Cynical games

Reports of China8217;s willingness to hold conditional talks with the Dalai Lama should not be taken to mean real movement towards a rapprochement. It is no coincidence that the reports turned up around the time the US Secretary of State was expected in Beijing to prepare the ground for President Clinton8217;s June visit. It was believed Tibet would figure prominently in Madeleine Albright8217;s talks with Chinese leaders. In anticipation, no doubt, Beijing chose to make one of its modest concessions to Washington8217;s human rights agenda by throwing out the possibility of a dialogue with the exiled Tibetan leader. It is not unlike the now common ploy on the eve of US-China political get-togethers of releasing well-known Chinese dissidents. Such moves, usually widely publicised, serve to clear the decks and allow both governments to engage in discussions on matters of more substantive concern to them such as trade. So the noise on Tibet is neither the outcome of Albright8217;s persuasive skills nor an indication of thebeginning of a more humane and reasonable Tibet policy in Beijing.

Beijing8217;s sincerity on the question of negotiations with the Dalai Lama is deeply suspect. It maintains that it is prepared to talk to him on condition that he recognises Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. This he has done consistently over the years, asserting his objective is genuine autonomy for the Tibetans. Nevertheless, Beijing has made no positive response. Since the mid-80s, there have been a few half-hearted attempts through intermediaries to start a dialogue but they petered out very soon. Beijing will go on resisting open and direct contact with the Dalai Lama because of the fear at a very fundamental level of lending him more legitimacy than he enjoys already as leader of the Tibetan people. Washington should not delude itself about the value of any new initiatives in this area. They will not be taken very far. In any case, Beijing has prepared its fall-back position well by persisting in the fiction that the Dalai Lama and theTibetan government-in-exile engage in quot;anti-China splitticist activityquot;. That convenient, all-encompassing charge is made so as to be able to refuse to talk to him and to divert attention from Beijing8217;s own abysmal record of governance in Tibet.

Washington should know it has raised many expectations on the Tibetan human rights front by its expressions of concern, by appointing a special coordinator on Tibet and so on. If after all this, Clinton expects only to achieve the release of one or two prominent Tibetan protestors, he is setting his sights too low and allowing himself to become part of a cruel farce. Obtaining the freedom of even a single Tibetan prisoner is very worthwhile. But it should not be forgotten that the cynical game is to deal out prisoners one at a time grudgingly in return for concessions on trade and technology. The Tibetans in exile, if no one else, can see only too clearly how matters are proceeding on the Tibet question. Hence, perhaps, the acts of desperation in New Delhi whichdrew a rebuke from the Dalai Lama. Tibetans need to be given real grounds for hope about the future.