"Yes, this new post will be an irritant in Sino-US relations. And it could complicate matters for India as well. The 'envoy to Tibet' is likely to make frequent trips to Dharamsala to meet the Dalai Lama."—Michael Krepon, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington-based think tank. "India could find itself in a diplomatically piquant situation on this touchy Tibet issue..."—Dr Sumit Ganguly, professor of Political Science, Hunter College, New York.
THE appointment of Gregory B. Craig, the US state department's director for policy planning, as "special coordinator for Tibet" has put India in a ticklish situation.For, as the next logical step, Craig will surely try and meet the Dalai Lama at his headquarters in Himachal Pradesh. But if India allows this, it risks souring relations with Beijing, which has already objected vehemently to Craig's appointment, and would object even more vigorously to "anti-China activities" on Indian soil. On the other hand, if the meeting is not allowed, it would surely strain Indo-US ties.
Craig's appointment came at the fag-end of Chinese president Jiang Zemin's US visit, and apart from his "Tibetan" duties, he will continue as policy planning director. Craig had accompanied under-secretary of state for political affairs Thomas Pickering on his trip to Delhi in mid-October, but "that had nothing to do with Tibet", saida state department official, since "he didn't even know" about this impending assignment.
Craig's brief for the new job: To promote substantive dialogue between China and the Tibetan authorities—which, by its very nature, cannot be deemed apolitical—and to help preserve Tibet's cultural, religious and linguistic heritage. This would obviously involve travel to Dharamsala. Unless, of course, Craig accompanies US secretary of state Madeleine Albright on her India visit in mid-November. Coincidentally, the Dalai Lama will also be in Delhi at that time.
In New Delhi, besides admitting that it was in a "wait and watch" mode, the ministry of external affairs was tightlipped. But the Chinese embassy released a foreign ministry statement, saying "the Chinese government firmly opposes the appointment of a special coordinator for Tibetan affairs by the US government. Tibet is an inalienable part of China, a fact that has been recognised by the international community. Tibet's affairs are China's internal affairs. No foreign country has the right to interfere in Tibetan affairs."
As for the Tibetans, they can barely hide their joy. India has a tacit understanding with Beijing that the Dalai Lama will not be allowed to indulge in political activity on Indian soil,but again Dharamsala is host to Tibet's government-in-exile.
T.C. Tethong, representative and minister for international relations and information of the Tibetan government-in-exile, pooh-poohed the notion that India had cause to worry. "The state department wants a particular person to be in charge, to coordinate the Tibet-China issue. In the past, the Dalai Lama has met several senior American officials in Dharamsala. This is an issue between China and the US. The Chinese have always made a noise about anyone meeting the Dalai Lama, anywhere. They will make a noise. But let that be dealt with by the US." In fact, three senior American Representatives, Benjamin Gilman, Gary Ackerman and Enni Faleomaevga, met the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala in August.
So what exactly is expected from the new appointee? "A consistent US policy on Tibet," says Tethong. "The issue of human rights in Tibet will also be dealt with in a more focused manner." If Craig can convince China that dialogue with the Dalai Lama was in its best interest, then he will have more than fulfilled his job, he added.
Tethong finds the three terms reiterated by Jiang for talks with the Dalai Lama a "bit too demanding". Before any talks, the Chinese want the Dalai Lama to "publicly accept Tibet as an inalienable part of China, to abandon the demand for independence and stop all activities aimed at splitting the motherland."
"In 1979, Chinese premier Deng Xiaoping had told the Dalai Lama that 'anything except independence' can be discussed and resolved. But now, the Chinese want us to help rewrite history," contends Tempa Tsering, secretary, department of information and international relations of the Tibetan government-in-exile.
Tethong also came out strongly in support of India playing a more active role. "If India takes the initiative, it would be very useful. Being a prominent South Asian power, the Indian government can play a major role... it would have far more impact than any role played by the Western world."
TSERING goes a step further. "The Indian government shouldn't be so sensitive. After all, it's a free and democratic country, where anyone can meet anyone. If the government stops Craig from meeting the Dalai Lama, its credibility as a democratic and independent state is at stake," he asserts.
What should India do? "There can be no two opinions that human rights violations in Tibet are increasing. The Chinese have crossed all limits," says Prof K.R. Sharma,professor of Chinese politics, Delhi University. "But Craig's appointment is somewhat problematic, as it sets a dangerous precedent. What happens if the Kashmiris convince the US that their human rights are being violated? Will the US appoint a special envoy for Kashmir as well? Would India accept it?"
바카라 웹사이트Prof Dawa Norbu of the School of International Studies, JNU, has another take on the issue: "Was India taken into confidence over the appointment? The Americans should have consulted India because they are the two nations most interested in Tibet for different reasons. After all, we have the largest Tibetan population outside Tibet." A reliable state department source told 바카라 in Washington that "India's cooperation is essential for Craig; without that it would be impossible for him to visit Dharamsala...but I doubt whether India was consulted before the nomination".
Norbu feels that the Americans are unsure how to tackle China over Tibet. "Should it try for engagement or containment? The Dalai Lama has generated international public support. The US may just be reacting to the public outcry over the fact that it has just done business worth billions with China, conveniently pushing human rights under the carpet." Norbu says India should insist that it will allow Craig to meet the Dalai Lama in India, only if all three sides agreed to talks. The Dalai Lama, adds Norbu, is a man in a hurry. "He wants to go down as the man who helped negotiate the deal with China," and he can't wait.
A senior analyst, however, sees the latest brouhaha over Tibet as a boon for Indian foreign policy which, if tackled right, would give New Delhi a handle on Washington, and Beijing. "The US move," he said, "is not aimed at human rights, but at keeping a pressure point on the Chinese. Given that, India should ask the Americans on what basis was the sale of nuclear reactors to China approved? Did Jiang give any tangible assurances that Beijing would not conduct further nuclear deals with Pakistan?"
The Chinese, he feels, should be firmly told that India is a free country, and as long as there is no overt anti-China political statement released from our soil, we cannot stop people from meeting the Dalai Lama. But, if Beijing really wants us to stop any such meeting, what will it give us in return? Will it reassure us that it will not sell nuclear weapons to Pakistan? "India should be ready to drive a hard bargain with both sides, and then finally opt for the option which suits our interests best". Only then can India afford to "wait and watch."
