In between the fighting over the debt crisis in America in the last week, there has been much discussion about Obama’s meeting with he Dalai Lama. Not surprisingly, his liberal political base were pleased that they met, and it fits in with Obama's soft power approach to democracy promotion - not by the barrel of a gun (as Bush tried) but by example and moderation.
Though many assume Obama is a supporter of Tibetan independence, however, this is not the case. Obama stressed during the visit that he considers Tibet to be part of the People’s Republic of China and does not support its independence. Instead, he wants to encourage direct dialogue to resolve long-standing differences, in particular the promotion of human rights and the preservation of Tibetan culture and religion.
With regards to China, there are several contentious issues making the relationship a difficult one, including trade disputes, currency squabbles, a recent U.S. arms sales deal for Taiwan (which China considers an illegitimate breakaway province) and the continuing censorship battle over Internet search engines such as Google.
It is very interesting that the meeting did not take place in the more formal, official Oval Office, as befits a leader of the Dalai Lama’s stature. Instead, it took place in the White House Map Room, which is part of the presidential residence and is considered less of an important setting. This choice will have been deliberate, undoubtedly designed to demonstrate that Obama was prepared to compromise and acknowledge Beijing's political sensitivities.
Some argue he met the Dalai Lama because he did not want to appear weak in relation to China. The timing may well feed into that perception.
Last week, top politicians queued up to meet the Dalai Lama, including the Speaker of the House of Representatives , John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, and the leading House Democrat, Nancy Pelosi.
Obama certainly does not want to appear weak in front of anyone, particularly as next year is an election year. It is interesting that if you look at the statement Obama gave after the successful mission to capture or kill bin Laden, he made it quite clear that as the Commander-in-Chief the decision to go ahead was his and his alone, and that he had been involved in the operation from very early on.
So, at a time when foreign policy analysts are increasingly concerned about the apparent decline of America, and the rise of China, it will play well at home that he stood up to the Chinese in some way, albeit a small one.
Will it damage the relationship between the USA and China? It may lead to a brief frosting of relations, but it is unlikely to cause any long term damage. Both sides need each other. China is probably more concerned about the fact that it is the United States' biggest creditor at a time when leaders in Washington have fought over how to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling in time to avoid a default. The reason for the concern is China holds more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt and would be exposed if Congress failed to reach a deal by August 2. If a default occurred, interest rates would probably increase, pushing down the value of the dollar, which would damage further the global economy at an extremely fragile moment.
Tension is always going to be present in this relationship – they are two competing powers.
When Obama took office, he announced that he would seek to prioritise relations with rising powers, including China, India, Russia and Brazil, adopting a strategy of setting aside smaller issues as a bargaining chip to cooperate on bigger ones. A good example of this is his controversial decision to downplay human rights in his initial dealings with China. He has also made it clear that a major goal of his administration will be to develop stronger links, economically and politically, with many Asian countries to tackle a variety of issues, including nuclear proliferation, climate change, and economic instability. This reflects a growing view amongst many analysts that economic and political power is now shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
With China, Obama has sought to establish a new "U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue". This desire to create a “G-2” reflects the Administration’s awareness of the challenges China represents, both politically and economically, and the importance of healthy relations between the two (particularly as China is effectively financing much of America’s economic deficit, the Chinese leader being described by one commentator as “Obama’s Bank Manager”).
Long term, where the relationship between America and China will go is unclear, particularly given the latter's willingness to ignore American pressure on economic policy to devalue its currency and slowdown its export led economy (which many feel is damaging the American economy), and China's increasing global ambitions.
What will be interesting to see is if Obama will continue to build stronger relations with India as a regional counter-balance to China. Shortly after his inaugural trip to China in 2009, Obama hosted a state visit of the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh – the first of his administration and the second state visit by the Indian leader - the last being in 2005. Many took this as a significant event, designed to send a message both to the Indian government and the Chinese leadership.
With regards to Tibet, this year is may even be more sensitive for China as the government marks 60 years since Tibet's "peaceful liberation" and 90 years since the founding of the Communist Party.
