What Can the Dalai Lama’s White House Visit Actually Accomplish?

What Can the Dalai Lama’s White House Visit Actually Accomplish?

A ChinaFile Conversation

On February 21, the Dalai Lama visited United States President Barack Obama in the White House over the objections of the Chinese government. Beijing labels the exiled spiritual leader a "wolf in sheep's clothing" who seeks to use violence to free Tibet from Chinese rule. The Dalai Lama, who fled to India after a failed uprising in 1959, disavows the use of violence and says he only wants autonomy for Tibetans. He and Obama previously met in February 2010 and July 2011.


Isabel Hilton

Isabel Hilton is a London-based international journalist and broadcaster. She studied at the Beijing Foreign Language and Culture University and at Fudan University in Shanghai before taking up a career in written and broadcast journalism, working for The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Guardian, and the New Yorker. In 1992 she became a presenter of the BBC’s flagship news program, “The World Tonight,” then BBC Radio Three’s cultural program “Night Waves.” She is a columnist for The Guardian and her work has appeared in the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Granta, the New Statesman, El Pais, Index on Censorship, and many other publications. She is the author and co-auothor of several books and is founder and editor of, a non-profit, fully bilingual online publication based in London, Beijing, and Delhi that focuses on the environment and climate change. Hilton holds two honorary doctorates and was awarded the OBE for her work in raising environmental awareness in China.

What Can the Dalai Lama’s White House Visit Actually Accomplish? There are many reasons why President Obama was right to meet the Dalai Lama: firstly the president has the sovereign right to meet whomsoever he chooses within his own borders, a principle no leader should be willing to sacrifice. Secondly, although the Chinese government routinely issues loud but vague threats of retaliation, it rarely follows through. Some years ago, the European Union chamber of Commerce in Beijing investigated whether any variation in trade or investment between China and EU member states could be mapped against meetings with the Dalai Lama: they could find no correlation. Similarly, whilst the British prime minister David Cameron's meeting with the Dalai Lama in London in August of 2012 provoked protests and threats from Beijing that did cool political relations for more than a year, trade flows and investment flourished.

The decision to hold such meetings is a matter of political judgment rather than economic risk: is the Dalai Lama a terrorist or an individual whose record should preclude such a meeting? What does it signal at home and abroad? What might it achieve?  

Pace Beijing’s rhetoric, the Dalai Lama is not a terrorist, but one of the world’s leading advocates of non-violence. Meeting him signals that the host country supports the proposition that human rights matter, and that non-violence and dialogue are the best way to resolve disputes, especially disputes as bitter and intractable as this one.

Beijing, of course, continues to insist that meeting the Dalai Lama implicates President Obama in a threat to China’s territorial integrity. In fact, the Dalai Lama is asking for “meaningful autonomy” within the borders of the P.R.C. on behalf of the Tibetan people, a position, ironically, that the P.R.C. also claims to embrace. In fact, the so-called , the treaty signed under duress by the government of Tibet and the P.R.C. in 1951, provided for just such a meaningful autonomy. A more recent precedent is the "one country, two systems" agreement that governs relations between Hong Kong and the P.R.C., which allows Hong Kong considerable freedom to run its own affairs, whilst enshrining Beijing’s sovereignty.

Besides, if China seriously regards any meeting with individuals who advocate separatism or independence as a threat to national sovereignty, what are we to make of the several meetings that ? Mr. Salmond is definitely a “splittist”: as leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, he has built his entire political career on the case for Scottish independence and hopes to win a referendum on independence later this year.

The U.K. government has offered no protest to Beijing about any of the several meetings  that have taken place between Mr. Salmond and Li Keqiang, all of them loaded with political significance for Mr. Salmond. When Premier Li Keqiang obliged his host by donning a tartan tie, should the UK government have read it as a gesture of support for Mr. Salmond’s efforts to break up the United Kingdom?

Tibetans are increasingly alienated from Beijing, a trend that has accelerated since the uprising in 2008, and Beijing’s continuing heavy security response. The fact than 126 citizens have chosen to set fire to themselves since 2009, rather than to continue to live under the conditions that Beijing has created, is hardly a ringing endorsement of China’s policies. But, far from concluding that its actions have been counter-productive, Beijing has compounded its many errors by insisting on blaming a spiritual leader who has been in exile since 1959.

By Beijing’s logic, the Dalai Lama continues to wield astonishing power and authority among Tibetan people, most of whom have never seen him and have no direct memory of life before the Chinese occupation. If that is what Beijing truly believes, the case for resuming talks with the Dalai Lama is even stronger: not only will there be no peace without negotiation, but by Beijing’s own reasoning, the Dalai Lama remains the only figure with the authority to win acceptance of a negotiated settlement, both in the exile community and in Tibet.

