|
FREEDOM SOUGHT: A Tibetan exile at the Indian resort of Darjeeling signing in blood a banner seeking freedom for the Panchen Lama, the No. 2 spiritual leader, who has been held by China since 1995. -- PHOTO: REUTERS
|
|
|
BEIJING - IN THE weeks following the clampdown on the violent unrest in Tibet, the Chinese government faced almost daily calls for dialogue with the Dalai Lama, exiled spiritual leader of the remote mountainous region.
Though President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao have stated that the 'door to dialogue remained open', few analysts believed talks were possible given the fierce invective being rained down on the 'Dalai Clique', which Beijing blames for the unrest.
The announcement yesterday - that Beijing would soon meet a private representative of the Dalai Lama - was thus a surprising but welcome one that won immediate international praise.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy called it a 'major step'. The United States said it was 'pleased', and Germany, Japan and Singapore also welcomed the new sign of moves to ease tensions in Tibet.
But many questions remain. For one thing, is the Chinese government, which is not known for giving in to international pressure, merely engaging in clever public relations?
Some analysts contend that this gesture could help Beijing kill several birds with one stone: Claim the moral high ground, silence the critics, and prevent the 2008 Olympic Games from being upstaged by the Tibet issue.
But assuming Beijing is sincere, there is also the question of whether the Dalai Lama would take any risk in responding to the overture.
A vague statement carried by the official Xinhua news agency yesterday hinted that formal talks could begin only if the Dalai Lama made some sort of a personal call to stop the protests against the Beijing Olympics.
But would the Dalai Lama do so without getting some concrete concessions from Beijing in return? No one knows for sure at this point.
'To what extent the announcement will lead to real talks, one has to wait and see. It is simply too early at this point,' said Professor Yang Dali, director of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore.
'Nonetheless, after vilifying the Dalai Lama for the past month, even such an announcement indicates an evolving policymaking stance in Beijing and will provoke some reflections among the more thoughtful Chinese public.'
Perhaps the only thing that most experts agree on for now is that Beijing was forced to extend the olive branch to rescue the battered image of the 2008 Olympics, and to ease mounting international and domestic pressure.
China's Games preparations have been ensnared in a diplomatic and public relations maelstrom since Tibet was rocked by its worst anti-government riots last month.
The ensuing clampdown by Beijing sparked international condemnation, calls to boycott the Games' opening ceremony as well as protests against the Olympic torch as it made its way through world capitals.
Faced with the very real prospects of the Games turning into a disaster, Beijing is not averse to making unexpected changes to its strategy, said Beijing-based writer Wang Lixiong, who has studied and written extensively on Tibet.
He told The Straits Times: 'The Chinese Communist Party now is not the same ideologically rigid version it was during Mao's time. Now, it can be very practical and pragmatic and flexible.
'If it continues to be locked in a confrontation with the world over the Tibet issue, it is not to its advantage.'
But at least one analyst rejected this view. 'Lots of people misread the situation. This is really a family matter and must be resolved within the family,' said Professor Tanzen Lhundup, a sociologist and vice-director of the Chinese Centre for Tibetan Studies' Institute of Sociology and Economics in Beijing.
The Tibet issue is hardly new and has been on the boil ever since the Chinese military marched into the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, in 1950.
Six rounds of talks between China and envoys of the Dalai Lama since 2002 have proven ineffective. The last round of talks ended in 2006 amid frustrations over the lack of progress.
Would the upcoming meeting be any different?
Professor Zheng Yongnian of Nottingham University in Britain reckoned that this could mark a 'substantial turning point if both sides are willing to talk seriously'.
But law professor Michael Davis of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who has closely researched the six rounds of talks between Beijing and envoys of the Dalai Lama, said he does not expect this upcoming session to yield any 'substance'.
'Some within the exile community might take a dim view of the latest move because the Chinese do not seem to come prepared to talk about anything of substance,' he said. 'So, this is the question, 'Are they prepared to talk about anything of substance?''
Whichever way the meeting goes, the stakes could now be higher than ever, suggested Mr Wang, the writer.
He said: 'If there is no long-term sincerity towards solving this problem, or if this is just a temporary measure or trick to deal with the crisis, then the consequences could be worse than not having talks at all.'
chinhon@sph.com.sg
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY TRACY QUEK AND SIM CHI YIN
Umno Youth chief says sorry for wielding keris. But is he really sorry? SEE ASIA
|
