Will He, Won't He?

CONFUSION prevails. In an interview to 바카라, the Dalai Lama has con-firmed that he would meet Gregory Craig, the special US coordinator on Tibet, when he arrives here with US secretary of state Madeleine Albright on November 18. But highly-placed sources in the Indian government say that they have discussed the issue with the Americans, who have assured them that Craig is coming here in his capacity as director, policy planning, in the state department and he will not meet the Tibetan leader. Besides, "the Dalai Lama will not be available for the appointment", they said.

However, the Dalai Lama's press office in Dharamsala maintained that the Americans had approached them for an audience for Craig with the Tibetan leader. The time and date were being finalised. The Dalai Lama coincidentally will be in Delhi during Albright's tour.

Yet, a state department spokesman in Washington also insisted that Craig is travelling in his capacity as the department's director for policy planning, and will not be dealing with Tibetan issues. But other state department sources were not so sure.

The reason for the doubles-peak on whether or not Craig will meet the Dalai Lama is that if he does, India risks offending the Chinese, who have made it clear that they would not tolerate any "anti-China activities" by the Dalai Lama.

바카라 웹사이트Which is why the ministry of external affairs (MEA) has sought to sidestep the issue, preferring to dwell on the "great advances" in Indo-US ties which Albright's visit signifies. Pawan Verma, the MEA spokesman, reiterated the US line that Craig was coming in his capacity as director, policy planning, as he had done during the recent visit of Thomas Pickering, under-secretary of state for political affairs, to Delhi. As for the possible meeting with the Dalai Lama, Verma said India would react to such a proposal as and when it was mooted, and its answer would be commensurate with its position on the role of the Dalai Lama. He also asserted that Craig's appointment as special coordinator for Tibet was an internal matter of the US.

The press attache in the Chinese embassy in Delhi, Zhao Ximling, said it was premature to ask for Beijing's reaction to a meeting that may or may not take place. But he made it clear that the Indian government was fully aware of China's stand on Craig's appointment as well as its opposition to any political activity by the Dalai Lama, whether on Indian soil or abroad. Contending that the Dalai Lama was a "practising politician" and not a religious figure, Zhao said: "He must stop all these activities" to create an independent Tibet. He also slammed the appointment of Craig as special coordinator for Tibetan affairs as blatant "interference in China's internal affairs".

A former Indian diplomat felt it wouldn't be right for Craig to meet the Tibetan leader in India during this visit. "He can meet the Dalai Lama elsewhere or the Americans can invite him to Washington. Why in Delhi? The fact that they may meet here is an American move on the diplomatic chessboard to create tension between India and China. If the meeting goes through it will imply a change in India's policy on Tibet, which it has declared is an "autonomous region of China". He felt this could impel the Chinese to reopen the issue of Sikkim. "The Chinese have accepted the political reality of Sikkim being a part of India, but this can change," he argued.

However, in Washington, the state department contact person for East Asia said he had no idea if Craig was going to meet the Dalai Lama. To the question why the US was pushing the Tibetan angle at this stage—it could embarrass both New Delhi and Beijing—the official stated: "I don't know who Craig is going to meet."

The state department's contact person for South Asia was more forthcoming. He said: "Craig is going with Albright because he looks at policy issues, not just for South Asia but on a global basis. He accompanied Pickering to India in the same capacity. Albright is continuing the political dialogue which Pickering started. I don't know why questions should arise about Craig going along. I frankly don't know if he is meeting the Dalai Lama."

Was the administration being insensitive in sending Craig now? The state department source retorted: "Since he is not going to talk about Tibet, I don't think it should be a problem. The press is always creating controversies. We are not trying to embarrass our Indian hosts or our Chinese friends." Besides, added another state department source: "The Indian government's cooperation would be essential for Craig, without which it would be impossible for him to meet the Dalai Lama or his representatives. I am sure no meeting with Tibetan leaders could be possible without the Indian government's awareness and assistance." Did that mean India was going to help coordinate a meeting? Pat came the reply: "You are reading too much into what I said."