The Washington Post's John Pomfret reports this morning that, "In an attempt to gain favor with China, the United States pressured Tibetan representatives to postpone a meeting between the Dalai Lama and President Obama until after Obama's summit with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, scheduled for next month."
Some might call this diplomacy while some others would call it capitulation. I call it diplomatic capitulation. In an earlier post I had referred to the unannounced meeting between President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama in October before the former undertakes his first official visit to Beijing. I had suspected even then (although refrained from saying so) that the meeting was unlikely to take place before Obama's China visit.
Combined with Washington's enormous economic challenges and how utterly embattled it is is in the Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan theaters, there was no way President Obama would have deliberately annoyed the Chinese leadership by meeting with one whom they consider their global nemesis. Now that Iran's nuclear weapons program has entered the discourse with such ferocity, Obama needs Beijing's help even more.
I am sure Obama's advisers must have reasoned that it is wiser to sideline a Buddhist monk even of the stature of the Dalai Lama than earn China's annoyance. They could not have forgotten the fact that China has invested 70% of its $2 trillion foreign exchange reserves in dollar assets and is worried about the meltdown in the US. If the past eight plus months of the Obama administration has shown us anything it is that strategic diffidence is regarded as a necessary evil by many influential figures starting with Obama himself.
Contrast that with the effusion with which President George Bush met the Dalai Lama publicly while conferring the Congressional Gold Medal in 2007. I was at that the ceremony at the Capitol and had then noted in an analysis how Bush had disregarded Chinese protests. Of course, that show of confidence had everything to do with the fact that Bush knew his tenure was coming to an end and could not really care much about Beijing's sensitivities.
Here is what I wrote in a widely published analysis on February 23, 2009 after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's first visit to China in her official capacity.
"Wanting China to continue to fund US debt, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton avoided any public assertion over of Tibet and human rights during her first two-day visit to China which ended Sunday.
At a time when the US economy is at breaking point, stepping on the toes of the largest holder of US government debt is so obviously counter-productive that Clinton had no choice but to sidestep the two issues. Although it can be fairly argued that being the single biggest buyer of Chinese goods gives the US leverage on political and diplomatic issues, what likely prevented Clinton from using that leverage is that Washington wants Beijing to continue to buy US treasury instruments.
The US government owes China $696.6 billion as of last year, the single largest debt. With the Obama administration just having announced a $787 billion stimulus package to arrest a rapid slide of the economy, Clinton was in no position to raise issues that China disapproves of.
'The global community is counting on China and the United States to collaborate, to pursue security, peace and prosperity for all,' Clinton said. She then said something that should tell all Tibet supporters not to expect any support whatsoever from the Obama administration in the near future.
'By continuing to support American treasury instruments, the Chinese are recognising our interconnection. We are truly going to rise or fall together,' she said even while urging China to continue to buy US treasury bonds."
I knew vindication tasted sweet but had forgotten how much.
