Obama stands up to China on Dalai Lama

This is good news. President Obama is standing up to China and will meet the Dalai Lama. Previously, he bowed to Chinese pressure not to do so. Good for Obama.

Explaining Myself on Obama and Democracy

My posts on this blog tend to address three themes. One, topical stories that don’t always make the front page, such as my recent posts on Honduras and Switzerland. Two, Afghanistan because of its importance to US foreign policy and because better governance is integral to ending the war.  Three, criticizing the Obama administration for its apparent preference for stability over democratization.  Sometimes a post from the third category has been a bit of a rant, so I want to explain myself. Continue reading »

A Snub from One Nobel Prize Winner to Another?

The Nobel Committee said in its press release that it was awarding the Prize to Obama because he promotes a world in which “Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.” Apparently this does not extend to engaging in dialogue with dissidents of an economically powerful country with which the United States wishes to maintain “a very robust bilateral agenda” that includes trade and security.

Obama has received a lot of flack already over the decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama while the Tibetan leader is in DC this week to receive a human rights prize from Congress on Capitol Hill, which was awarded Tuesday. But the decision to award him the Nobel Peace Prize makes the situation almost comedic – the most recent prize winner is refusing to meet with the laureate from 20 years ago over issues regarding peace and human rights because he is afraid of disturbing an increasingly warm relationship with the oppressor.

When South Africa refused a visa to the Dalai Lama in March 2009, the United States did not quite condemn the move, but it did reaffirm that “the Dalai Lama… is a regular visitor to the United States and we do not miss an opportunity to try and have discussions with him.” Except, it would seem, when doing so might put a shadow on upcoming trade talks with China. This is certainly not the first time this administration has played down concerns over human rights violations in China; Secretary Clinton started off the relationship in February by saying she was not going to push the human rights button. So in many ways this represents continuity with the current administration’s stance. But while the Obama government might think that they’re giving up the issue because it will not go anywhere, it is obvious this is not the case. If human rights pressure really was not affecting Chinese policy, why should that country be so touchy about it? Without a watchful and concerned international community, the state of rights inside China could be much worse.

The Dalai Lama has said that he is not offended and does “not want to create inconvenience to anybody,” which is ultimately self-defeating. Leaders not meeting with him may soon become a trend: Australia’s Kevin Rudd decided not to meet with the Dalai Lama in December for similar reasons of not wanting to rock the boat with China. Freedom House has more examples of Chinese pressure winning out over human rights concerns. With declining outside pressure, the Chinese will be free to repress its dissidents, confident that it is too important to be attacked on such trivial matters as domestic human rights concerns. The same is true in other parts of the world, like Egypt, where the United States has failed to show support to advocates of democracy and justice.

While Obama’s policy might be understandable from the standpoint of US economic interests, it is certainly not befitting of the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. I hope that this award gives him a reality check to see just that.