Beijing's decision is not the product of impulsive haste but the result of internal discussion, careful political consideration and geopolitical calculation. It is also an expression of China's strength and confidence. Beijing cannot passively observe developments that threaten its territorial integrity and undermine its social stability. European capitals cannot feign surprise at such a rational approach and have to expect from Beijing resolute and proportionate response to any external provocation. On this issue, the Chinese Government can rely on massive backing by the Chinese population. An online survey that drew more than 63,000 votes showed that about 97 percent of netizens reacted with indignation to Sarkozy's meeting with the Dalai Lama.

Most commentators in the West blame the Chinese side for the current difficulties between the EU and China. They view the Dalai Lama as a spiritual guide who is fighting against a "cultural genocide" and is leading the Tibetan people toward a better future. This simplistic and romantic view is simply not accurate.

Pretending that the Dalai Lama is purely a spiritual leader is deceptive and illusory. As the head of the Tibetan "government-in-exile" in Dharamsala, India, the Dalai Lama is a political figure with a political agenda. When, in the 1960s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) organized Tibetan military movements to fight against the People's Liberation Army-the CIA also subsidized the Dalai Lama-its goal was not to protect Buddhist spirituality, but to manipulate the Tibetans for political and geopolitical gain. Speaking in the European Parliament on December 4, the Dalai Lama clearly defined his role, "I consider myself to be the free spokesperson in exile of the Tibetan people." This is obviously a political statement. In the same speech he added, "While I firmly reject the use of violence as a means in our struggle, we certainly have the right to explore all other political options available to us."

There was no distinction between religion and politics in traditional Tibet, especially since the fifth Dalai Lama, Lozang Gyatso (1617-1682). The West has to rethink its perception of historical Tibet and go beyond a utopian representation of the "Roof of the World." It is within the People's Republic of China that the Tibetans freed themselves from theocracy. Many of the Dalai Lama's Western advocates put themselves in an ironic contradiction: they favor secularism, the separation between religion and politics, but support the very symbol of a system where politics is subordinated to religion.

The expression "cultural genocide"-it has been used by the Dalai Lama himself-which is supposed to describe the present conditions in Tibet Autonomous Region is absurd and carries baseless accusations that cannot be conducive to harmony. Tibet is changing rapidly, but this change does not equate "cultural genocide." In fact, the region is going through a process of socio-economic modernization that benefits the majority of the population. This process is far from perfect, but it allows Tibetans to reinterpret their traditions and preserve the best of their culture. A similar phenomenon is at work in China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, where Uygurs can use the advantages of modernity to maintain what makes their identity and share it with the rest of China and even the world.

Those who publicly champion the Dalai Lama today also risk hurting the Tibetan people tomorrow. At 73, the Dalai Lama accepts the fact that Tibet Autonomous Region is part of a sovereign country, the People's Republic of China. He insists on peaceful means to push for more Tibetan autonomy within a larger political entity. However, the Dalai Lama is surrounded by younger people who consider his "Middle Way" a failure. Those activists, obsessed with the Western idea of nation-state, are already considering more radical means to achieve the creation of an "independent Tibet." When Western institutions officially endorse the Dalai Lama, Tibetan extremists conclude that the West would support their struggle whatever the means and the ends, which is, of course, not the case. In that sense, European politicians are misleading the Tibetan people and being irresponsible by exposing them to a tragic no-win situation.

Western officials often admit privately that they meet with the Dalai Lama under pressure from public opinion. They could imitate Taiwanese leader Ma Ying-jeou, who recently ruled out a visit to the island by the Dalai Lama, saying, "The timing is not appropriate." It is only by working, cooperating and patiently negotiating with Beijing that one can effectively contribute to the general progress of the 1.3 billion citizens of the People's Republic of China-among them, of course, the Tibetan people.

Unfortunately, the tension between the EU and China could continue in 2009. In the first half of the coming year the Czech Republic will hold the rotating presidency. A representative of the "new Europe" which joined the EU in 2004, Prague tends to have a very critical view of Beijing. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek recently received the Dalai Lama. But there are also people in the rich Czech intellectual circles who do not ignore all the differences between the Soviet Union and China, and who are well aware of Chinese society's transformation since Deng Xiaoping's reform and opening-up policy. They could push for renewed trust and synergy between the two edges of the Eurasian continent.

The EU cannot afford an unnecessary quarrel with its Chinese partner. Those who are in charge of European politics have to stop indulging in short-term thinking or demagogy. It is time to focus on what really matters: more adequate global governance requires strong cooperation between the EU and China, and beyond, a constructive triangulation among Washington, Brussels and Beijing.

The author is director of the Academia Sinica Europaea at China Europe International Business School, Shanghai, and founder of the Euro-China Forum. The opinions expressed in this article represent neither those of the Academia Sinica Europaea nor the Euro-China Forum