Ahigh-powered bipartisan US Congress delegation travelled to Dharamshala in India recently to meet the spiritual Tibetan leaderin-exile, the Dalai Lama. At the heart of the visit is the Resolve Tibet Act, formally known as the ‘Promoting a Resolution to the TibetChina Dispute’. The Bill proposes a statutory definition of Tibet that encompasses not only the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) but also Tibetan areas within the Chinese provinces of Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, and Yunnan. Unlike the Chinese Government’s typical reference to Tibet, which is limited to the TAR, this broader definition aligns with the regions traditionally recognised as Tibetan.
The Bill urges China to re-engage with the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan leaders towards resolving disputes related to the status and governance of Tibet. Should the Act receive presidential assent, it would be incumbent upon the State Department to work with other governments to achieve a negotiated resolution on Tibet. These efforts range from political engagement to countering disinformation on Tibet. Washington’s intention should not be seen only through the lens of its competitive relations with China. After all, there has been no official communication between Tibetan and Chinese officials since 2010 and the visit could provide the much-needed nudge for bilateral engagement.
The US Government and the Congress have often come out against China’s actions in Tibet and Taiwan. Washington has historically recognised Tibet as being part of China but has been vocal about the repression of rights, language, and culture inside Tibet. The new law could, indeed, push the boundaries of the Tibet question and reposition the broader US-China relations. Former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was part of this delegation, has a long history of protests against China on issues of governance and undemocratic ways. Taiwan has been at the centre of Pelosi’s crusade against China’s authoritarianism and its undemocratic governance, sometimes to the extent that the personal and political have merged in her endeavours. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, together with Nancy Pelosi, have led a new push from Washington to re-centre the Tibet issue.
The democratic and independent nature of the US Congress, with its clear separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, facilitates robust debates and engagements both domestically and internationally. The Executive branch often leads independent actions through the powers vested in the President, though such orders typically have a temporary mandate. Any decision with lasting policy implications must go through the legislature.
China attempted to pre-emptively sabotage the US delegation’s visit by sending a letter to the Congress warning them against the visit. The fact that the US delegation travelled to Dharamshala regardless of China’s warning and anticipated reactions from Beijing, may serve as a pointer to the larger set of domestic politics and broader geopolitics which may play out as a result. The stakes for India are higher in this game, considering that both the Indian Army and the People’s Liberation Army are locked in a standoff along the border. Besides, one must remember that one of the primary triggers for the 1962 war was China’s suspicion that India wanted to weaken its grip on Tibet.
India must prepare itself for any eventuality stemming from China’s perceived US-India pincer on Tibet.
