So Obama decided that he will postpone a meeting with a certain exiled Asian religious leader until after he meets with Hu Jintao. This decision has been characterized by some in the U.S. as an act of “appeasement.”

I’m really tired of this issue, but I feel compelled to write about it since the whole thing is so ridiculous.

Note: to avoid having this post blocked, I will refer below to a certain exiled religious leader as “The DL”.

Whether or not you like [The DL], it’s none of China’s business whether or not a US president meets with him. They’re the first country to go ballistic when anyone drops a hint about their internal policy so it would be nice is someone forcefully shoved back when they attempt to dictate who the US meets. Heck, it would be nice to see Obama push back against anyone other than the “left of the left” who brought him to Washington. This will be the first time since 1991 that a US president has failed to meet [The DL] while he visited Washington.

So Bush started the appeasement process by traveling to Beijing for the Olympics and Obama continues. (Americablog)

Why is a meeting with a minor exiled religious leader so important? Sure, The DL is a smart, charismatic dude with a brilliant PR strategy, but let me ask one question. If it wasn’t for the Cold War and the automatic us-versus-them attitude whereby the US supported everything that was anti-China (for a time), would this guy still be famous internationally? I don’t think so.

I understand that The DL is a beloved figure, but he is a theocrat. If he woke up one morning to a complete China capitulation, he would be in favor of reinstating a theocracy. Why are so many people falling all over themselves trying to make that happen?

OK, all that aside, is the U.S. decision some sort of appeasement? If doing something to avoid pissing off China is appeasement, then I suppose you could call this decision appeasement. But is it an example of China interfering in America’s internal affairs?

Give me a break. What is the U.S. national interest in having its head of state meet with a minor, exiled religious leader who represents a miniscule number of U.S. practitioners (I assume)?

None. No U.S. head of state would have ever met with this guy over the years if it wasn’t for the ongoing dispute between The DL and China. Right? In other words, if anything this is an example of the U.S. involving itself in China’s internal affairs. (I’m amazed that I said that, but I actually believe it.)

I know the response here. The U.S. would simply be sticking up for a poor, repressed minority, a people living under occupation. Bullshit. Does the President of the U.S. frequently meet with unelected exiled leaders of small repressed nations? No, he doesn’t — maybe Palestine would be the chief exception, and even then, the analogy is not perfect since the Palestinian conflict has serious geopolitical ramifications. No, The DL is a special case, solely owing to the dispute with China. This does not represent “ordinary” U.S. policy.

Bottom line here: in balancing the importance of its relationship with China to its interests in being nice to The DL, the Obama administration decided that it would prefer to keep the PRC happy. I believe that only the brain damaged or hopelessly ideological would have a problem with this decision.

I seem to have channeled Chris Hitchens a bit in this post, but I have no problem with that.

Feel free to send me your angry comments, but I do reserve the right to edit them to avoid keyword filtering — I think we can all agree on that.