During his 2020 presidential campaign, US President Joe Biden made a promise that resonated deeply with advocates of human rights and religious freedom: He pledged to meet the Dalai Lama and invite him to the White House if elected.
This commitment was seen as a significant gesture toward supporting the Tibetan cause and standing up to China’s oppressive policies in Tibet.
However, as Biden’s four-year tenure draws to a close, this promise remains unfulfilled, raising questions about the administration’s diplomatic priorities and its stance on human rights.
Despite his campaign pledge, Biden has not met with the Dalai Lama during his presidency. This absence is notable, especially considering that some former US presidents, including George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have met with the Tibetan spiritual leader.
The Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, symbolizes the struggle for Tibetan autonomy and the broader fight for human rights and religious freedom.
One of the primary reasons for this unfulfilled promise appears to be the Biden administration’s concern over offending China. The US-China relationship is complex and fraught with tension over issues ranging from trade to human rights to military presence in the South China Sea. Meeting with the Dalai Lama, who Beijing views as a separatist, could exacerbate these tensions and potentially derail diplomatic efforts on other fronts.
By not meeting with the Dalai Lama, Biden has missed an opportunity to reaffirm the US’ commitment to human rights and religious freedom. Such a meeting would have sent a powerful message to the world about Washington’s stance on these critical issues. It would have also provided a platform to highlight the ongoing human rights abuses in Tibet and to support the Tibetan people’s struggle for autonomy.
While the Biden administration has taken steps to address the Tibet issue, such as signing the Resolve Tibet Act, which pressures China to resume negotiations with Tibetan leaders, the symbolic power of a presidential meeting with the Dalai Lama cannot be overstated. Symbolic gestures in diplomacy often carry significant weight, influencing public perception and international relations.
Biden’s decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama during his tenure reflects the delicate balance of international diplomacy.
However, it also underscores a missed opportunity to stand firmly for human rights and religious freedom. As the world watches, it is crucial for leaders to not only make promises but also to follow through on them, especially when they pertain to fundamental values and principles.
Khedroob Thondup is a former member of the Tibetan parliament in exile.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS