Friday, June 15, 2007

[principles] which should prevail here

So, John Howard is to meet the Dalai Lama in Sydney. A report says:

Australia is one of the best placed countries in the world to benefit from China's economic development. Beijing has condemned the meeting, saying the Dalai Lama is a political exile engaged in what it calls splittist activities over Tibet. But Canberra says Australia is one of the world's great liberal democracies.

The issue here is that a country is dealing, at diplomatic level, with a known opponent of a regime that that country is trading with. The other side is that China unilaterally annexed a sovereign nation and the leader of that nation is now visiting another nation, to meet with its leader.

What are the rights and wrongs of this?

3 comments:

  1. Both Howard and Rudd were inclined not to go. When Rudd jumped in, Howard felt he had to. China is a huge market and is basically keeping the Australian economy chugging forward. I think the Australian public would think that it was cowardly if they had not met with the Dalai Lama. We don't need to cow tow to China too much.

    ReplyDelete
  2. China gets overly sensitive when countries they have annexed have people strive to be independent of them. Hopefully, one day China will change... become more democratic as free trade disperses the power structure there.

    WM

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can see the diplomatic problems. But I think it is right that the meeting should take place.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.