There was a degree of bemusement in Downing Street when the Chinese state news agency reported Beijing had "serious concerns" at Gordon Brown's plan to meet the Dalai Lama.

After all, had not the PM had a lengthy and constructive conversation on the phone with his old mate Premier Wen that very morning?

The impression from that one on one chat was that the Chinese leadership was not about to throw a wobbly.

The UK government is certainly bending over backwards to try to accommodate Chinese concerns - it will be stressed that the PM is meeting the Dalai Lama in his capacity as a "spiritual leader" (the Dalai Lama that is, not his Gordon-ness), and I'm also hearing that the meeting may take place not in Downing Street and indeed not in a government building at all.

There is real nervousness about the implications of this affair for relations with China. Even if it's true that Premier Wen is reasonably sanguine now, noone in Downing Street is under any illusions - the weeks ahead will be awkward.

Click here to rad more on the diplomatic row brewing.

Comments

[Victor, NW Kent 25 Mar 2008 17:10:45]

Carol-Ann and Madnurse have contributed very thoughtfully to this discussion.

I see it as that a person is the sum of all of their parts and cannot be defined simply. The Dalai Lama does not see his role as simply leading his followers in prayer and neither should we.

There can be little doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that China has behaved abominably over Tibet for 60 years. However, with a very few exceptions we have not taken positive action against a great many disgraceful regimes over the same period -I could not count them on my fingers and toes together. All too often our intervention has had unforseen consequences. That does not mean that we cannot talk to both sides in a fight.

We simply should not be cowed by China into treating with the Dalai Lama without the dignity that his position requires. I ask again, what can China do about it? Invade us? Stop selling to us? Bar us from the Olympics?

[carol-ann liverpool 24 Mar 2008 16:34:14]

I certainly think that a moral code is absolutely essential. Most of our laws are based on religious ones. If you have a society without morality,then people would murder and abuse children and steal without any compunction whatsoever, we would go back to being a primitive society.

Many people who were once religious but moved away from the churches, often go back in later life because they realise that, with all its imperfections religion or a democracy based on relgious values works better than one without, IMHO.

It was often claimed, in the 1970s that families were oppressive for women and female children. As someone who supports women's rights, that was always a bone of contention for me as a working class woman when speaking to middle class women, because I felt that the way things were structured in the working class households I was familiar with, was not the same as in many middle class families then. (30 years ago)
Even as someone who escaped from an extremely dysfunctional family at the age of 8 years into a more traditional one, I think the family (however it is constructed) is better than any other system we know.

There is an old saying: "It takes a village to raise a child". In quite a few cases, single parents may not be a traditional family on the surface, but often extended families help to ensure that the children do not suffer too much disadvantage if the absent parent does not play a supporting role at all.

It seems to me that the most dysfunctional families have no 'village' to help them care for their children. The absent parent isn't around and they don't have a supportive network of grandparents, aunts and uncles etc. or the single parent doesn't have a network of friends to turn to.

One of the things that is of major concern to me is what will happen to my grandchildren in the future and I fear that society is becoming less and less moral.

The under 40s generation seem to have less concern over some issues and do not see anything wrong with getting fall down drunk and vomiting or lying down on the pavements of the local town

Even certain crimes or fiddling the system, no longer seem to carry a 'stigma' with people buying stuff ' fallen off the back of a lorry' in large numbers. Every estate seems to have someone who sells illegal copies of DVDs or designer goods, not to mention drugs.
There are many people now using drugs like they once would have used a glass of brandy or whisky.

Most people now use churches for 'ceremonial' purposes only, like film makers use them for their settings.
Baptism, Weddings and children making their 'Holy Communions'
are held in them while these once 'religious' ceremonies have now been turned into a picture gallery as seen in Hello magazine and used as a means of showing off or keeping up with 'The Jones'

We have also now imported the American habit of having 'wedding showers, 'baby showers' and School Proms, with thousands of pounds spent on such as 'proms' as a means of out-doing your teenage-child's friends. There is no stigma in owing tens of thousands of pounds in debt as there once was. .
I fear where this decline in morality will lead us as a society.... will we be lulled into semi- voluntary euthenasia to deal with the number of elderly people demanding high levels of health and social care? Will it lead us into laws against single parents and compulsory sterilisation, for example. With the new fertility technologies will we then start to make it a crime for parents to have a disabled child?
Of course ,laws change over time and what was once a crime no longer is, and what wasn't now is; but the areas we need to look at are those which have the potential of fundementally dismantling the values and morals that are the bedrock of society.