Such an agreement would benefit China in many ways: it would improve its international image and relations with India and Nepal, and it would alleviate the growing suffering and despair in Tibet. This would spare the Chinese government the security risks of further unrest and the costs of keeping Tibet locked down for the foreseeable future.

Since the uprising in 2008, mistrust between Tibetans and Han has grown, and, although Beijing appears to have learned remarkably few lessons, there is, nevertheless, a subdued debate in Beijing on China’s policy failures in Tibet.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has a great opportunity, as a new leader, to make a fresh start, and to challenge the vested interests that cling to the old, failed approach, but the opportunity to reach a settlement is shrinking: , and, since his years of advocacy of non-violence have not been rewarded, many young Tibetans regard his policy as a dead end. Without his restraining authority, the situation could certainly deteriorate further.

If this small window closes, the best opportunity for a settlement that would benefit both sides will be lost. It is strongly in the interests of China’s partners to encourage a change of policy in Beijing by all possible means, including through frequent meetings with the Dalai Lama. To fail to meet him out of fear of Beijing’s protests and threats risks encouraging the mistaken belief that China’s policies in Tibet are acceptable to its trade partners and to international public opinion. Such an outcome would be seen as a victory for the hardliners in Beijing. Meeting the Dalai Lama is not, in itself, enough to break the policy ice in China, but it is a key signal of a commitment to a constructive and peaceful settlement.

Donald Clarke

Donald Clarke is a professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., where he specializes in modern Chinese law, focusing particularly on corporate governance, Chinese legal institutions, and the legal issues presented by China’s economic reforms. He has previously been on the law faculties of the University of Washington School of Law and the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, and has been a visiting professor at Duke Law School, New York University School of Law, and the UCLA School of Law. In addition to his academic work, he founded and maintains Chinalaw, the leading internet listserv on Chinese law, and writes the Chinese Law Prof Blog. He was educated at Princeton University (A.B.) and the University of London (M.Sc.), and received his law degree (J.D.) from Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Harvard Law Review. He has served as a consultant on Chinese law matters to a number of organizations, including the Financial Sector Reform and Strengthening Initiative (FIRST), the Asian Development Bank, and the Agency for International Development. He is a member of the New York bar and the Council on Foreign Relations.

While I agree with Isabel Hilton’s major point, I disagree on one minor point, which is whether there is indeed a ‘Dalai Lama effect’ on economic relations with China. Two economists looked at this in 2010 in a paper entitled They found that there is indeed such an effect, but it is fairly modest: “Our empirical results support the idea that countries officially receiving the Dalai Lama at the highest political level are punished through a reduction of their exports to China. However, this ‘Dalai Lama effect’ is only observed for the Hu Jintao era and not for earlier periods. Furthermore, we find that this effect is mainly driven by reduced exports of machinery and transport equipment and that it disappears two years after a meeting took place.”

Robert Thurman

Robert Thurman is the Jey Tsong Khapa Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia University. Upon the Dalai Lama’s request, he co-founded the American Institute of Buddhist Studies, whose scholars currently are translating and publishing the Tibetan Tengyur collection, volume by volume with Columbia University Press, as the Treasury of the Buddhist Sciences.Thurman is the translator of The Tibetan Book of the Dead (Bantam Books, Inc., 1993), and author of many other books, including Inner Revolution: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Real Happiness (Riverhead Trade, 1999), The Central Philosophy of Tibet: A Study and Translation of Jey Tsong Khapa's Essence of True Eloquence (Princeton University Press, 1994), Brilliant Illumination of the Lamp of the Five Stages: Practical Instructions in the King of Trantras, The Glorious Esoteric Community (Columbia University Press, 2011), Wisdom and Compassion: The Sacred Art of Tibet (Harry N. Abrams, 2000), and Why the Dalai Lama Matters: His Act of Truth as the Solution for China, Tibet, and the World (Simon and Schuster, 2008), among others.With Richard Gere and Philip Glass, among others, Thurman co-founded Tibet House U.S., which is dedicated to the preservation and renaissance of Tibetan civilization. He recently founded the Menla Mountain Retreat Center in the Catskill Mountains to advance the healing arts and life sciences of the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist medicine tradition.

