Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (38172)	11/3/2009 1:11:23 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Unless he was speaking to conservatives. I was wondering the other day if Obama had met with Republicans in Congress since telling them to shut up because he won. Another great line: To the extent that the Cold War doesn't fit this unbelievably naïve worldview, it's an intellectual inconvenience.

To: Jim S who wrote (38172)	11/5/2009 12:49:52 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the fall of the Berlin Wall. NOVEMBER 5, 2009. Notable & Quotable German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaking before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday: [F]or me America seemed completely out of reach . . . then on the 9th of November 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. And this border which had divided a nation, for decades, keeping people in two different worlds, was now open. And this is why for me, today is first and foremost a time to say thank you. I thank all those American and Allied pilots who heard and heeded the desperate appeal of then-Mayor of Berlin Ernst Reuter, in 1948, who said, you, the nations of this world, cast your eyes towards the city. For months, these pilots flew food to Berlin for the airlift, saving the citizens from starvation. Many of these soldiers risked their lives. Dozens lost their lives. We shall remember and honor them forever . . . I think of John F. Kennedy, who won the hearts of the Berliners, when, during his visit in 1961, after the wall had been built, he reached out to the desperate citizens of Berlin by saying, "Ich bin ein Berliner." I think of Ronald Reagan, who, far earlier than most, clearly saw the sign of the times and, standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, already in 1987, called out, "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." This appeal shall remain forever in my heart. online.wsj.com

To: Jim S who wrote (38172)	12/17/2009 10:00:32 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Notable & Quotable Former Czech President Vaclav Havel on President Obama's postponement of his meeting with the Dalai Lama. DECEMBER 17, 2009. Former Czech President Vaclav Havel, in an interview with Foreign Policy Magazine on Dec. 9: FP: After President Obama's decision to postpone his meeting with the Dalai Lama, you said something to the effect that these small gestures seem harmless, but over time can have a powerful, cumulative effect. For the hardhearted realists, can you explain that effect? Havel: We know this from our modern history. When [French Prime Minister Edouard] Daladier returned from the [1938] Munich conference, the whole nation was applauding him for saving the peace. He made a miniscule compromise in the interest of peace. But it was the beginning of a chain of evil that subsequently brought about many millions of deaths. We can't just say, "This is just a small compromise that can be overlooked. First we will go to China and then perhaps talk with the Dalai Lama." . . . FP: You make it sound so easy. But how, as president, do you decide when these small compromises are worth it and when they might lead to something more dangerous? Havel: Politics . . . means, every day making some compromises, and to choose between one evil and another evil, and to decide which is bigger and which is smaller. But sometimes, some of these compromises could be very dangerous because it could be the beginning of the road of making a lot of other compromises, which are results of the first one, and there are very dangerous compromises. And it's necessary, I think, to have the feeling which compromise is possible to do and which, could be, maybe, after ten years, could be somehow very dangerous. I will illustrate this with my own experience. Two days after I was elected president, I invited the Dalai Lama to visit. I was the first head of the state who invited him in this way, directly. And everybody was saying that it was a terribly dangerous act and issued their disapproving statements and expressions. But it was a ritual matter. Later, the Chinese deputy prime minister and the foreign minister came for a visit and brought me a pile of books about the Dalai Lama and some governmental documents about what good care they have taken of Tibet, and so on. They were propagandist, fabricated books, but he felt the need to explain something to me. I had a press conference with this minister of foreign affairs. And he said, "It was wonderful, meeting, because we were speaking openly. Mr. Havel gave me his opinion, and I explained the opinion of our government. I gave him this book, and he thanked me for it." This was unbelievable! Why did they feel the need to explain their point of view to the leader of such a small nation? Because they respect it when someone is standing his ground, when someone is not afraid of them. When someone soils his pants prematurely, then they do not respect you more for it. online.wsj.com

To: Jim S who wrote (38172)	1/7/2010 10:37:04 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

The Realist Case for Tibetan Autonomy Any change in U.S. policy toward the Dalai Lama will encourage bad behavior in Beijing. JANUARY 6, 2010, 9:47 P.M. ET. By PAULA J. DOBRIANSKY When President Obama didn't meet with the Dalai Lama during his October trip to Washington, it gave many the impression that human-rights promotion was not central to this administration's foreign policy. This impression needs to be promptly corrected. While the U.S. accepts that Tibet is part of the People's Republic of China, for decades our country has supported Tibetan autonomy, especially in culture and religion. If the U.S. were to step back from this position, increased Chinese repression of Tibetans would likely follow. Such repression would also have adverse consequences for China. A China that engages in harsh repression is incapable of ensuring domestic stability. An oppressive China is also unable to function as a responsible global player—something that the U.S. has long sought to encourage. The view that repression in Tibet would have negative consequences for China is shared by our European allies. As British Foreign Minister David Miliband has said: "Like every other EU member state and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China. Our interest is in long-term stability, which can only be achieved through respect for human rights and greater autonomy for the Tibetans." Contrary to the oft-repeated, but erroneous claims to the contrary, the U.S. commitment to Tibet—which began during the Nixon administration—has not harmed U.S.-Chinese relations. The overarching principle for both China and America has been stability and consistency. Any alteration of America's long-standing policy toward Tibet would prompt the opposite result. It would certainly not earn us any lasting gratitude from Beijing. Any rebalancing of American policy toward China would most likely cause the Chinese to conclude that the U.S.—beset by an economic crisis—is retrenching from many of its traditional commitments and can't be counted on to pursue robust policies across a range of international issues. If China were to reach such a conclusion, it would be inclined to be less helpful to the U.S. on such issues as Iran, North Korea or even economic cooperation. The U.S.-China relationship continues to grow in importance and complexity. This fall, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner co-chaired a key bilateral forum—the Strategic and Economic Dialogue—that was established to address at the senior level a range of key issues, including the economy and the environment. As progress is being made on all of these matters, the Obama administration should call for substantive dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai Lama's envoys. President Obama should meet with the Dalai Lama when he comes to Washington in February and publicly appeal to China's leaders to let the Dalai Lama make a pilgrimage to China. The meeting should also be used as an opportunity to showcase practical ideas that would benefit all of China's citizens, including Tibetans. One excellent example of such an idea is tackling the massive environmental degradation in Tibet. Setting up a environmental committee—as has been urged by the Dalai Lama—would be a good place to start. While U.S. support for Tibet is usually defended on moral grounds, this an issue where idealism and realism are aligned. A balanced policy toward China that features continued U.S. support for the cause of Tibetan autonomy is both doable and necessary. It has been tackled successfully during the last two administrations, and President Obama should continue to build upon this record. Ms. Dobriansky is a former under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs and special coordinator on Tibetan issues. online.wsj.com