Latvia and Tibet.

I can't actually access this site in China without a proxy.  On my computer at home, it is difficult to find a proxy that works.  I can post to this site because of a program Windows Live Writer allows me to.  When people make comments on my blog, I get an email with the comment.  A rare reader made this comment which deserves a response:

I am a Latvian by heritage, but born and raised in America (California, to be exact, as it apparently makes a difference to some). I came across your blog while looking up Latvia's interest in Tibet. Interestingly, I am finding some discrepancy of Latvia's official stance.

To quote the Latvian Embassy website - "Latvia is of the view that Tibet is a part of the People's Republic of China, and is interested in a constructive dialogue with China on humanitarian issues, including the preservation of the cultural, ethnic, and religious identity of Tibet."

What bothers me is the first part that says Latvia sees Tibet as part of China. I find that an interesting view considering how hard Latvia wanted others to view them as independent during their time under Soviet rule. I could go further by bringing up Latvia's involvement "the war that should not be" in Iraq, but that's a different story.

I am curious whether Latvia, governmentally, or Latvian people respect and wish Tibet to be a sovereign nation, as Latvia itself now is.

I am troubled by Latvia's views although I was suprised to learn that Latvia is simply echoing the views of the Dalai Lama himself.  From a recent column by David Warren on Tibet:

On the question of sovereign independence for Tibet, it is worth noting that he does not seek it. He has consistently sought, instead, some practical arrangement in which the Chinese State will recognize Tibet’s ancient autonomy, and leave the Tibetan peoples to get on with their own lives, according to their own lights. He has little hope in the efficacy of big power arrangements to achieve real political goods, but focuses the struggle on actual human freedom.

So thanks to the Dalai Lama, the Latvian government can weasel its way out of the controversy.  But since the Dalai Lama does seem to want to meet the Chicoms halfway, why is it that the Chicoms treat him like a pariah?  And why doesn't the world insist on the Chicoms letting the Dalai Lama come back to Tibet?

The sad truth is that Latvia is compromising with realpolitick.  Much as the world wanted Latvia to be free in the days of the evil Soviet Union, there wasn't much it could or would do other that say or wish it wasn't so.  America or Europe, for the most part, didn't have the gumption to try to directly liberate the Baltic States and Poland, among other countries from the Soviet Empire.  Today, no one will raise a finger to help the Tibetans.

Bush's war in Iraq demonstrates what happens if someone does try to do something about tyranny.  Bush's war to rid Iraq of a dictator and to give it democracy and freedom was one of the most moral wars in history.  It was why Latvia and Poland joined the coalition of the willing, or at least how I saw it.  But look at all the grief that Bush has gotten for having his moral war.  He is portrayed in some corners as worse than Hitler.  I could imagine Latvians in the old days praying for someone, anyone to save them from the evil Soviets.  The Americans did eventually help them and of course they were called evil in some quarters for doing so (Reagan the war-monger).

So what is a small country like Latvia to do?  The tendency of the world is to be pacifist.  To advocate strong action on anything is to invite approbation.  Latvia muddles through as the world tries to be pacifist and moral at the same time.  And so the Chinese can get away with what they are doing in Tibet.