Just to take one small example: I do not drop litter. That is not because there is a law against it, it is not even because I worry about the environment -although that is important - it is because I love my country and I care about others and feel it is an insult, to others in my community to do so.
I think that the rise of individualism and the decline of 'community' has caused many problems like littering for example, now we have to have people employed and expensive machinery to deal with it because even those born in a generation that has been taught about the environment, do it without conscience.
When I was at university, I was agahst to see how much mess there was in The Student's Union where campaigns and protests were organised on issues to do with the environment.
Some of the people promoting environment or other political issues thought nothing of throwing their plastic beer glasses/glass bottles, on the floor and sticking their chewing gum under all the tables or treading it into the carpet!

I did far more recycling when I was a child with war-serving grandparents than even the recycling conscious kids today do. There is nothing like 'rationing' to boost that habit of recycling!

You can see how just one area that is affected by people's decline in moral values, causes not only an awful, sickening mess but a huge expense which we all pay even more for, in our Council Taxes.

[Gaitry B. London 23 Mar 2008 22:30:01]

I think it is great that Gordon Brown will be meeting the Dalai Lama. I just hope the meeting will be a real one and not just for show. I hope that true communication takes place. The nations that have the power to help weaker nations in this world have ignored the Tibetan people's plight for too long. Why do these nations choose to help certain nations (ie. Iraq) and not others?
The Dalai Lama has been fighting his corner for a long time and he remains hopeful. He has a lot of faith in us human beings... he thinks we are compassionate beings at our core and that our goodness will outshine the violence of our primitive natures. I hope he is right.

[Madnurse 22 Mar 2008 12:15:49]

Peter Chuah:

I am inclined to agree with your statement that politics and religion do not and should not mix. I also agree about sport.
However, many countries do mix the two (or three), sometimes with terrible consequences for the general population such as in Iran and say Saudi Arabia for example.

I do feel that society relies on certain moral values in order to work, many of these values have religious roots, for example, laws against murder, stealing etc. As to whether these “religious” based rules were put in place by divine inspiration or as a method of controlling society that is another debate.

Each person has their own moral code, each tend to follow a series of morals or beliefs that happen to be the same as one group or another. We are, after all a herding animal. People that follow a given religion share the beliefs of that religion, when people disagree or are unable to comply with those beliefs they tend to leave the group and join another group be that a religious group, in which I include atheism, or a non religious group.
People that follow the Catholic faith have clear morals that happen to be laid down over many centuries, they don’t really change, seldom does a Pope change the doctrines that go back 2000 years. The Pope even states that evolutionary theory does not conflict with creationism.
Many scientists are coming around to the idea of intelligent design.
Despite great advances in science, we still are unable to say exactly where the soul/consciousness/ID and ego is/are located.

I would support the notion of a secular society without an established church similar to that of France.

People do seem to have a desire for religion or beliefs, as we have moved away from established conventional religion, other belief systems have filled the void created, climate change has taken on an almost religious character for example.

If you became a cabinet minister and the PM proposed legislation that stated a belief in God and a need to worship that God, you would have to vote against it given your public stance on here, If you backed it just to hold onto your position, then you would be a hypocrite and not the type of person wanted in a cabinet position. This is why I am critical of some current cabinet ministers.

Finally, it is not religion that causes conflict, it is man. Religion is often the justification man gives for conflict, but if they were true to their faith, they would live together in peace. Islam is an exception to this as their belief system allows action, including violence, against non believers.

[alan mcpartland 21 Mar 2008 18:00:53]

Whatever about Gordon putting in his tuppence worth on Tibet, you've got to say that, for brass neck Nancy Pelosi takes the biscuit. She suggests that if "we do not speak out on this issue we have lost all moral authority", How can she possibly imagine that the Americans have any moral authority left to speak on matters of "freedom". The Butchers of Baghdad have long since lost any moral authority and I am not sure what world Ms Pelosi inhabits if she does not realise this. Get a grip Nancy and zip your mouth if you have nothing more than hypocritical platitudes to utter.

