Campaigning for the US presidency, Barack Obama bravely promised that he was prepared to meet rogue leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or North Korea's Kim Jong-il in the interests of peace. Now in power, he has realised that there are bigger issues at stake, so no such meetings have yet taken place, and even a chance encounter and present of a book from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez caused consternation. It is understandable that the US does not want to give the rogues a propaganda coup without being assured of something substantial in return.
But has cruel realpolitik completely taken over the White House? This month, Obama snubbed someone who is undoubtedly a man of peace and non-violence, in the interests of currying favour with a totalitarian state. The snub was all the greater since the man in question - the Dalai Lama - had met every American president since 1991 and has received the Nobel Peace Prize.
Obama's staff claimed the president has not given up on Tibet , but is much more interested in getting results rather than making empty gestures. The Dalai Lama himself was nice enough to go along with this argument, saying that he does not want to 'cause embarrassment' for the sake of a photo opportunity with the US president just before Obama goes to Beijing to meet President Hu Jintao . 'A more serious discussion is better than a picture,' he added.
I hope Obama understands that the Dalai Lama was issuing a challenge to him: prove yourself by getting some results. Obama should now consider himself obligated to press Hu to resume serious talks with the representatives of the exiled Tibetan leader. If he succeeds, Obama may rescue his own reputation as a serious peacemaker and do China a big favour, too.
It is clear from several recent interviews by the Dalai Lama that he is no 'splittist', Beijing's pet insult for him. He has accepted that Tibet is part of the People's Republic. He is prepared to talk directly to China rather than insulting Beijing's sensitivities by appealing to the United Nations. He has condemned violence by Tibetans, Uygurs or Han Chinese, and reacted to the recent rioting in Xinjiang by saying it was 'very sad, and quite a lot of Han brothers and sisters suffered'.
The Dalai Lama spelled out his position in a long interview with the BBC in August, worth reading by both Obama and Hu. 'The very reason why we are not seeking separation, and [are] fully committed to a solution within the framework of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, is economic interests,' he said. 'Tibet is backward, materially very much backward. Therefore, we also want more material development, so as far as material development is concerned, remaining within [the] People's Republic of China, we get greater benefit.'
Of course, the Dalai Lama is also a canny political operator, even though he claims to have passed on political power of the Tibetan government in exile to the prime minister, Samdhong Rinpoche, whom he calls 'my boss'.