1. What is the reason in your mind that makes Obama decide to meet the Dalai Lama twice in two years and to ignore China’s opposition?

Obama, very much like other Western politicians, is seeking for votes. The next election is never far away. The Dalai Lama is almost a pop star and supporting him means to win the sympathy of many people i.e. potential voters.

Also, the Dalai Lama managed to create the image of the last trustworthy politician on earth. Standing beside him in front of the world′s media is like transferring the image of the Dalai Lama over to the host - like a celibrity is supposed to transfer it′s reputation on any consumer product in advertising.

Ignoring Chinese opposition on the level of policy is widely perceived as a sign of integretiy, strength and independence. Those are qualities people admire in their nations and want to see in their leaders.

On the economic level the US and other countries in the middle of their crisises largely depend on China. More so, a rising China makes the world richer. This nobody can ignore. But this nobody wants to admit.

2. Both Obama and Dalai claimed that their meeting focused on ”human right of Tibetan people”. What’s your understanding on their so-called “human right of Tibetan people”?

That′s like two blind men discussing a painting. The United Nations continously criticize most Western countries including the US for their violations of human rights. The Dalai Lama represents a former feudal system based on slavery. If the old Tibet of the Dalai Lamas still existed today, it would be condemned as a terror regime. No Dalai Lama despite any buddhist doctrine on compassion ever improved the human right situation of his people.

But all the world is a theater, said Shakespeare. And a theater has a dubble floor. Just like both Western and Dalai Lama′s policies are show business and based on dubble standards. They say what the audience wants to hear and is ready to pay for (Germans pay up to 200 Euro for a ticket to see the Dalai Lama live).

Obama and the Dalai Lama as the two moral leaders ot the world“. That sounds good to Western media and voters. But don′t destroy their dreams by telling them about the rumors, that the Dalai Lama is on the payroll of the White House or that in fact the CIA was involved in Tibet and helped the Dalai Lama to escape.

There might be yet another reason. The cold war is over. The Soviet Union no more exists. The old enemy communism is supposed to be dead. That′s pretty much what the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama once called ?the end of history“: only capitalism and democracy prevail.

But unfortunately so do all the old problems in the Western world: poverty, unemployment, environmental catastrophies, financial crashes. So, how to explain to everyone to keep the system running? Are there no alternatives? Someone in the US might point to China and ask the forbidden question: Why are the ?communists“ still alive and why are they doing better not just in business than we are?

Try to explain this to your voters who might just have lost everything they worked for all their life. In this ideology crisis there is a possible answer for Obama: ?We have human rights. And the Dalai Lama will tell you how important they are.“ The ancient government used the Dalai Lama to deceive the people in the old Tibet. Maybe today the Dalai Lama′s role on the international stage of policy is a similar one.

 On top he is like a sting in Western hands to irritate the Dragon. After he spoke everybody will go home from the theater feeling good in the unjust but ?moral“ Western world. And they forget the money they paid. Seems to work because nobody ever asked if the Dalai Lama is telling the truth.

There is this formula in the public discussion: more human rights equal more democracy. The German magazine Stern wrote about the two faces ot the Dalai Lama and his undemocratic regime. The Dalai Lama doesn′t accept any differing views on his policy within his community. Tibetans in exile who want to express their wish to cooperate with China are not allowed to do so in public. Any statement in Daramsala in front of a Western camera that would question or criticize the Dalai Lama′s approach towards China is suppressed. 

Unlike most European states America has just two political parties and is generally seen more as a plutocracy. During the Iraq war the commander of the American troops, Norman Schwarzkopf, said in an interview: ?We defend democracy. But we don′t practice it.“  Looks like Obama and the Dalai Lama definitely need to discuss human rights - with the man in the mirror.

3. What do you think the influence and consequence of the meeting between Obama and Dalai will causes for Sino-US relationship?

I′m not an expert on contemporary foreign affairs. In the recent past, however, Germany invited the Dalai Lama frequently and China protested (rightly by the way). Officially the relations were under stress. Behind the scene Chinese and German experts worked together e.g. on the Chinese law system improving the life of a billion people. And with ongoing business cooperation China smoothly surpassed the German economy.

It might be similar with the US. While the political show in the beam light of the media must go on normal releations are established in the background. Take for example the Chinese industry project in Idaho as another step to finally become the world′s no 1 economy. After all Obama didn′t welcome the Dalai Lama in the Oval Office like other head of states but only as a spiritual guest in the Map Room.

