Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama.
This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent has the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama underlined a change in the US policy toward Tibet, and how would the shift in US policy impact China’s claim over Tibet?
Historically, US policy toward Tibet has been inconsistent and unpredictable.
For example, while the US has consistently accepted that Tibet is part of China, Washington provided financial and military assistance to Tibetan guerrillas in the 1950s and 1960s. Subsequently, Washington’s policy toward Tibet witnessed a dramatic change in the backdrop of a rapprochement between China and the US in the 1970s. More to the point, Tibet became almost a non-issue for the US.
However, Tibetans succeeded in drawing the attention of the US administration to the issues of human rights violations, suppression of freedom of expression and others through their pro-Tibet international campaign.
Then-US president Ronald Reagan signed into law the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989, which specifically asked the US to urge China to actively reciprocate the Dalai Lama’s efforts to establish a constructive dialogue on the future of Tibet. It also asked China to respect internationally recognized human rights and end violations of Tibetans’ human rights.
The emergence of the US as the sole superpower in the post-Cold War era positively impacted Washington’s approach toward Tibet.
More importantly, then US-president George H. W. Bush declared the Dalai Lama and the government-in-exile as “Tibet’s true representative.”
The rise of China among other developments in the 21st century has further forced Washington to double down on its policies supporting the cause of Tibetans.
More to the point, China has aggressively pursued the policy of dismantling the historically important legacies of Tibet by destroying several monasteries and imposing Chinese culture, rules and regulations on Tibetans. Moreover, Chinese atrocities against Tibetans have also increased over the years.
Consequently, it has become obligatory for the US to take strong measures in support of Tibet as a part of its foreign policy objective to promote freedom, human rights and democracy across the world.
The US administration has been agitated by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) efforts to challenge US dominance by challenging the existing liberal international order.
Beijing has adopted an assertive posture against its neighbors in east, southeast and south Asia. More importantly, the rise in China’s military activities against Taiwan has alarmed the US. Thus, there is an increasing realization among the strategic community in Washington that the US should boost global support for Tibet to challenge China’s dominance over Tibet.
Another aspect of the US’ renewed Tibet policy is to ensure that the identification and installation of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders, including any future Dalai Lama, is determined solely by those within the Tibetan Buddhist faith community, in accordance with internationally recognized rights to religious freedom.
In this context, a new US bill — Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute — that awaits US President Joe Biden’s assent is seen as a paradigm shift in US policy toward Tibet and China.
For example, the bills says: “The United States Government has never taken the position that Tibet was a part of China since ancient times.”
It also states that claims made by officials of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party that Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times are historically inaccurate.
In other words, departing from its previous position, the US now considers Tibet a sovereign state, rather than a part of China. Consequently, the bill talks about Tibetans’ right to self-determination.
The bill also asks China to cease its propagation of disinformation about the history of Tibet, the Tibetan people and Tibetan institutions, including that of the Dalai Lama. At the same time, it expects the US to take public diplomacy efforts to counter disinformation about Tibet from China and the Chinese Communist Party.
Of course, transformed ties between New Delhi and Washington, and turbulent relations between Beijing and New Delhi, are another factor for the US to utilize the Tibet issue to prove its utility for India.
After all, the shift in the US’ Tibet policy would greatly help India to allow more freedom to the Tibetan government-in-exile on its soil.
The new US bill on Tibet extends legitimacy to India’s decision to provide asylum to Tibetans and allow the operation of the government of Tibet to function.
On the other hand, the credibility of the US would also be enhanced among its allies, partners and friends in the Indo-Pacific region. Moreover, the Biden administration’s policy toward Tibet strongly reciprocates Modi’s approach to Tibet.
Thus, while it is not unusual for the Indian government to allow a meeting between the bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, the shift in US foreign policy has certainly squeezed China’s political space on the Tibet issue.
Sumit Kumar is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Delhi, India, and a former Ministry of Foreign Affairs visiting fellow at National Chengchi University.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS