With Barack Obama as the new President of the United States, a new charismatic figure has entered the stage of world politics. In the first months of his term, President Obama has repeatedly expressed his willingness to improve America’s relations with non-democratic countries (such as China or several Islamic countries). According to several of his statements, the President’s foreign policy toward non-democratic countries should be based on common interests and mutual respect. The President further stated that the wanted to listen, not to dictate. Concerning Sino-U.S. relations one could argue that this approach is mainly aimed at issues of common interests (such as economic issues between the U.S. and the PRC), while issues regarding human rights are left outside. Given America’s strong commitment to human rights and democracy, however, it is unlikely that any U.S.-President could afford a foreign policy where human rights issues were to be neglected. This paper addresses the question whether President Obama should meet with the Dalai Lama in order to support the struggle for Tibetan autonomy and to improve the PRC’s human rights record in Tibet. That is an important question to ask because it reflects a basic dilemma in U.S. foreign policy: the contrast between American values and American interests. From an idealist standpoint, the United States should pursue a foreign policy which promotes American core values (like freedom, democracy, and egalitarianism). From a more hard-nosed―one could say realist―standpoint, however, U.S. foreign policy should first and foremost serve American core interests. That also counts for the question raised above. While idealists surely would love to see the President with the Dalai Lama, pragmatics would rather see such a meeting as a threat to American interests in East Asia as it could strain Sino-U.S. relations.
On the pages below, I will argue that President Obama should not meet with the Dalai Lama. He should not do so due to three reasons. First, a meeting between the President and the Dalai Lama would strain Sino-U.S. relations (arguably the most important relations of the U.S. in the years to come). Secondly, it could prompt Beijing to take an even harder stance on the Tibet Question which could invoke a spiral of violence in the Tibetan areas. Finally, such a meeting would undermine a more effective diplomatic approach on the Tibet issue.
Table of Contents
1. Why President Obama should not meet with the Dalai Lama
1.1 The Primacy of stable Sino-U.S. Relations
1.2 Preventing a Spiral of Violence
1.3 Effective Diplomacy instead of Meeting the Dalai Lama
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the foreign policy dilemma faced by the Obama administration regarding whether the President should meet with the Dalai Lama, arguing that such a meeting would be counterproductive to both U.S. interests and the resolution of the Tibet issue.
- The impact of high-level meetings on Sino-American diplomatic relations.
- The potential for escalation and violence in Tibet due to perceived political interference.
- The strategic tension between American values (human rights) and national interests (stability).
- The recommendation of silent, effective diplomacy over symbolic political gestures.
Excerpt from the Book
The Primacy of stable Sino-U.S. Relations
The improvement of Sino-American relations should be one of the priority foreign policy goals of the Obama administration. There is a broad range of issues—such as the financial and economic crisis, the huge U.S.-PRC trade deficit, or the North Korea issue—where the United States and the PRC must work together in order to meet their national interests. Especially in the case of the United States, stable Sino-U.S. relations will be essential, if the Obama administration wants to achieve its policy goals (external as well as domestically). President Obama therefore should walk his talk. Sino-U.S. relations of the 21st century should be founded on common interests, mutual respect, and an atmosphere of equality. A meeting between the Dalai Lama and the President, however, is very likely to offend the CCP leadership in Beijing. Beijing could (mis-)interpret such a meeting as U.S.-interference into Chinese affairs. Furthermore, Beijing could get the impression of President Obama being supportive of Tibetan political autonomy. As a result, Sino-U.S. relations could be seriously damaged. In addition, the improvement and development of Sino-American relations, based on the principles mentioned above, would be hampered. The President therefore should not meet with the Dalai Lama.
Summary of Chapters
1. Why President Obama should not meet with the Dalai Lama: This introductory section outlines the geopolitical tension surrounding the Dalai Lama and sets forth the author's argument against a presidential meeting based on three core reasons.
1.1 The Primacy of stable Sino-U.S. Relations: This chapter argues that a meeting would likely damage vital bilateral relations and hinder cooperation on essential issues like economic stability and North Korea.
1.2 Preventing a Spiral of Violence: This chapter suggests that such a meeting could be misinterpreted by Beijing, potentially leading to harsher crackdowns in Tibet and encouraging violent factions to abandon non-violent paths.
1.3 Effective Diplomacy instead of Meeting the Dalai Lama: This final chapter advocates for the use of quiet mediation to encourage compromise between the PRC and the Tibetan Government in Exile rather than relying on symbolic gestures.
Keywords
Sino-U.S. Relations, Dalai Lama, Tibet Question, Obama Administration, Foreign Policy, PRC, Territorial Integrity, Sovereignty, Human Rights, Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Autonomy, CCP, Mediation, Strategic Interests
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this paper?
The paper discusses the strategic foreign policy decision of whether the U.S. President should meet with the Dalai Lama, given the potential impact on relations with the People's Republic of China.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The core themes include the balance between American values and interests, the stability of Sino-U.S. relations, the risk of violence in Tibet, and the effectiveness of diplomatic communication.
What is the author's main argument?
The author argues that President Obama should refrain from meeting the Dalai Lama to avoid straining essential relations with China, which would allow for more effective, silent diplomacy regarding human rights.
Which methodology is employed here?
The work utilizes a policy-oriented analysis, drawing on geopolitical frameworks, recent historical events like the 2008 unrest, and the principles of realist foreign policy.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body examines the necessity of stable Sino-American ties, the risk of triggering further violence in Tibet, and the proposed role of the U.S. as a silent mediator.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key terms include Sino-U.S. relations, Tibet Question, foreign policy, territorial integrity, and diplomacy.
Why does the author cite the 2008 unrest in Tibet?
The 2008 events serve as a case study to illustrate how sensitive Beijing is to external interference and how such unrest can quickly escalate into a cycle of violence.
How does the author propose resolving the conflict?
The author suggests that instead of high-profile meetings, the U.S. should use "silent diplomacy" and offer incentives to encourage negotiations between Beijing and the Tibetan Government in Exile.
What is the "basic dilemma" mentioned in the text?
It refers to the clash between American idealistic values—such as promoting human rights and democracy—and the pragmatic requirements of protecting national interests through stable international relations.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Martin Armbruster (Autor:in), 2009, Why President Obama should not meet with the Dalai Lama, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/198350
