DALAI LAMA SAYS HE WILL RELINQUISH POLITICAL ROLE TO DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER

[The move, announced on the 52nd anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule, reflects the Tibetan leader's long-stated desire to move the Tibetan refugee community away from theocratic rule and toward democracy and to prepare the exile movement, based in this northern Indian hill town, for his eventual death.]

By Simon Denyer

DHARMSALA, INDIA - The Dalai Lama said Thursday that he plans to relinquish his political role as head of the Tibetan government-in-exile to a new prime minister, who will be chosen in elections March 20.

The move, announced on the 52nd anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule, reflects the Tibetan leader's long-stated desire to move the Tibetan refugee community away from theocratic rule and toward democracy and to prepare the exile movement, based in this northern Indian hill town, for his eventual death.

But the 76-year-old will remain the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people and will continue to wield huge influence both inside and outside Tibet, particularly on relations with China and his desire for "genuine autonomy." He will also remain the movement's figurehead and by far its most prominent advocate.

The Dalai Lama had previously expressed a desire to delegate political power, but Wednesday's announcement was his most insistent and formal statement of that intention.

The idea has been greeted with dismay by many Tibetans, who have been petitioning him to stay on, although others have welcomed a more modern, democratic form of government.

"My desire to devolve authority has nothing to do with a desire to shirk responsibility. It is to benefit Tibetans in the long run," the Dalai Lama told hundreds of Tibetans and Western tourists gathered in his main temple Thursday to commemorate the 1959 uprising that resulted in his fleeing to India over the Himalayas on horseback.

"It is not because I feel disheartened," he said. "I am committed to playing my part in the just cause of Tibet."

The Dalai Lama said he would ask the Tibetan parliament-in-exile, which meets next week, to change its constitution, to reflect his desire to hand over authority to an elected leader.

Samdhong Rinpoche, an elderly monk who serves as the current Kalon Tripa, or prime minister, said the parliament was unlikely to go along with that request willingly, given its desire to see the Dalai Lama remain as political head of the community. But he said there is little hope of the Dalai Lama changing his mind.

"His response is very clear," Rinpoche said. "Thousands of requests have been coming in, but he has not accepted them."

Tsering Shakya, a Tibetan scholar at the Institute of Asian Research at the University of British Columbia, said the Dalai Lama's move comes in part in response to criticism from China that the notion of rule by a reincarnated monk was anachronistic. But the change seems unlikely to alter much for many Tibetans.

"The Dalai Lama will remain very powerful," Shakya said. "In Tibet, he is a god, and he is their leader. It is not possible to just change centuries of traditional practice."

The Dalai Lama has been gradually delegating some political responsibility for at least a decade. But he still approves parliamentary legislation and executive appointments for the small government-in-exile, which runs health, education and employment programs for an estimated 100,000 refugees in India.

He has long argued for a "middle way" in negotiations with China, calling for autonomy rather than outright independence. Beijing calls him a "splittist" who is secretly seeking to separate Tibet from China, and years of talks with his representatives have gone nowhere. Beijing considers Tibet an integral part of China and says that Chinese troops, who entered Tibet in 1949, were liberating it from feudal rule.

Many Tibetans and supporters of the exile movement are worried about what will happen when the Dalai Lama dies. They are concerned that without him as their leader, the movement will lose international support. They also fear that China will appoint its own candidate as the Dalai Lama's next reincarnation.

"Without the Dalai Lama, it would be very difficult for Western governments or other governments to justify talks with the Tibetan exile movement," Shaya said.

India defends the Dalai Lama as a special guest and important religious leader. When he dies, Shakya said, India will come under significantly greater pressure from China to clamp down on political activities by Tibetan refugees on its soil.

"India will be placed in a very, very difficult political and diplomatic situation," he said.

The March 20 election also is significant because it features three lay candidates for prime minister, marking the first time that a lay person, rather than a monk, will assume the role.

Lobsang Sangay, a Harvard fellow who is among the candidates, said the post-Dalai Lama era will be challenging. But, he added, "democratic institutions and government will help sustain the Tibetan movement."


@ The Washington Post

[This emphasis on pragmatism over idealism has left Mr. Obama vulnerable to criticism that he is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab street protesters. Some say he is failing to bind the United States to the historic change under way in the Middle East the way that Ronald Reagan forever cemented himself in history books to the end of the cold war with his famous call to tear down the Berlin Wall.]

OBAMA SEEKS A COURSE OF PRAGMATISM 

IN THE MIDDLE EAST

[With the spread of antigovernment protests from North Africa to the strategic, oil-rich Persian Gulf, President Obama has adopted a policy of restraint. He has concluded that his administration must shape its response country by country, aides say, recognizing a stark reality that American national security interests weigh as heavily as idealistic impulses. That explains why Mr. Obama has dialed down the vocal support he gave demonstrators in Cairo to a more modulated call for peaceful protest and respect for universal rights elsewhere.]

