Saturday, January 24, 2009

Tibet official: Dalai Lama uninvited to World Winter Games

BOISE -- Did he decline or was he uninvited?Our exclusive story on the Dalai Lama’s omission from the 2009 World Winter Games sparks a response from the office of Tibet.The allegation is that political pressure from China led the Special Olympics to withdraw its invitation to the Dalai Lama -- an invitation to the opening ceremonies in Boise, which the Dalai Lama had already accepted.The president of Special Olympics International specifically denied that, indicating it was simply a scheduling conflict not a political problem, and that explanation is echoed by local organizers.(Related:Political pressure may be behind Dalai Lama’s canceled visit)But after our story aired Wednesday, the office of Tibet contacted us with its side of the story saying organizers kowtowed to pressure and threats from China.The Dalai Lama’s representative says he was uninvited in mid-December."The request was being made simply because there is strong Chinese pressure. Because they are threatening to boycott the whole Olympic Games," said Lobsang Nyandak, Dalai Lama representative. I think it is solely because of political pressure from the Chinese government that the visit has been canceled.”This does raise awareness, of course, about Tibet’s struggle for independence against China, but the Dalai Lama’s representative assured us there was no agenda here. He said the Dalai Lama had been looking forward to attending the games. We tried all day to reach those who still insist this was simply a scheduling conflict, but our calls to the Special Olympic International were not returned.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Questions for Mrs. Clinton

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for secretary of state, appears today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Op-Ed page asked 10 experts to pose the questions they would like to hear Senator Clinton answer.
1. United States policy has failed with respect to Israeli-Palestinian peace. The reluctance of any American president to act as an honest broker in the process, rather than as a strong, unquestioning friend of Israel, has contributed to this failure. How do you propose to bring success to the peace process?
2. There is clearly an imbalance of influence and power between the State Department and the Defense Department. An enormous shift of foreign policy influence has also occurred, since the era of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, from the State Department to the National Security Council staff and its head, the national security adviser. How do you propose to bring some of that influence back to the State Department?
— LAWRENCE B. WILKERSON, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005
1. Does it benefit American security to have more liberal democracies in the world? If so, what steps would you take to advance this trend?
2. Do you believe that NATO enlargement has contributed to American security and moved former Soviet states toward greater democracy and regional cooperation?
— MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI, the president of Georgia
1. Some say “war on terror” is a misnomer that has led our policy astray. They argue that terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or a cause, and that a war against it is bound to be ill focused and inconclusive. Do you think we should drop the term “war on terror,” and describe our policy more precisely as a war to defeat Al Qaeda and violent Islamic extremism?
2. In the Middle East, we see a paradox: Countries with pro-American governments like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have populations with high levels of anti-American sentiment. Meanwhile in Iran, whose government is hostile to the United States, public opinion of America is more favorable. How do you explain this, and what can we learn from it? Should the United States disentangle itself from autocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
3. One of the most damaging legacies of the Iraq war is that it has given idealism and internationalism a bad name. How will you persuade the American people, and the world, that the United States can be a force for democracy and freedom?
— MICHAEL SANDEL, a professor of government at Harvard
1. Tibet may prove to be the most divisive issue between China and the West. There is a real possibility that China and the Obama administration will have friction or even a temporary diplomatic clash over Tibet. How will you treat this possibility? If Barack Obama is inclined to meet with the Dalai Lama, what will be your attitude? Might you or other senior members in the State Department meet with the Dalai Lama or other leaders of the Tibetan exile government?
2. Will you criticize strongly and frequently the status of human rights, religious freedom and public welfare in China? If so, how do you plan to deal with the angry reactions of the Chinese government — and of the Chinese people themselves? Do you think there is any truth to the argument that China is an “authoritarian success”?
— SHI YINHONG, a professor of international relations and the director of the Center for American Studies at Renmin University in Beijing
1. In 1913, Woodrow Wilson appointed William Jennings Bryan secretary of state for solely domestic political reasons. He needed but distrusted him, and thus relied on other advisers to conduct diplomacy. Have you read up on Wilson’s relationship with Bryan, and will it be relevant to your own situation?
2. In the past, you have taken different positions on Iraq. As secretary of state, which of these foreign policy positions are you likely to adopt? Will you be the hawk who voted to authorize the war, or the war critic who referred to reports of progress in Iraq as requiring a “willing suspension of disbelief?”