On the op-ed page of today's NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff, a writer whose scope and values I have admired for a long time, presents his answer to the problem of Tibet and the Chinese occupation. He talked at length to the Dalai Lama who allowed him to write of compromises that HH is willing now to make. Kristoff offers his own version of what both sides would, in his view, need to agree about. It's sweeping on both sides.
I read it with wonder -- first of all at the chutzpah of a columnist, albeit a very involved and respected man -- to propose that two parties make such an agreement. Then at the naivete of thinking they would sit down and talk at all [the Chinese have been unwilling to do anything positive] and then the deeper naivete to think that if such an agreement were made between two heads of state that the terms would actually be carried out.
Yet -- how could a sincere and well meaning man as I am certain Kristoff is, NOT write this column? He has a far reaching proposal and if it lights even a small fire in the minds of the Chinese powers it might make a difference. Perhaps they will be receptive -- if not on the very eve of their Olympics, at least a bit later since Bush IS mouthing criticisms -- although also attending the Olympics. But for Bush to talk about human rights violations is laughable - what moral credibility the US used to have has been destroyed by Bush's administration.
Most of all, I'm glad the subject of Tibet is brought up again and again in the public discourse. If anything can staunch the bleeding wounds of that culture it has to be tried.
No comments:
Post a Comment