Round The World

New Delhi, 14 October 2009

US Foreign Policy

CHINA Vs TIBET ISSUE CRUCIAL

By Hina Pandey

(Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU)

Washington today assigns considerable significance to Beijing’s reaction. This is reflected in the fact that for the first time in 18 years a US President did not meet his Holiness the Dalai Lama, who was in Washington on a five-day visit this October. The Dalai Lama was there to meet Congressional leaders and present the Light of Truth award to Late Julia Taft. He also attended a conference and received human rights award from the Lantos Foundation, in memory of Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor and longtime champion of human rights.

While the Chinese have always been skeptical about the Dalai Lama meeting with any foreign Head of State, this time around the opposition may have also been aroused by the timing of the meeting. It so happens that October 7th marks the 59th anniversary of the Peoples Republic of China’s invasion of Tibet (1950) and the Dalai Lama visiting the White House around then would have sent alarming signals to Beijing.

President Obama's decision to reschedule his meeting with the Tibetan monk was taken after Beijing voiced its strong opposition. White House officials were forced to confirm that the meeting would now take place only after Obama met with Chinese premier Hu-Jintao in November. Obviously fearing ruining ties with the Chinese dragon, the current presidency vetoed Congress representatives Nancy Pelosi and Frank Wolf’s suggestion to host the Dalai Lama.

Interestingly, this is not the first time that Beijing has objected to what could have been a possible association of President Obama and the Dalai Lama. In 2007 too, when his Holiness received a congressional gold medal by President Bush, Beijing had opposed the decision. Likewise, Sino-French ties fell to their lowest point after French President Nicolas Sarkozy met with the Dalai Lama in December last year, following which China postponed a summit with the European Union. Early this year Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi made it amply clear that refusing the visits of the Dalai Lama should become one of “the basic norms of international relations” of any country cultivating ties with China.

Clearly, Chinese support is crucial for America’s foreign policy, as put across by Ian Kelly, US State Department spokesperson. The Obama presidency wants to engage China as an important global player, even though it does not want to compromise on human right issue. Does this signal towards Washington’s change in its Tibet policy? In the past it has maintained a fair amount of compassion about the Tibet issues. However, assessed under the light of Beijing’s importance to America’s foreign policy in the future, it seems that there may be a U turn.

Since the early 90's the debate about “rising China" has occupied American strategic literature. The threat of the PRC as a peer competitor, a possible regional authority in Asia and a potential global power in the near future has become more immediate, especially if viewed under the backdrop of the current economic financial crisis. Indeed, of late it has been observed that China is making an attempt to engage with the international community. Combined with its naval modernization and newer space programmes, the PRC certainly has a long-term global objective on its mind.

Today China is competing face-to-face with the US both economically and politically in the world arena. Few instances of it trying to subtly step into Washington’s shoes are: its participation in the first East Asian Summit in 2005, which included member nations as ASEAN States and others such as Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand. Beijing has also pursued ties with Central Asian countries of the former Soviet Union, including Russia, through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

This apart, it is vying with the US for influence and access to energy resources in the Middle East. The PRC President Hu Jintao made an official State visit to Saudi Arabia in February last, to strengthen Sino-Saudi Arabian energy ties. Besides, China’s trade with the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations has steadily increased, touching $32 billion in 2005. Early this January, the Chinese Foreign Minister met his counterpart in Oman, Yousuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, to discuss Beijing’s willingness to improve Sino-Arab cooperation, including efforts to resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Coming back to Tibet, the issue could be viewed as a three-dimensional challenge for America’s foreign policy. The first is to comprehend the real problem, as the issue is highly controversial. The perplexed political status of Tibet, the Dalai Lama’s influence on monks and the Chinese control of religious traditions and media appear to be a major irritant in Sino-US relations.

The present administration needs to make a clear distinction between the Chinese and Tibetan version to find out the sensitivities attached. For any kind of constructive foreign policy success, the US administration must see through the accusations that both the parties have levied against each other. One can not possibly turn a blind eye to the blatant human rights violation by the Chinese in Lahsa and the Tibetan region of China and the constant criticism of the Dalai Lama, despite his being recognized as a peacemaker by the world community. Remember, he received the Nobel peace prize in 1989.

On the other hand, one must closely introspect that notwithstanding violations, China has provided Tibet with extensive economic assistance and development. At least that is what Beijing claims. Chinese officials have adopted plans to increase economic activity in Tibet by 10 per cent per annum and provide substantial subsidies to help its economy.

The second challenge is diplomatic, wherein the administration has to deal subtly with the sensitivities of the issue to engage China constructively, such that Sino-US relations can prosper in spite of disagreements. By now the US must have realized the importance of the Chinese economy, and that it can ill afford to upset Beijing let alone issue any warning. Recall that in 1993 Bill Clinton's administration threatened to suspend normal tariff treatment. Apparently it was a mistake as its economy took precedence over human rights violation and as such no significant action was taken.

The third challenge though domestic has international significance. It is to formulate a consensus-based approach towards Sino-Tibet issue, and at the same time garner more world support for Tibet, which began in 1986-1987, so as to eventually resolve the issue multilaterally. Till now the US has maintained its consistent support to the Dalai Lama's middle approach. It has repeatedly called for change of policies in Tibet and has recognized itself as playing a critical role in fostering ties between the two parties.

Clearly, the American primacy in the 21st century's global and much-integrated world has certainly declined. Combined with this is the emerged multi-polar or “non polar” international  system which demands the policy makers in the White House to carefully extract elements of rising China, such that national interests can be served.

Hence it is in Washington’s interest to engage and cooperate with the PRC. It also turns out to be the safest way out for the American policy makers. And, it is for this purpose that the “Tibet Issue” may be sidelined for sometime in the future. Sadly, for the US China has and shall always takes precedence over human rights violations be it the case of Tibet or any other. –INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)