige]

am I "appeasing" the loan shark that has me by the balls?

Or is it just smart policy to be nice to the guy who owns you?

Well, that's the whole problem with doing business with loan sharks, isn't' it? Sooner or later, the vig gets so steep you end up owing favors. Unpleasant, unethical favors that harm your family, friends, and innocent bystanders who happen to be in the loan shark's way.

ETA: Which, okay, I understand. We're in China's pocket, and getting out won't be easy, for this administration or any other. But far be it for Obama or anybody else to actually admit that yes, withdrawing support for Tibet is a crappy thing to do, and that the only reason we're doing it is because we have to put America's own interests first.

 

[Praktik]

But far be it for Obama or anybody else to actually admit that yes, withdrawing support for Tibet is a crappy thing to do, and that the only reason we're doing it is because we have to put America's own interests first.

Well I too pine for one shiny day in the future when politicians can say things like that and not be pilloried by kneejerk commentators and eventually beaten by a competing candidate that plays to the public's dewey-eyed view of foreign policy and lie the way we demand them to.

But unfortunately it seems the knuckleheads control the agenda and we've all decided that ideas like the quote above are something we just can't handle.

 

[JihadJane]

Is it really it America's* long-term interests not to let its debt-based economy collapse?











*define "America"!

 

[casebro]

Aw c'mon. Let's eliminate the fallacy that Chine "owns" America.

China holds 800 billion of out 12 trillion national debt. That means they hold 7% of our debt.

Holders of the other 93% are not going to allow China to force us into bankruptcy. They will protect their investment. And the last thing China wants is to mess up their own investment in the American economy.

Hmmmm, I wonder how big China's national debt is? How much of it is held by American investors?

Or how much is the USA is worth? The national debt is what percent of our value? The stock market alone is worth $15 trillion.

 

[theprestige]

Well I too pine for one shiny day in the future when politicians can say things like that and not be pilloried by kneejerk commentators and eventually beaten by a competing candidate that plays to the public's dewey-eyed view of foreign policy and lie the way we demand them to.

But unfortunately it seems the knuckleheads control the agenda and we've all decided that ideas like the quote above are something we just can't handle.

Just to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying:

First, you're saying that yes, you agree that selling out Tibet is bad for Tibet but good for America, and America's interests must take precedent.

Second, you're saying what a shame it is that Obama can't figure out how to explain to the public that the right thing to do is, in fact, the right thing to do.

 

[Cleon]

Question: Is the Dalai Lama owed a meeting with the President for some reason? What on Earth obligates Obama to meet with him?

As far as I know, despite being fairly well-known, he's basically got three actual public roles:

1. Religious leader - Aside from some celebrity endorsements, Tibetan Buddhism really doesn't have a very large following.
2. Political leader - He's the last remnant of a regime that was at least as repressive as the Chinese government, quite possibly more so.
3. Part-time professor at Emory University - Meh.

None of which, IMO, should make him a particularly high priority for a meeting with a world political leader.

 

[Praktik]

Just to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying:

First, you're saying that yes, you agree that selling out Tibet is bad for Tibet but good for America, and America's interests must take precedent.

Second, you're saying what a shame it is that Obama can't figure out how to explain to the public that the right thing to do is, in fact, the right thing to do.

point #1: Putting myself in American shoes, yes, selling out Tibet is bad for Tibet and American interests won't be served by grandstanding on the issue. Americans should put their own interests first.

point #2: I bemoan the fact that foreign policy can't be discussed in a realist manner since yes, every nation seeks to pursue its self-interest and this is a fact that is often obscured by public-pleasing pronouncements that cloak this self-interest in a false altruism. This is not a uniquely American trait either -> it is universal.

All that being said, I think there's still room for American pressure on Tibet but it is best left for behind closed doors. The Chinese are proud and sensitive to external pronouncements on their governing style. I'm a big believer in engagement and the ways a closer relationship can actually gain more traction than political posturing (which would serve to distance the two parties). I think that American leverage on the issue actually increases by keeping this away from the bully pulpit and raising it in a respectful and private way. Perhaps there is a give and take opportunity where something China wants can be given in return.

America - and the world - has to realize that there really isn't much they can do about Tibet given it is under the control of a major power with absolute control of the territory and its inhabitants. This impotence is a fact and no amount of grandstanding will change it - in fact, it may entrench that helplessness even more.

Leave the shaming to the protest movement and sympathetic organs of the MSM.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

[*]Political leader - He's the last remnant of a regime that was at least as repressive as the Chinese government, quite possibly more so.

It bugs me how this, i.e. the fact that Tibet was a feudalistic theocracy before the Chinese invasion, is almost never mentioned in discussions about Tibet under Chinese rule. Whether the existing regime was more repressive than the Chinese occupation is contestable imo.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Question: Is the Dalai Lama owed a meeting with the President for some reason? What on Earth obligates Obama to meet with him?

As far as I know, despite being fairly well-known, he's basically got three actual public roles:

1. Religious leader - Aside from some celebrity endorsements, Tibetan Buddhism really doesn't have a very large following.
2. Political leader - He's the last remnant of a regime that was at least as repressive as the Chinese government, quite possibly more so.
3. Part-time professor at Emory University - Meh.

None of which, IMO, should make him a particularly high priority for a meeting with a world political leader.

Not a matter of "too big to fail" but of "too small for us to care about."

OK, they why did we give a crap about ...

Nevermind.

DR