On June 19, 2024, a bipartisan Congressional delegation went to India and met the Dalai Lama. The members of Congress included republican Michael McChaul and democrat speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. When addressing a crowd at the monastery the members insisted that their visit was part of the Resolve Tibet Act. Passed by Congress the week before, this act aims to promote dialogue between Tibet and Beijing for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

In response, the Chinese government criticized this visit and Lin Jian, the spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, said that the President must not sign the bill into law. He instead insisted that “it’s known by all that the 14th Dalai Lama is not a purely religious figure, but a political exile engaged in anti-China separatist activities under the cloak of religion.”

Tibet is a Buddhist-majority region, known as the “roof of the world” due to the region’s high mountain peaks. China argues that Tibet has been an “inalienable” part of China since the 13th century when the Yuan Dynasty was in power. Crucially, the KMT (Chiang Kai Shek’s party) shares the CCP’s position on Tibet. Hence, it is worth asking that in the event the CCP is ousted from power and replaced with the non-communists (as many in Washington desire,) Xinjiang and many issues related to territorial integrity and sovereignty would change.

However, by contrast, the Tibetans insist that during that time, China was under a Mongol dynasty (Yuan) or a Manchu dynasty (Qing), rather than a (Han) Chinese Empire, and that Tibet was merely a protectorate in which it was allowed considerable autonomy. In 1913, after the Qing state ended, Tibet declared independence and became a de facto independent state.

In 1949, Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and in 1950, the PRC asserted its claims on Tibet. A year later, the Tibetans signed the Seventeen Point Agreement with Beijing, in which it said that the Chinese government would respect local Tibetan religion and customs, but in exchange, China would have a military base in Lhasa – the capital of Tibet.

Nevertheless, despite the treaty, tensions have persisted between Tibet and Beijing and many Tibetans report experiencing severe cultural repression, with some deeming it a genocide akin to the Uyghurs. Consequently, the “Free Tibet Movement,” a non-state civil society organization, has played a role internationally by criticizing China’s human rights abuses, demanding more autonomy, and pressuring China by boycotting Chinese goods. This was the group that organized protests when Xi Jinping visited France in May 2024.

Perhaps most importantly, Tibet has played a critical role in shaping China’s relations with India and the US.

In 1952, the Indians recognized Tibet as a part of China. In 1954, India and China signed an agreement which restricted India’s relations with Tibet which ceased trading and travelling without a visa. Since, Indian maps illustrate Tibet as a Chinese territory, reflective of a time when India sought to have cordial relations with Beijing during the early 1590s. However, in 1959, a rebellion arose in Tibet known as the Lhasa Rebellion. New Delhi gave asylum to the Dalai Lamas along with other Tibetan refugees. This move created a suspicion in Beijing that India had a role in the uprising and wanted to destabilize China.

Also during this time, the C.I.A. funnelled money into the Dalai Lama to support activities against Beijing. The logic behind aiding Tibet was to gain access to developments inside China, reminiscent of how the U.S. spied on the Soviet Union by entering through Central Asia. Consequently, the Chinese accused the Indians of aiding the Americans in funding anti-Chinese activities in Tibet, and the Dalai Lama’s fleeing to India only added to China’s paranoia. Hence, many scholars and historians argue that Tibet was one of the many factors that led to the 1962 Sino-Indian War.

While most scholars agree that India was aware of this program, they differ on whether India actively aided the US. However, according to Bruce Riedel’s (a nonresident senior fellow at The Brookings Institution) book, JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and the Sino-Indian War, it was Pakistan that provided support to the Americans. While aware that such a program existed, India did not provide any support to the Americans itself.

Nevertheless, despite the covert or overt support Washington and New Delhi gave to Lhasa, the priority for India and the U.S. has been to advance their interests, not the interests of Tibet.

In 1972, after the U.S. and China pursued normalization, the U.S. ended its support to the Tibetans and gradually, the U.S. reframed the Tibet issue as an issue of human rights abuses, rather than a demand for Tibetan independence. Additionally, in 2009, to maintain cordial relations with Beijing, Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor for President Obama, went to China and emphasized that they wouldn’t invite the Dalai Lama to the White House in Obama’s first year. When he ultimately visited, he was given a downgraded treatment.

Later, during the Trump administration, an American official visited Tibet. However, this visit was less about the concern for the Tibetans (considering Trump’s aversion to advancing “human rights”) but rather, a politicization of the Tibetan issue at a time when US-China relations were fraught due to disagreement on trade issues. Likewise, despite the recent bill and the Congressional visit, the Tibet issue will eventually be sidelined when US-China relations stabilize.

This approach to Tibet is reminiscent of Washington’s position towards the Iraqi Kurds. During the 1960s, the Americans (along with the Israelis and Iranians) gave secret support to the Iraqi Kurds to fight against Saddam Hussein’s government. However, by 1975, as the Iranians eased tensions with the Iraqis, support ceased. Hence, as with the Tibetans, the U.S. has used the Kurdish issue to advance its geopolitical interests in the Middle East.

Likewise, Tibet has also been sidelined when New Delhi wants to reduce tensions with Beijing. In 2018, the Modi government issued a warning against any participation. This was to commemorate 60 years of the Dalai Lama’s exile, a “sensitive time” in India-China relations. Two months later, Modi met Xi Jinping in Wuhan at a time when the BJP government sought to reduce tensions with China.

Recently, the Indian government publicly announced plans to rename approximately 30 sites in Tibet in retaliation to China renaming 62 locations in Arunachal Pradesh (or as China calls it “South Tibet.) According to an unnamed Indian analyst, this move had more to do with placating the public to look “tough” on China, rather than a substantive policy change.

Importantly, even with the recent Congressional visit, the Indian government reaffirmed its position that the Dalai Lama isn’t a political figure but a “revered religious figure.” Interestingly, while the Chinese criticized the Americans, there wasn’t any criticism of New Delhi, perhaps fearing further Indian cooperation with the Americans.

Going forward, the way to aid Tibetans is not to rely on the governments of Washington, New Delhi, or any other state official of another country. Rather, the best way to aid Tibetans is to increase people-to-people contact and to treat them as a human issue, rather than a (geo)political problem.