Potential Swing Voter

Less than 24 hours after losing the Crewe bye-election, Gordon Brown has been involved in talks with Tibetan leader-in-exile, the Dalai Lama. One has to ask if maybe our Prime Minister is considering the pro-Tibet protesters as possible swing-voters.

I for one see know reason why such a meeting should take place. Admittedly from an idealist point of view it would be fantastic if our Dear Leader could facilitate a gradual handover of power to the Tibetan people by acting as an intermediary with their masters in Beijing. Hey presto, la la la la la, free Tibet, etc, etc. This clearly isn't going to happen. Any Tibetan independence will happen long after Gordon has left office (so ......next week?).

Why therefore, knowing the futility of such a plan, would he consider meeting the Dalai Lama worthwhile. I'm not entirely cynical (not yet), and would like to think that GB has at least a little sympathy with the Tibetan cause - he made a distinct decision not to touch the Olympic torch as it passed by Number 10 in April. Maybe like me, he has a genuine hope for a long-term solution to the problem. Or maybe it was just opportunistic electioneering.

Tibet was occupied by the People's Republic of China in 1950. There was no Chinese miliatary presence before this date, quiete a lot afterwards. There was also what could lightly be described as 'significant regime change'. To suggest that Tibet has always been an integral part of China is like suggesting that Iraq has always been a US state. Since that date, ties have been made increasingly strong between the himalayan kingdom and the PRC - continental scale railways for mineral extraction, colonisation by Han Chinese, cultural marginalisation, etc.

And nobody quite knows what to do now; 'Free Tibet' groups demand full indepence, the Dalai Lama himself wishes for only autonomy, and Beijing continues the 'always here, always will be' line. China would like to keep occupying the nation for all manner of reasons - economic, strategic, political- and there would seem to be little ground for negotiation or resolution.

So what was Gordon up to? If anything he was irritating our friends in China. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang was quoted yesterday as saying:

"This is interference in China's internal affairs and also seriously hurts the feelings of the Chinese people"

Well well, we wouldn't want that would we. Interfering in the internal affairs of another nation? cough.. Zimbabwe... cough... arms.... Yes. Lets bear in mind that many Tibetans consider the Dalai Lama their spiritual leader and natural head of state and government... hmm... I'm not a big fan of theocracy but nevertheless, the one thing i'd expect a head of government to be doing is taking some interest in internal affairs. As for hurting people's feelings??

To steal a catchphrase from that vile creature Richard Littlejohn, 'you couldn't make it up'

Having your feelings hurt - PRC style

Truth be told, there's absolutely sod-all Mr Brown can do for Tibet. Any remotely pro-Tibet foreign policy wouldn't go down too well in Beijing; young Milliband would get a less than gratious reception. Even if a united EU and US agreed to take a pro-Tibet stance, it would have little effect. Such is the economic power of the PRC that it doesn't have to care what the world thinks of it. So we boycott their products? There are plenty who wouldn't. Also, selfish though it may seem, your average Brit probabably prefers to have a job, income, and new fridge, to Tibetan independance. Such are the unfortunate realities of a world with an authoritarian superpower.

Besides which, it might spoil the Olympics.

'Ciderite'

(I note that my source for this, BBC news, is treading a very thin tightrope on this issue. Short of a single quote - 'cultural genocide' - from the Dalai Lama, it avoids mentioning any alledged Chinese atrocities. It is also interesting to note that a certain news website was recently unblocked in China for the first time since its inception 18 years ago)