Right on, Ms. Hilton! Your own Prime Minister should take heed of your excellent reasoning and all other world leaders should join president Obama in meeting the Dalai Lama frequently and thereby maintaining the mild and friendly suggestion to Beijing to rein in their own failed “hardliners” who insist on the ineffective policy of “crushing the minorities” and try on the modern approach of peaceful engagement, cultural pluralism, “loose reins” management, etc. that has borne such good fruit in the case of Hong Kong, for example. Thank you for your clear explanation.

Matteo Mecacci

Matteo Mecacci served as a member of the Italian Chamber of Deputies (on its Foreign Affairs Committee) as well as an elected official of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly. Prior to taking up the Presidency at International Campaign for Tibet, he supervised elections in Georgia as the Head of Mission for the OSCE/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) for the Presidential Elections in Georgia.Mecacci was elected Chairperson of the Italian Parliamentary Intergroup for Tibet after being voted in as Deputy for the Radical Party on the Democratic Party lists at the 2008 general elections. In November 2009, he organized the 5th World Parliamentarians Convention on Tibet in Rome, which hosted the Dalai Lama and established an International Network of Parliamentarians on Tibet (INPaT). He became Co-Chair of the network in June 2010. He was a member of the Tibetan Election Observation Mission in March, 2011 when the Tibetan community in exile undertook elections for the Central Tibetan Administration leadership.Mecacci served as the representative of the Transnational Radical Party and No Peace Without Justice at the United Nations in New York from 2000 to 2008. He was part of a coalition of international NGOs advocating the reform of the United Nations—in particular the United Nations Commission on Human Rights—and he was one of the promoters of the International Steering Committee of the Community of Democracies. He studied international law at the University of Firenze.

Isabel Hilton hits the nail on the head in her response. First of all, it is important to remember what is unfortunately no longer obvious; that it is the right—and I would say also the duty—of any democratic leader to decide autonomously who to meet or not to meet to accomplish his or her mandate. Accepting the diktats of an authoritarian government, however powerful, does not bode well for the health of democratic institutions. Also, she rightly concludes that the window is shrinking for the Chinese to make a deal with the Dalai Lama, and that the situation could get a lot worse once the Dalai Lama’s calming influence both inside and outside Tibet is gone.

Apart from this, the main accomplishments of the Dalai Lama-President Obama meeting are to “keep hope alive” for oppressed Tibetans and to keep the question of Tibet on the radar of international relations. Each year, Tibetans witness even greater pressure against their culture, their rights and their dignity, under unrelenting Chinese policies of assimilation. Little will buoy a Tibetan heart more than seeing their spiritual and national leader meeting with the leader of the free world. It tells them their plight is not forgotten, and that a better future may yet come. The first time the Dalai Lama met President Obama, Tibetans in Ngaba set off fireworks and chanted prayers to mark the auspicious meeting.

We know from history that dissidents and democrats who were struggling for freedom, in places such as in the Soviet Union, were listening carefully to every word and act of solidarity coming from the leader of the west. We later learned that those words were very important to keep their hope alive.

As for the international relevance of the meeting, the decision of President Obama to meet the Dalai Lama comes at a time of increasing territorial and military tensions between China and some of its democratic neighbors, where crucial security interests for the United States and the world are at stake. This meeting shows to the Chinese that the United States does not accept the propaganda coming from Beijing regarding its “liberating” Tibet from the oppression of the Dalai Lama and its clique.

On the contrary, the United States reminds China that, notwithstanding the importance of economic relations between the two countries, the imposition of assimilation and authoritarian rule in Tibet cannot be accepted as a fait accompli. Instead, a negotiated solution should be pursued. In this context, we can assume that the message from this meeting, coming before Obama’s visit to Asia (but not China), is not only about Tibet.

Speaking of assimilation, it was very welcome to see the White House use the word for the first time in its statement: “The United States supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘Middle Way’ approach of neither assimilation nor independence for Tibetans in China.” This is a clear signal—that both names and shames—of American displeasure at Beijing’s policies in Tibet.

The U.S. President meets with the Dalai Lama because it is consistent with U.S. policy and values. For decades, the United States has sought to promote dialogue toward a solution on Tibet, to preserve Tibetan culture, religion and language, and to improve the human rights situation there. Such meetings advance U.S. policy by deepening its understanding of the Tibetan moment, and reiterating to the Chinese the U.S. expectation of its desire for results through meaningful dialogue.


Dalai Lama visits to the White House do not come in a vacuum. Every Administration knows the depth of bipartisan support Tibet has in the U.S. Congress. They know the Dalai Lama has broad support among the American public, as reflected though the advocacy work of groups like the International Campaign for Tibet, and the studies at Tibetan Buddhist centers around the country. At its core, U.S. concerns for Tibet reflect its embrace of universal values and fundamental freedoms. The Tibet problem is compelling, and U.S. policy-makers are compelled.