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 21 Mar 2008 14:59:14]

Posted by: Madnurse 21 Mar 2008 14:00:38: “Should we ignore leaders with a great deal of influence amongst their people....?

Yes, we must not ignore spiritual leaders perceived to be significant by their fervent followers/disciples. But for followers of any religious sect to impose their arguably blinked, deluded and dogmatic views and practices as the only absolute true ‘laws of nature and universe’ is also likewise wrong and unacceptable to third parties. Religion (and sports for that matter) does not mix with politics.

For example, how can a Catholic show leadership when their opinions and ideas are subject to conform to those of the Pope of the day, like considering abortion, stem cell research, divorce, homosexuality, etc as a 'sin', as well as requiring all Catholic priests/’father’ to be male celibates. “Life begins at conception”. Does that mean that millions of souls are created (and tagged) by God every second when millions of human embryos (many of them will be aborted naturally) are formed?

As history and our personal experience indicate, a multi-ethnic society is often a disharmonious society with warring factions. As long as there are perceived differences in ‘cultures’ and ‘religion’ in a country, there will be separate lifestyles and hence potential political disharmony and friction. After all this is the 21st century, when most phenomena can be scientifically explained, proved and verified, without having to invoke explanations that involve the spiritual world. I believe invoking the name of God on complex issues (as in the dark ages) can hinder the seeking of explanations and solutions for oneself from a scientific and logical standpoint. I believe religion causes more division and conflicts than peace and should be outdated in the 20th century, never mind the 21st.

[Madnurse 21 Mar 2008 14:00:38]

Peter Chuah:

Whether you like it or not, the Tibetian people are a religious people. Tibet is similar to how our nation used to be, namely the church playing a greater role in their everyday lives. This continues despite the secular policies promoted by the Chinese. The Dhali Lama, just as the Pope is for me, is a respected person whose opinion counts as far as the religious Tibetian population of Tibet is concerned.

Should we ignore leaders with a great deal of influence amongst their people, just because Peter Chuah and his pro secular friends don't agree with their views? Are Peter Chuah's views "better" than ordinary Tibetians because he has had a western secular education? Answers please on a postcard.

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 21 Mar 2008 10:23:03]

Can any person takes any spiritual leader seriously (and with respect), when the fundamental principles and basis of the spiritual leader arguments, beliefs APPEAR (from the perspective of a observer or ‘third person’) wooly and unsubstantiated, as well as starting from mistaken unproven premises? Sure, each one to their own cherished beliefs and theories about heaven and earth (or lack of them), but use them as purely private views. Religion (and sports for that matter) does not mix.

[Anne Thailand 21 Mar 2008 03:03:46]

It is apalling that so-called civilised nations including France and the USA to name but two are putting economic gain before basic human rights.

[Searchie London 20 Mar 2008 20:00:30]

He should advise the Dalai Lama to run Tibet like he runs the UK. After 10 years the place will be in such a mess the Chinese will leave voluntarily.

[Victor, NW Kent 20 Mar 2008 19:02:18]

China, apart from its illegal occupation of Tibet, actively supports the oppressive North Korean regime, has agents at work destabilising Nepal, supports the genocidical government of the Sudan, is the lifeline for the illegal military government of Burma.

Realpolitik may force us to be polite to such a power but we should not be subservient to such a regime.

[Madnurse 20 Mar 2008 16:16:14]

Rupi:

" would you let any stranger in your house and allow them to control you or your way of living?"

Too late, we already have. In the west it's just called political correctness!!

[R J. London 20 Mar 2008 15:41:28]

This is an appalling situation, that has been ignored for years.

The only way China will resolve this matter is when they feel the economical pinch. For goodness sake Mr Brown, listen to your voters and those members of public you wish were your voters; don't support China in their actions. Look to source goods from our own shores or Europe and assist our economic future.

We have seen the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war, because we went to help the people, we will be in Afghanistan when the 5th anniversary comes around, where we went to help the people. Lets not be seen to pick and choose who we support, take action and get the UN to act in support of the oppressed peoples of Tibet. China will quickly be upon us as the next world threat if they are allowed to continue unopposed building their military empire and suppressing free rights.

It is said that struggle and difficulty are character building, it is in fact during times of hardship that ones true character is shown.

