The
Dalai Lama meets Secretary of State Clinton, Feb. 18. It was this,
meeting, not the one with the president, that Beijing cared most about.
Novosti, Russia
Beijing's Obsession:
American Influence Over Tibetan Exiles
"It
would not be a trivial affair if the U.S. were to actively encourage Tibetan exiles
to work against China. This is why Beijing reacts so nervously to the Dalai
Lama’s ceremonial visits to the White House - and why it so carefully monitors the
State Department. … What if the Tibetan exile community split into moderate and
extremist camps?"
The Dalai Lama's meeting with
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was probably the most interesting part
of the Tibetan leader's visit to Washington, because the State Department
develops concrete policy, even in regard to the Dalai Lama, who is a largely symbolic
figure not very engaged in overseeing the affairs of the Tibetan Diaspora.
Earlier in the day [Feb. 18],
the President Obama attended to the least interesting part of the visit: the official
reception of the Dalai Lama and exchanging pleasantries for an hour. Both acknowledged
for the umpteenth time that Tibet is part of China (does anyone doubt this?), both
voiced support for preserving Tibet’s unique identity (who would object to that?),
and so on and so forth. Everything went as expected - it wasn't the first time
the Dalai Lama had been to the White House
It was generally clear that
Tibet wouldn't cause a serious rift between the U.S. and China, although very many
people - especially in the United States - waited with bated breath: Would the aircraft
carrier USS Nimitz be permitted to enter Fragrant Harbor, in other
words, Hong Kong? And should this have happened on the day of Obama’s meeting
with the Dalai Lama?
During such situations in the
past, Chinese authorities wouldn’t have allowed American ships in their ports. And
here there was an aircraft carrier - the very symbol of American power! Would
China turn it back out to sea? Mile after mile it passed unobstructed - why didn't
they give chase? The Nimitz finally arrived and U.S. China relations go
on, undoubtedly with some difficulty, but too important not to pursue.
Tibet is certainly an issue
in Sino-American relations, but it isn't as big an issue as the unenlightened public
assumes. In January, Chinese officials held another round of talks with
representatives of the exiled Tibetan leader - and to say the talks were not
very productive is something of an understatement. But Tibetans outside Tibet were
interested to learn at least that a new round of development is about to begin
in the autonomous region. Even without it, Tibet looks much better than it did even
10 years ago. The cost of this new phase will be about $60 billion (this is a
sum any U.S. state would be happy to receive from Washington). And Beijing isn't
completely opposed to having the Diaspora participate in this work. It's a
question of the conditions.
And of course, it would not
be a trivial affair if the United States were to actively encourage the Tibetan
exiles to work against China. This is why Beijing reacts so nervously to the
Dalai Lama’s ceremonial visits to the White House - and why it so carefully monitors
the State Department in this direction. Beijing is trying to understand what kind
of influence it exerts on Tibetans. Ultimately, the Dalai Lama's belief that the
destinies of Tibet and China are inseparable is known. But he's 75 years old. What
if the Tibetan exile community split into moderate and extremist camps? In fact,
such a split has already occurred, but for the time being, Tibetans are trying not
to show it.
Are Beijing's reactions to attempts
by U.S. authorities to participate in this process excessive? It depends on
whether you look at things in a "broader" context. Any State
Department bureaucrat that understands diplomatic language would appreciate the
phrase. And in this case, the context is quite broad, stretching back over half
a century.
Tibet and China were merged
during the Yuan Dynasty
of the Mongols [1278-1368], and have been part of a single state for over 700
years, in other words, three times longer than the United States has existed. Another
issue is that because of the peculiarities of geography, Tibet has always been
and will always be relatively inaccessible and highly autonomous. And as the
White House meeting shows again, no one disputes China's national borders. This
is impossible to do if one recognizes international law, the U.N. Charter, etc.
But half a century ago, the situation was different.
The role of the
CIA in the events of 1959 - the year that the Dalai Lama and tens of thousands
of his compatriots fled Tibet - isn't well known. In 1959, it seems that
Chinese authorities believed the Lamaist rebellion to be a purely domestic
affair (China was in the midst of the Great
Leap Forward, Mao Zedong’s first destructive social experiment.) They
were afraid that the Tibetans, having for the first time received a modern
education, would return to the idea of autonomy and eventually rebellion. Chinese
forces entered the region.
There is a book published in 2002 called, The CIA's
Secret War in Tibet (I learned of it from Expert magazine). It's
a very respectable and informative book written by people who directly participated
in these events. There were, as it turns out, Tibetan guerrilla training camps in
Colorado and the practice of attacks on Tibet itself, with CIA air support. The
Dalai Lama’s escape over the Chinese border was the work of the same people. The
book concludes with the CIA laying the groundwork for the Tibet uprising, having
assumed complete control of the “resistance movement.”
Later the CIA worked with the
Diaspora. It was recently admitted that the Dalai Lama’s administration received
annual subsidies from the CIA in the 1960s amounting to $1.7 million a year. Part of the
money funded guerrilla operations against Chinese authorities. There is undoubtedly
more information on this out there.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
The “broad context” of the situation
includes the fact that in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the United States refused
to recognize the People’s Republic of China - it didn't have official relations
with it. So in fact, the U.S. was engaged in a war of subversion. You may
recall that it was busy with the same "work" with regard to Cuba. Then
it moved on to the Vietnam War. It was only in 1974, with President Nixon’s
visit to Beijing, that a news stage in world history was ushered in.
The fact that Beijing
remembers the past should come as no surprise. Whether history will repeat
itself is another matter.
Help Support Worldmeets.us
Worldmeets.us is a non-partisan, volunteer-based, not-for-profit organization that operates solely in the public interest. The opinions expressed in articles posted by Worldmeets.us are not necessarily those of Worldmeets.us, its sponsors or its volunteers.