As Bob Thurman writes, there are lessons to be learned here. European leaders should have nothing to fear from meeting the Dalai Lama. The only fear should be about a rising authoritarian China unwilling to implement basic reforms in the rule of law and justice system necessary to handle ethnic and territorial tensions. E.U. leaders should realize that they need to act in a concerted way to reduce the pressure from China on individual countries. Failure to solve the Tibet problem while the Dalai Lama is around may result in a less stable China when he is not, thus jeopardizing the trade benefits and investments E.U. leaders are so keen to see.

Vincent Ni

Vincent Weifeng Ni is a multimedia producer at the BBC World Service. He appears on BBC Chinese, World Service radio and BBC World TV. Until 2014, he was a foreign correspondent for Caixin Media. At Caixin, he served as its correspondent in Washington, D.C., New York, Cairo. and London.Ni covered the 2012 U.S. general election and extensively reported on the debt crises in Europe from London, Berlin, and France. During the “Arab Spring” in Egypt in 2011, he was one of the very few Chinese journalists reporting from Cairo’s Tahrir Square.In November 2011, with a colleague Ni won a runner-up place in the London Foreign Press Association's annual awards in the category 'Financial/Economic Story of the Year.'He holds a Masters degree from the University of Oxford, where he was the recipient of the Hoare Family/China-Oxford Scholarship in the field of Social Science. He was also the China Fellow at Columbia Journalism School in 2012-13.

It is not the first time that an American President has met the Dalai Lama. However, while talk of a “new phase of Great Power Relations” has become a catchphrase in both China and the U.S., this meeting is not likely to impede continuous efforts by Washington and Beijing to build a positive relationship.

In Beijing’s eyes the Dalai Lama is regarded as a “splittist.” In fact, many countries around the world have been confronted with separatist movements, and have dealt with them differently. Isabel mentioned the British “splittist” Alex Salmond. On February 24, British Prime Minister David Cameron held a Cabinet meeting in Scotland and announced a major plan for the North Sea. Shortly after the announcement, Mr. Salmond laid out a rival plan to win the hearts of the Scottish voters.

A war of words will continue until . So far, both sides appear to be rather rational: using evidence and promises to win over the Scottish people. Perhaps this is the lesson countries facing similar problems should learn.

Edward Friedman

Edward Friedman is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He has worked in rural China, co-authoring Chinese Village, Socialist State (Yale University Press, 1993) and Revolution, Resistance, and Reform in Village China (Yale University Press, 2007) and serving as the major editor condensing and re-organizing Yang Jisheng's great study of the Leap era famine Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962 (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012) for an English-reading public. He also studies Chinese foreign policy, having done work for the United States Government off and on starting in 1965.

The CCP Government denouncing the President of the United States (POTUS) for meeting with His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL) reflects the policy goal of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) of making the world safe for authoritarian regimes which violate fundamental human rights. CCP. leaders experience the promotion of internationally recognized human rights as an existential threat to their right to rule with a monopoly of arbitrary power.

An imperative for good relations with the CCP. government, that government proclaims, is that the other government block attempts in the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UN HRC) and elsewhere to explore the CCP regime’s human rights record. In short, it is wrong to see this CCP denunciation of the POTUS for meeting HHDL as mere ritual and rhetoric. This really matters for the CCP.

Some therefore argue that, given how important the PRC is for matters of war and peace, environmental sustainability and economic prosperity, the POTUS, indeed the governments of all the industrial democracies, should stop upsetting the PRC with human rights issues. Surely we all care about these larger issues. Surely there is something to be said for putting the CCP cultural war on Tibetans in some larger perspective. If the argument for the POTUS meeting HHDL is that, our contributors seem to suggest, that the CCP does not follow through on threats about economic retaliation, does that mean that if the CCP did retaliate, then the POTUS should not meet with HHDL?

The PRC is winning its war on internationally recognized human rights. The industrialized democracies seem incapable of cooperating to stand up to the CCP onslaught. Instead, I fear, Airbus and VW and Toyota will secretly hope that the PRC will, respond to the POTUS meeting HHDL, by hurting GMC and Boeing, and favoring their OECD competitors.

There are very large issues at stake here which should not be obscured by a celebration of the POTUS meeting with HHDL. Freedom is not winning.