The West always attached illusions to Tibet and fear to China. That′s a deep routed believe and a long story going back to European mystics and philosophers of the 19th century. In Germany and in the US some politicians promise their people to protect them from China.

Luckily, not everybody thinks that way and there are intellectuals and leaders in the West who have a more profound understanding of China. They are aware of the fact that Beijing is not engaging in any exterritorial war, contributes largely to UN peace keeping missions and is successfully working on internal reforms. They also understand that we need good relations to China and not to the Dalai Lama if we want to make this world a better place. The mass media do not yet report about them. But it is my hope that those voices will one day be heard and considered by everybody.

4. According to your experience and understanding for Tibet, what’s your impression and opinion about today’s Tibet?Some facts, that western observers tend to overlook: Tibet is a functioning economy and culture. There are divers industries, modern nightclubs, sport facilities, Tibetan radio and TV chanels, traditional arts lessons at the university, Tibetan writers winning prices, Tibetan MS windows and mobile phones, well maintained religious places where believers can practice any time, traditional Tibetan and modern medicine, typical architecture in newly built farm houses and the state of the art airport - and there is a billionaire living in Tibet.

What seems unthinkable to the West is reality in Lhasa: Many Tibetans are happy with their life at home. The ?human right“ discussion is based on the assumption that most Tibetans are longing for change. What if the opposite is true?  Those who feel there should be more ?democracy“ in Tibet don′t think of the possibilty that the majority of the Tibetans might not agree to that. In other words, what if the Dalai Lama and his supporters represent a minority?

A Tibetan told me how he was freed from slavery by the Chinese army. Today he is a farmer who owns his land. From his point of view Tibet and he himself were truely liberated. Does anybody think he wants a return of the people who once put him in chains? That′s the problem with ?human rights“ and democracy, they might backfire. Someone might express a different oppinion and absolutely not walk in the direction interest groups in Washington or Daramsala want him to go.

When there are no cameras around Tibetans in exile admit that Beijing did a good job in Lhasa and is keeping Tibet alive with enormous investments and privileges. Unlike the government in exile which contributed nothing to the above mentioned accomplishments. In fact Tibetans in Daramsala like to listen to radio stations in Lhasa.

About half of the exile community ?works“ as monks worldwide. They depend on Western charity and donations. ?Protesting against China“ is their business. To make sure they don′t loose their job they ask for the impossible - like one quarter of the Chinese territory. Some secretly admit that this is absurd but what can they do? It′s a living.

Hypothetically speaking I′m not convinced the government in exile or the Dalai Lama would win potential elections in Lhasa today.

Speaking to Western readers, there is another popular formula: more human rights equal an independent Tibet. Those who are shouting ?free Tibet“ here at home never aks the  next question: and then? Free Tibet like the former Sowjet republics? Who can gurantee that a free Tibet will survive without Chinese money or doesn′t fall into the hands of yet another tyrant? China has a lot of ethnic groups with the Tibetans not even beeing the biggest one. What would the Dalai Lama supporters say if China is breaking apart and they see on TV a civil war in China and Tibet like the one in Russia.

The idea of an ?indepent“ Tibet was created in the days of colonialism when British troops were trying to invade Lhasa. Apparently to be ?free“ is nothing that Tibet originally wanted for itself. America, too, once intended to use Tibet for it′s strategic interests in the times of the cold war.

When discussing Tibet with Tibetans I understand that stability is a precious value in all of China. Maybe even more precious than anything else. China was smart enough not to take lessons from the West in political reforms or capitalism like the former Soviet Union did. Therefore China is stable and prospering.

I respect that most Chinese including Tibetans prefer stability to anarchy and like in other countries around the world are ready to ?pay“ for this with a bit of what we would call ?human rights“. They have the right to think differently. And good reason to do so. Whenever in the past China became unstable it went down in flames - including the largest civil war in the history of mankind with more casualties than both world wars together.

For centuries China experienced bad influence from abroad. Standing on the Great Wall I learned from a Chinese why their word for ?state“ and ?wall“ is the same. Beijing is obviuosly reluctant to accept advise from nations that were once trying to cut China and Tibet into pieces like Afrika. China has not forgotten all of that. Neither should we.