The Dalai Lama claims that he is a ‘simple Buddhist Monk,’ however, the furore that surrounds the spiritual leader’s tour of the West suggests that this is not the case.

He is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism and leader of the Tibetan government-in-exile, thus Gordon Brown is treating the Dalai Lama diplomatically by his religious role, rather than political aspirations, by agreeing to meet him at the London residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury instead of Downing Street.

The Dalai Lama’s visit to London is the second in a five-country tour of the West timed well with the beginning of the Beijing Olympic Games in August to keep the Tibet struggle in the broadsheets.

However, the Dalai Lama may well not expect a warm welcome everywhere he goes due to China’s political clout and intimidation. At his first stop, Berlin, Angela Merkel refused to meet him, as did the Foreign Minister. Instead he was met by the lowly Development Minister.

Even this act warranted a formal complaint by the Chinese who insist that, despite the Dalai Lama’s outward claim that he only wants autonomy, not independence for Tibet, for China he symbolises the threat to the ‘One China’ policy.

This follows a previous visit of the Dalai Lama to Berlin last September, where Merkel agreed to meet him resulting in a nine month freeze in relations between Germany and China, which are only now beginning to thaw.

Brown’s decision to meet the spiritual leader in the residence of the Archbishop shows he is treating him in his religious role rather than the political mould, which must be due to China’s pressure.

It is easy to see why Brown must stay in China’s good books, her economy is forecast to grow by 10% this year and it provides a huge potential market for British firms, especially in the financial, legal and professional sectors.

Also, Chancellor Alistair Darling has been continuing to urge Beijing to make London the overseas hub of its new sovereign wealth fund. China’s export-driven expansion has provided it with a sizeable war chest that it will channel through the newly erected Chinese Investment Corporation into overseas investment.

Currently China promises to invest around £70bn overseas although Darling expects this to rise.

Clearly, positive relations with China are crucial; however the neglect of human rights in China and its approach to Tibet mean that deep relations with China are unpopular with sections of the Western public.

China seems to have the West acting like puppets on a string, due to the huge amount of cash at its disposal. Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, has warned against a trade boycott.

In the run up to the Games, he claims it would only cause suffering in the West and would not have any influence over China’s horrendous human rights record and refusal to hold talks about Tibet.

The prospect of reform over China’s human rights record still seems distant and unlikely to come from a domestic source. However, increased pressure from the International Community seems to be the only possible way to get the message to China.

Its recent handling of the devastating earthquake suggests the Chinese authorities are starting to value the attention of the International Community by allowing the press access and reacting quickly to save many lives.

The freeing up of the market suggests that the relationship between its government and its working class people, that have for so long been exploited, may be about to change.

However, despite China’s slight change in approach Brown should be able to voice his concerns over China’s human rights; its elections as well as courts are controlled by the communist party, it restricts movement, curbs trade unions, censors newspapers and the internet to name but a few differing traits to the UK

Brown is treading a difficult line with relations with China, but he must insist on a mature relationship where the Iron Chancellor is able to criticise certain aspects of the Communist regime without the intimidation of China’s own financial fist in return.