About TDH

Archived
Commentaries

Past Projects

FAQ

Links

Contact

April 8, 2004

So a senior official within the Chinese embassy in Ottawa makes this declaration:

"On this we are very clear-cut -- that we are opposed to any foreign government officials to meet with him. Because, you know, the Dalai Lama is neither a political figure nor a religious figure. He's just somebody involved with separating China."

This is then bolstered by a faxed statement that uses veiled threats about any meeting between the Canadian government and the Dalai Lama, "so as not to upset or damage the bilateral relations."

So what right do the Chinese have to dictate who the Canadian Prime Minister and his government officials meet with?  Absolutely none.  But then, that really isn't the issue.

Through a decade of favourable economic prioritizing by the Chretien administration, China's trade relationship with Canada has blossomed to an amazing $20 billion a year.  Even in the face of a the devastating SARS crisis, the Chinese economy grew to 9.1% in 2003, an astronomical figure in comparison to growth rates in Canada and the United States. 

Consumer demand in China is in the process of evolving from the second stage of consumption, which focused on home appliances, to the third stage, is focusing on high-grade goods like cars and housing.  Western nations are now salivating uncontrollably at China's WTO commitment to lift the regional, equity and quantitative ownership restrictions for businesses by December 11 of this year. This will mean that China's retail industry will become open to foreign enterprises.

Herein lies the dilemma in making a decision that could affect this country's economic relationship with such a huge trading partner. 

In the case of the Dalai Lama, his exalted status in exile still does not translate into that of official designation in the world of international diplomacy.  The Prime Minister of Canada has a primary responsibility to the well-being of Canada, and compromising $20 billion of economic activity would be contrary to this obligation.

This is not necessarily right, nor is it fair.  Foreign policy, in a utopic international community, should not be dictated by the almighty dollar, but rather for the harmonious existence of all nations, creeds, races and religions,

But alas, the unstoppable tsunami that is globalization does not work that way.  In  regards to the people of Tibet, the best thing that any global leader can do is try to implement change from within the auspices of economic diplomacy, however gut wrenching the exercise proves to be.

Comments? jonathan@tdhstrategies.com