Isabel Hilton is a London-based international journalist and broadcaster. She studied at the Beijing Foreign Language and Culture University and at Fudan University in Shanghai before taking up a...
Donald Clarke is a professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., where he specializes in modern Chinese law, focusing particularly on corporate governance, Chinese ...
Robert Thurman is the Jey Tsong Khapa Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia University. Upon the Dalai Lama’s request, he co-founded the American Institute of Buddhist Studies, whose...
Matteo Mecacci served as a member of the Italian Chamber of Deputies (on its Foreign Affairs Committee) as well as an elected official of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (...
Vincent Weifeng Ni is a multimedia producer at the BBC World Service. He appears on BBC Chinese, World Service radio and BBC World TV. Until 2014, he was a foreign correspondent for Caixin Media. At...
Edward Friedman is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He has worked in rural China, co-authoring Chinese Village, Socialist State (Yale...





The China Africa Relationship: Crossroads or Cliff?

Cobus van Staden, Eric Olander, Huang Hongxiang from ChinaFile Conversation
Eric Olander and Cobus van Staden publish the China Africa Project web site, whose weekly podcast we are proud to syndicate.  As we approach the sixth Forum on China Africa Cooperation Summit in Johannesburg, we’ve also picked up written...



Is China a Credible Partner in Fighting Terror?

Andrew Small, Chen Weihua, Wei Zhu, Eric Hundman from ChinaFile Conversation
In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris China’s foreign minister Wang Yi said, “China is also a victim of terrorism. The fight against the ‘East Turkestan Islamic Movement’… should become an important part of the international fight against...



How Can China’s Neighbors Make Progress at APEC?

Le Hong Hiep, Brian Eyler from ChinaFile Conversation
Ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit next week, we asked a group of experts from China’s neighboring countries what they thought the main thrust of discussion in Manila should be. If host, the Philippines, under pressure from...



The China-Taiwan Summit

Richard Bernstein, Andrew J. Nathan, Jerome A. Cohen, Ho-fung Hung, Wei-chin Lee from ChinaFile Conversation
This Saturday, for the first time since 1949, the leaders of China and Taiwan will meet face to face. Xi Jinping and Ma Ying-jeou will meet in Singapore, not as Presidents, but—to sidestep one of many lingering areas of conflict since the Chinese...



How Far Have China’s Economic Reforms Come over the Past Year?

Houze Song, Arthur R. Kroeber from ChinaFile Conversation
As the Chinese Communist Party leadership wrapped up its Fifth Plenum, the meeting at which the Party’s leadership set the Five Year Plan that will shape economic policy through 2020, what progress has been made on the “comprehensive deepening” of...



Making Waves in the South China Sea

Peter Dutton, Jessica Chen Weiss, Andrew S. Erickson, Elbridge Colby from ChinaFile Conversation
Challenging China’s newly assertive behavior in the South China Sea, this week the U.S. Navy sailed some of its biggest ships inside the nine-dash line, exercising its claim to freedom of movement in international waters plied by billions in trade...



Britain: ‘China’s Best Partner in the West’?

Isabel Hilton, Sebastian Heilmann , Jonathan Fenby, Sophie Richardson, Robert Barnett from ChinaFile Conversation
This week, Xi Jinping is in Great Britain for a state visit, his first since assuming leadership of China nearly three years ago. Britain’s government under David Cameron has signaled—increasingly loudly in recent months—that it hopes to usher in a...



Is There a China Model?

Daniel A. Bell, Timothy Garton Ash, Andrew J. Nathan, Taisu Zhang, Mark Danner, Rebecca Liao, Ryan Mitchell from ChinaFile Conversation
The most recent public event in our ChinaFile Presents series, which we held October 15 in New York, was a discussion of the philosopher Daniel A. Bell’s controversial book, The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy, co-...



What Will the TPP Mean for China?

Barry Naughton, Arthur R. Kroeber, Guy de Jonquières, Graham Webster, Robert Kapp, Yoichi Funabashi from ChinaFile Conversation
On Monday, the U.S., Japan, and ten other countries concluded negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP—the largest regional trade accord in history. If approved, the agreement will set new terms for the nearly $28 trillion in trade and...



The Future of Autonomy in Hong Kong

David Schlesinger, Denise Y. Ho, Ho-fung Hung, Samson Yuen, Alvin Y.H. Cheung, Edmund Cheng, Sebastian Veg from ChinaFile Conversation
Yesterday, the governing board of Hong Kong University, one of the territory’s most esteemed institutions of higher education, voted to reject the promotion of Johannes Chan, a former law school dean, over the objections of the faculty and students...