Stand up and be counted.

[Rupi, Ruislip,Hillingdon 20 Mar 2008 15:39:51]

Is it wrong for the people of a country to want freedom?? dont think so....... each n every person in this world has a right to freedom, doesnt matter nationaly,internationally or world wide. That is what the Tibetan's want n chinese dont want to give them that freedom. China is nothing but a country who just wants to prove that it is a super power, n is famous for producing cheap goods n exploiting poor people. China just gets a brainwave every now a then, their lastest brainwave is trying to claim whole STATE of INDIA in the eastern region as their own. the people of that state are in a panic as chinese forces into their houses at night. would you let any stranger in your house and allow them to control you or your way of living? I dont think any of us would be happy to do that and we will do what ever is needed to protect ourselves. that is what the Tibetan's are doing after years n years of oppression. as i see it china need to leave TIBET. Tibetan's are peace loving, caring,n gentle people and china needs to grant them their FREEDOM, before they are thrown out from that peacefully country. china out of TIBET.

[Justin, Buckinghamshire 20 Mar 2008 14:10:15]

Tibet is an important strategic region for China, and I doubt the Chinese will relinquish involvement there. I believe, historically, the making of China was an amalgamation of various territories across Asia.

If China wants to end the unrest in Tibet, more than just temporarily, then they will need to take some steps. These include allowing the Tibetan leader, the Dalais Lamas, and other exiles to return to Tibet, allowing the building of Buddhist monasteries and permitting open expression of religious and civil liberties. Stop the influx into Tibet of ethnic Chinese and suppressing the local population. Allow the Tibetans to live how they want, without being dictated to by the power base in Beijing. With such measures I think there is a fair chance that the Tibetans would accept the overseeing by China, on fair terms.

[Eddie Allen 20 Mar 2008 13:01:49]

I find it quite unbelievable that if our Prime Minister had been in lengthy and constructive discussion with Premier Wen, that the one topic he failed to discuss, if having such a conversation, would be his intention to speak with the Dalai Lama, given that he is focus and inspiration to the very people causing so much grief to his Chinese counter-part ?

I ask myself the question, was I in his shoes, would I omit to inform the Chinese Premier of this intention, given that the object of my talks would be to 'help' to resolve his problem, and I think NO, I would most certainly tell him what I planned if I had lengthy and constructive discussions and wanted to reach agreement.

I question the veracity of the statement on reflection of the Chinese Premiers apparent surprise to hear of his plan to meet the Dalai Lamaa, because why would he seek to embarrass our Prime Minister who recently made a £2 Billion trade deal and why would Brown seek to embarrass the Chinese Premier ?

Either, a 'porky' has been given, or someone is incompetent at doing foreign policy me thinks.

David Cameron on the other-hand, I feel should NOT have 'complimented' Brown on his proposed meeting, but rather he should have asked "Does Premier Wen also feel this meeting will be of benefit and has he indicated he will take positive steps to help bring a peaceful state to Tibet" ?

I now wonder whether Brown has not just stuck his two feet into an area he knows nothing about and I wonder how David Cameron can back peddle on the support he's given him when clearly such a move will enrage the Chinese Premier even further if he is ignored.

"So what" eh ! hahaha

[T. England 20 Mar 2008 12:35:28]

China are starting to feel the wests rules of working & its starting to hurt!
Did you know that as the wests work rules start to kick in the Chinese are starting to have things made in places like vietnam?
Well they are!
What does this tell you?
Chinas productivity is starting to slow unbelieveably!
What else does it tell you?
That there are still places in the world that you can use & abuse a workforce for capital gain!

I suppose when Vietnam gets the wests rules of working we will have things made in the heart of the peruvian jungle!

[Lily, UK 20 Mar 2008 12:24:42]

Hay, why did you send troops to Irland when they wanted freedom? Why are you invading Iraq? Why don't you give Scotland freedom - Why don't you mention human rights here?

[Khalid 20 Mar 2008 12:14:02]

Sir Joey
The civil unrest throughout the world can be stopped momentarily so long as the powers to be unite in the fight against the destruction of mankind, whether it be for self righteous purposes or based upon religious misconceptions. Insofar as the telcon between the Dalai Lama & [Sharon Brown], did either say [I Specialise In Love]?
Happy Easter and lets have a new beginning starting now!

