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.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
RSS