Feb.20 : China had warned that if US President Barack Obama went over its objections and agreed to meet the Dalai Lama, the episode would “seriously damage” the relationship between the two countries. But Mr Obama did not oblige and proceeded with his scheduled meeting with the supreme Tibetan spiritual leader at the White House on Thursday.
Beijing has been true to its word. It reemployed the language of its warning to lodge its protest when it called in the American ambassador after Mr Obama’s meeting with the world-famous monk. Surprisingly, the statement — as published in the official China Daily — also urges Washington to take steps to excise the “baneful” effects of the meetings President Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton had with the Dalai Lama. Thus, dire threats of relations going sour appear to go hand in hand with soulful pleadings. What steps the United States should take to restore normality has not been spelled out. It could be speculated that Beijing expects Washington to issue a suitably placatory statement, or may be cut down the quantum of defence sales to Taiwan from the $6.4 billion it had sanctioned in January, much to Chinese annoyance, if the military transfer cannot altogether be eliminated. It is to be seen how far the US is prepared to go to mollify China, for there is no point in letting relations deteriorate with a major country. However, it is surprising Beijing should react so strongly to the US President’s meeting: after all, the three Presidents immediately before Mr Obama have met the Dalai Lama as many as 11 times. China’s reaction has never been anywhere as sharp as it is now. What has changed is not wholly clear, although surmises can be made. But one thing is certain. If Mr Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, had declined to meet another Nobel peace laureate for fear that the Chinese, who run a repressive and chauvinistic regime, would be annoyed, the American leader would be the laughing stock of the world.China is so angry that, through articles in its official publications written by supposed experts, it has accused the Americans of a colonial perspective on the one hand and adopting a Cold War mindset on the other. (The two are very different things.) The latter is rather fanciful, of course. By referring to the Cold War, China is desperately trying to equate itself with the former Soviet Union, and in the process elevate itself. However, for all the strides it has made in trade and tier-two manufacturing, Beijing does not command military and political power in the world anywhere comparable to what Moscow had in the Cold War era. In fact, it is seen not as a rival of the US, as the USSR was, but as a “running dog” — to recall an expression popular in the Mao period — of foreign multinationals and foreign direct investment of capitalist provenance. American commentators have sought to explain China’s deep annoyance with the US leadership in terms of Beijing’s “triumphalism” for having gone through the recent global financial crisis with flying colours while the US and the capitalist world showed signs of faltering. This appears facile. The more likely explanation is that the Chinese are nervous as kittens. There have been major internal rebellions against Beijing’s rule in Tibet and Xinjiang in the past two years. At such a time, Beijing might have hoped that the US President would show it consideration and skip meeting the Tibetan superstar, and also not go about selling weapons to Taiwan, which China regards as a breakaway province. In truth, China is showing signs of being a paranoid power.