When a colonialist, always a colonialist? But is David Cameron's adhesion to China's declared sovereignty of Tibet an act of solidarity or an act of pandering?
Just today, Prime Minister David Cameron has expressed that his country does not support Tibet's plight for independence. He made the statement as he was addressing members of the Parliament.
His declaration had the effect of 'clarifying' a stance that most already knew was implicit, but never affirmed so openly.
The Prime Minister went on to say that Britain and China enjoy a 'positive relationship', which in the end means only one thing: cooperation in the commercial arena for mutual profit sometime in the future.
Why else would Cameron make such a frank and unnecessary statement? Is it because China has made complaints about receiving the Dalai Lama last year before he was awarded?
In truth, it could be just a calming of the waters. But then, if Cameron is to be firm about receiving the Dalai Lama to reaffirm his right to receive who he wants, then why now try to correct the situation so boldly?
Some have said that China had effectively barred the UK premiere from visiting China after his meeting with the Buddhist leader, although Downing Street declined to comment on the matter. China for its part condemns any country who receives the Dalai Lama, especially if it is in recognition of his role in trying to obtain Tibetan Independence, or simply to bring his message as the leader of the Buddhist followers.
So the timing, which coincides with Cameron's statements that he is planning a visit to China later this year, could just be seen as appeasement. But if it is to gain entry into the China because he has been secretly barred, then it is not coherent with his previous wish to entertain people from all over the world to open a dialogue on different viewpoints. It would make the whole point of receiving the Dalai Lama moot.
op-ed
Source : Xinhua/South China m.p. 5.9.13
No comments:
Post a Comment