By MARK LANDLER and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — In the Middle East crisis, as on other issues, there are two Barack Obamas: the transformative historical figure and the pragmatic American president. Three months after a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself aflame and ignited a political firestorm across the Arab world, the president is trumping the trailblazer.

With the spread of antigovernment protests from North Africa to the strategic, oil-rich Persian Gulf, President Obama has adopted a policy of restraint. He has concluded that his administration must shape its response country by country, aides say, recognizing a stark reality that American national security interests weigh as heavily as idealistic impulses. That explains why Mr. Obama has dialed down the vocal support he gave demonstrators in Cairo to a more modulated call for peaceful protest and respect for universal rights elsewhere.

This emphasis on pragmatism over idealism has left Mr. Obama vulnerable to criticism that he is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab street protesters. Some say he is failing to bind the United States to the historic change under way in the Middle East the way that Ronald Reagan forever cemented himself in history books to the end of the cold war with his famous call to tear down the Berlin Wall.

“It’s tempting, and it would be easy, to go out day after day with cathartic statements that make us feel good,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, who wrote Mr. Obama’s soaring speech in Cairo to the Islamic world in 2009. “But ultimately, what’s most important is achieving outcomes that are consistent with our values, because if we don’t, those statements will be long forgotten.”

On Thursday, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, deflected calls for more aggressive action in Libya, telling reporters what American officials have been saying privately for days: despite pleas from Libyan rebels for military assistance, the United States will not, at least for now, put its pilots in harm’s way by enforcing a no-flight zone over the country.

Not only is intervention risky, officials said, but they also fear that in some cases, it could be counterproductive, provoking a backlash against the United States for meddling in what is a homegrown political movement.

A senior administration official acknowledged the irony of Mr. Obama’s dilemma; he is, after all, the first black president, whose election was hailed on the Arab street, where many protesters identify their own struggles with the civil rights movement.

“There is a desire for Obama — not the American president, but Obama — to speak to their aspirations,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. But, he added, “his first job is to be the American president.”

So Mr. Obama has thrown his weight behind attempts by the royal family of Bahrain, the home of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, to survive, although protesters say their demands have not been met. He has said little about political grievances in Saudi Arabia, a major oil supplier, where there were reports on Thursday of a violent dispersal of Shiite protesters. And he has limited White House critiques of Yemen, where the government is helping the United States root out a terrorist threat, even after that government opened fire on demonstrators.

The more cautious approach contrasts sharply with Mr. Obama’s response in North Africa, where he abandoned a 30-year alliance with Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and has demanded the resignation of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya. But Mr. Obama is balancing his idealistic instincts against his reluctance to use military action in Libya, where the United States does not have a vital strategic interest. Mr. Donilon noted that the administration needed to keep its focus on the broader region, where allies like Egypt loom large.

The time is coming, administration officials said, for Mr. Obama to make another major speech taking stock of the upheaval. But its central message is not yet set, and there is likely to be lively debate about questions like whether the president should admit American complicity in propping up undemocratic governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

“I don’t honestly think it would change much,” said a second senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “It isn’t going to change the perception of the United States one way or the other. What will continue to affect the perception of the United States is what we do now.”

The White House will send Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Egypt and Tunisia next week, where officials said she would congratulate the protesters for sweeping out their leaders peacefully and offer aid to revive the nations’ economies. She had planned to stop in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, but canceled, officials said, because King Abdullah is too ill to meet her.

This underscores one of the difficulties the United States faces in dealing with Saudi Arabia, a crucial ally that is run by an aging, infirm ruling family that has refused to open the political system. Instead, the king tried to mollify his people by doling out $36 billion worth of pay raises, unemployment checks and housing subsidies.

Bahrain poses a different problem. There, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa has pledged to enter a dialogue with the protestors, after having unleashed its security forces on them. Officials said Mr. Obama persuaded King Hamad to pull back his forces, which they said won the United States goodwill from the mostly Shiite demonstrators. But the talks have failed to get off the ground, and now some Shiites feel the Americans have sided against them.

“There is a sense among many Bahraini reformers that the U.S. is a bit too eager to praise progress toward dialogue and reform that has not yet happened, and that the premature praise is easing pressure on the government,” said Tom Malinowski, the head of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch.

“Striking a very balanced, and in many ways, neutral approach is recognized by many people in the region as not being with them, or on their side,” said J. Scott Mastic, the head of Middle East and North Africa for the International Republican Institute. “It’s very important that we be seen as supporting the demands of the people in the region.”

How Mr. Obama manages to do that while also balancing American interests is a question that officials acknowledge will plague this historic president for months to come. Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

Elisabeth Bumiller and Stephen Castle contributed reporting from Brussels, Steven Erlanger and Alan Cowell from Paris and Judy Dempsey from Berlin.

@  The New York Times