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 20 Mar 2008 11:39:01]

Madnurse,
Another excellent posting, and dialogue is essential if we are ever going to convince China that they need to change their human rights policy.

[Madnurse 20 Mar 2008 11:02:56]

China are starting to exercise influence over other nations in much the same way that the USA does.
China have become economic giants and with vast anounts of cash comes influence.
People on here say we don't need China, I personally disagree, even though the thought of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, if you look at many of the cheap consumer goods we buy in this country, most would have been made in China. We could not afford to cut economic ties to China even if we wanted to. We cannot make these products ourselves as recent governments have destroyed so much of our manufacturing base.
I feel the West is, during the current down turn in world economic markets, even more dependent on China for our economic stability.

Whilst China's record on human rights etc is appalling, how they run their country and their empire is their business, I can remember protests throughout our empire in days gone by, we suppressed the protests in much the same way as the Chinese do now. We have already tried to act as a world policeman in Iraq and Afghanistan and look at the mess that has caused. I am sure if a foreign power was encouraging British subjects to revolt against our government, we would not sit back quietly. Remember, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Now for the record, I detest what China does to it's people but, as a nation, given our trading links, we are hypocrits.

Finally, in my opinion, giving China the Olympics almost gives them the green light of acceptability on their regime. Am I wrong?

[Peter, Fife 20 Mar 2008 10:36:00]

Gordon Brown must prove that he is his own man, if he kowtowed to Chinese policy the usual suspects would be lining up to throw their stones in all instruments of the media and on blogs such as Boulton & Co.

The Chinese have got to realise there are at least two sides to every argument not merely the view of the state which until now has been the only view that has been tolerated; cue the usual stone throwers and name callers.

The situation in Tibet can only be resolved through debate; debate does not consist of the most powerful side ordering, commanding or talking down to those weakest in numbers or power; the situation requires a mediator.

This is possibly one of the few times that Chinese policy can be readily influenced; however it must be said that this is only because of the Chinese leaders are fearful of an Olympics boycott.

[J, Herts 20 Mar 2008 10:30:00]

Brown can get out of this mess by saying to the Chinese that he's actually meeting dalai lama ding dong from Guy Fawkes' blog, not The Dalai Lama. dalai lama ding dong has got some questions for Gordon to answer about Dunblane.

[Gary Elsby stoke-on-trent 20 Mar 2008 10:14:16]

It'll get even more awkward for Gordon, when he finds out that Tony Blair has put in for job of Dali Lama.

Gary

[Victor, NW Kent 20 Mar 2008 09:52:48]

It would show some integrity if Brown met the Dalai Lama openly and in proper surroundings. I fail to see why we have to kowtow to China. We need nothing from them - they need our custom.

It is dismaying to hear that this will be a quasi-meeting in a non-government building, treating the Dalai Lama as though he is some sort of pariah or lesser person.

It is the Chinese who are the villains of the piece.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 20 Mar 2008 08:39:01]

Joey,
This is obviously a very delicate situation, and I trust that the P.M. will be taking advice from expert advisors on situations such as this, and will not be making any statements that will inflame the situation.
I was certainly less than impressed with Gordon's behaviour when signing the E.U. Treaty, and hope that his dealings with China will contain a much greater element of respect for a foreign power.

[T. England 20 Mar 2008 07:55:15]

So the Chinese might throw a wobbly!
Strange because there are many people throwing a wobbly about China's human rights record, there are many people throwing a wobbly about the way China is polluting the planet but the Chinese just dont seem to care!

What the Chinese leadership seem to care about is the delusion that alls well in China & that they aren't critisized with the truth!

Labour & the human rights brigade are NOTHING but a bunch of money grabbing hypocrites!

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 20 Mar 2008 05:19:31]

What is Mr Brown worried about... what has China got that Britain needs, just cheap goods. Buy British, problem solved.

[Sally C. Yorks 19 Mar 2008 20:44:43]

I have only just commented on this mattter on the PMQs thread saying how Gordon's ungracious clumsy response mess up a good point for him...Velcro Gord when I look op and see this.
So Cameron congratulated him on taking a tough decision and he has already fudged it!
He is our leading poltical representative and he is so embarrassing.