There has been much hand-wringing about Obama’s lack of results in China. As Stephen Walt explained, this was the fruits of years of folly. Yet despite delivering on the one issue that really really mattered (and the one could be realistically advanced)–a shared approach to sustaining the global environment–the New York Times, while demonstrating it fully understands the problems, still feels the need to finish its Saturday editorial bewailing his sotto voce approach to human rights and insisting that ‘the American president must always be willing to stand up to Beijing in defense of core American interests and values’.
Contrast this with the Dalai Lama’s comments today: “Obama is not soft on China; just has a different style,” and reminding everyone that “I am not disappointed that Obama has not met me yet.”
For somebody who has a ken interest in results and a deep commitment to rationality, this makes perfect sense of course. The Dalai Lama has spent almost all of his natural life trying to reach accommodation with Beijing and has no interest in posturing. He knows perfectly well that an American president in a weak position making loud noises on Tibet is just about the last thing he needs. That Obama isn’t playing to the domestic gallery in this way is indeed a good sign that he is focusing on substantive issues and establishing a good working relationship. For just these reasons it was probably just as well that Obama didn’t meet the Dalai Lama before his trip to China.
None of this means that Obama will prioritise the Tibetan cause. But the Dalai Lama will understand only too well the need for patience and subtlety in dealing with Beijing and by reminding people of this can hardly be harming his own cause in either Beijing or Washington.
The Dalai Lama on Obama
Contrast this with the Dalai Lama’s comments today: “Obama is not soft on China; just has a different style,” and reminding everyone that “I am not disappointed that Obama has not met me yet.”
For somebody who has a ken interest in results and a deep commitment to rationality, this makes perfect sense of course. The Dalai Lama has spent almost all of his natural life trying to reach accommodation with Beijing and has no interest in posturing. He knows perfectly well that an American president in a weak position making loud noises on Tibet is just about the last thing he needs. That Obama isn’t playing to the domestic gallery in this way is indeed a good sign that he is focusing on substantive issues and establishing a good working relationship. For just these reasons it was probably just as well that Obama didn’t meet the Dalai Lama before his trip to China.
None of this means that Obama will prioritise the Tibetan cause. But the Dalai Lama will understand only too well the need for patience and subtlety in dealing with Beijing and by reminding people of this can hardly be harming his own cause in either Beijing or Washington.