Tibet is a “soverienty” issue with China. They “own” Tibet, and will brooke no challenge to that, regardless of any external pressure. They will face up to denunciation and proceed with their policy regardless of external condemnation.

They US had tried pressure before with little success. Maybe a new approach, as was done with the N. Korea issue will work better. We worked behind the scenes and didn’t try to “pressure” China into forcing a N. Korea capitulation. Maybe that type of appraoch will work with Tibet. The previous policy has certainly NOT led to reduced oppression.

Hillary and Obama will learn the limits of their approach, but may actually find a path to s0me improved treatment of Tibet and its residents.

The issue of Iran is similar in many ways. What is the best way to get movement from Iran (or the Taliban) on addressing human rights or other issues? Should we use “pressure”, or is a more “behind the scenes” approach better?

As I look at the two situations (with some background in both areas), I see China more open to quiet diplomacy (ala Nixon) than I see Iran open to “overtures”. I think Iranian theology much more entrenched than the atheism of the Chinese. I think Iran will only respond to “pressure”, but will not respond to a “soft” line. I think the evidence of this is in the news today about a visiting “arts” group (Iran is demanding an apology for the movie “300″).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-iran-us-hollywood,0,6997897.story

But that’s just my opinion. You may think differently. I am willing to let Obama and Hillary try their hand at it, even if I am not convinced it will be productive. We’ll know soon enough, and we really have few options.

After watching that documentary, it made Hillary Clinton’s remarks in China seem all the more callous. I totally understand that the U.S. can’t force China to do anything, but China is terribly afraid of bad public relations as they try to whitewash their history and make communist China sound more democratic and westernized than it actually is. We saw how upset the Chinese got with international protesters during the Olympics- I really do think they might respond a bit to pressure from not just the US, but other powerful nations and even religious leaders like the Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, etc.

While it would be nice if Obama (through Hillary) were to push for the Dalia Lama, and Tibet, it is unlikely in the extreme that there would be any progress. It might irritate the Chinese, and might “score points” with Human rights Watch, but it would not gain much. Maybe a “behind the scenes” approach would work better.

Let’s hope that the Obama Administration is “instituting change” and trying a “new type of diplomacy”, different from a Bush “confrontational approach” and working behind the scenes to improvie life in Tibet. As much as I dislike Dems policy proposals in general, and Hillary and Obama in particular, maybe in this case we DO NEED a new appraoch. The old one really didn’t get us too far except as a “reputation for civil rights protectors”. Maybe Hillary can actually get China to “ease off” if they are not publically humiliated. They don’t like to “lose face”, as you well know.