Kathryn: There is a case – I don’t myself agree with it, but it’s a case, and even a conservative case – for the President not entertaining the Dalai Lama at the White house. The point of balance to be found here lies between (a) asserting the U.S.A.’s gestural role as a friend-but-not-guarantor of liberty everywhere, and (b) not ticking off the ChiComs unnecessarily when huge economic and strategic issues are at stake.
The annexation and rape of Tibet was a monstrous crime, and free people everywhere should take what opportunity we can, as private citizens and commentators, to let the ChiComs know we haven’t forgotten it. That our governments should do the same, does not necessarily follow.
Personally I like to see our president poke a finger in the ChiCom eye once in a while. It shows that the old rambunctious liberty-loving Teddy Roosevelt aspect of the national character is not quite dead yet. It demeans us to truckle to the thugs and gangsters of Peking. On the other hand, we do owe them a mountain of cash . . .
The Taiwan authorities showed a bit of backbone in letting the Dalai Lama visit their island, though unofficially. They seem to be regretting it, though: they have denied a request for a visit from Rebiya Kadeer, the East Turkestan activist. They could have argued that the Dalai Lama is a religious leader, while Ms. Kadeer is not. In fact, they seem to be pushing the ChiCom line that all opposition to the Chinese occupation of East Turkestan (“Xinjiang”) is linked to international terrorism. That is pusillanimous and the charge is is untrue. The main force driving the opposition, as in Tibet, is the desire of people to rule themselves, rather than be ruled by foreigners.