The passage of the Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act, also known as the Resolve Tibet bill, by the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Tuesday last week, to be sent to the US Senate for a vote, marks a pivotal moment in international relations, one that could significantly influence the geopolitical landscape of Asia, particularly affecting India’s stance on Tibet.
This act, which has garnered substantial bipartisan support, underscores the unresolved conflict between Tibet and China, and asserts that Tibet’s legal status is to be determined in accordance with international law. For India, the act serves as a reaffirmation of US support for the Tibetan cause, mirroring India’s longstanding position of providing asylum to the Tibetan government-in-exile and the Dalai Lama. This alignment between US policy and India’s historical stance could bolster New Delhi’s diplomatic leverage in its negotiations with China, especially concerning border disputes and regional sovereignty.
The act’s emphasis on the unresolved status of Tibet — a region that shares an extensive and contested border with India — might prompt a recalibration of diplomatic relations in the region. It could lead to increased solidarity among nations that recognize the significance of a peaceful resolution to the Tibet-China conflict, potentially forming a united front that advocates for the rights of the Tibetan people.
By advocating for dialogue and a peaceful resolution to the Tibet-China conflict, the act aligns with India’s interests in maintaining regional stability. India’s proximity to Tibet and the historical ties between the two regions mean that any escalation of tensions could have direct implications for India’s security and its efforts to maintain peace along its borders.
The act’s provisions to counter disinformation about Tibet could indirectly support India’s narrative against unfounded territorial claims by China. By authorizing actions to counter such disinformation, the act not only defends the historical and cultural identity of Tibet, but also reinforces India’s sovereignty over regions like Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as South Tibet (藏南).
The emphasis on resolving the Tibet issue in accordance with international law might inspire similar approaches to other disputed territories. This could be advantageous for India, which has consistently advocated for a rules-based international order to address its border disputes with neighboring countries.
While the Resolve Tibet bill is a significant step, its true impact would depend on the subsequent actions taken by the US and other international players. The responses from China and India would also play a crucial role in shaping the future of the region. The situation remains dynamic, and the geopolitical implications would continue to unfold over time. As the world watches, the act could serve as a catalyst for change, promoting the rights of the Tibetan people and encouraging a peaceful resolution to one of the longest-standing conflicts in Asia.
Khedroob Thondup is a former member of the Tibetan parliament in exile.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS