Free Tibet! (or at least meet with the Dalai Lama)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Shame on you, Mr. President.

Why do you continue to reduce human rights to a virtual irrelevance in your foreign policy?

Why do you continue to give your tacit support to China's brutal totalitarian dictatorship? Why do you continue to give in to China's demands, no matter what?

Why do you refuse to meet with the Dalai Lama, one of the greatest and most courageous men of our time?

Is it all about appeasing Beijing? Is it all about dollars and cents? Tell that to the Tibetan people, and to the rest of China's countless victims.

I get realism, I really do. I understand the need to maintain open and strong relations with China. But -- at what cost? At what human cost? At what moral cost?

You don't have to be like your predecessor to stand up for democracy and freedom, for civil and human rights. Surely you can find a way to maintain good relations with China while also expressing your support for Tibet -- and for its leader.

It's time to take a stand. A few carefully worded criticisms now and then aren't enough, and appeasement is no longer an acceptable option.

It won't make China happy, but you should meet with the Dalai Lama, world leader to world leader, and show your commitment to change.

China's Syndrome

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's called Dalai Lama Derangement Syndrome. The Mahablog's Barbara O'Brien explains here. It's an thoughtful post that goes on to address the relationship between religion and politics.

President Bush ought to be credited for defying China and meeting with the Dalai Lama -- and also for attending the ceremony at which he was presented with the Congressional Gold Medal.

At his press conference yesterday, Bush said this:

I told the Chinese President, President Hu that I was going to go to the ceremony. In other words, I brought it up. And I said I'm going because I want to honor this man. I have consistently told the Chinese that religious freedom is in their nation's interest. I've also told them that I think it's in their interest to meet with the Dalai Lama, and will say so at the ceremony today in Congress. If they were to sit down with the Dalai Lama they would find him to be a man of peace and reconciliation. And I think it's in the country's interest to allow him to come to China and meet with him.

He is right about the Dalai Lama, of course, but he is overly optimistic about the Chinese. Meet the Dalai Lama and talk? How would that go? The U.S. should be pressing China to embrace liberal and democratic principles (human and civil rights, the rule of law, free and fair elections, etc.), but China is not about to embrace the Dalai Lama or to soften its fierce and brutal positions on Tibet just because he's "a man of peace and reconciliation," or just because Bush thinks it's in their "interest" to do so.

Besides, Bush can say what he wants about "religious freedom," his positions on China are soft and self-interested. And although he defied the Chinese here, he is not about to defy them when it really matters:

The White House softened the slight to Beijing by keeping today's meeting between the Dalai Lama and Mr Bush a distinctly private affair, and by previously assuring the president's attendance at the 2008 summer Olympics in China.

And he is not about to apply serious pressure on China to reform, either unilaterally or through international organizations like the U.N.

As always, the gulf between Bush's words and actions is immense.