![]() ![]() However, after lots of wrangling, the delegation finally was allowed to meet the secretary of the state, but only when the delegation was accompanied by the Chinese ambassador. At first, the delegation was ostensibly denied a formal meeting with U.S. This government has at no time raised question regarding either of these claims.Īnother major turn of events came in 1948, when the Tibetan government sent an official trade delegation to the United States. Just $5 a month.įor its part, the government of the United State has borne in mind the fact that the Chinese Government has long claimed suzerainty over Tibet and that Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. The statement read:Įnjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. However, the United States, in a 1943 policy statement about Tibet, had very clearly acknowledged Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, a fact which was not made known to the Lhasa government. Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific. Tibet was de facto an independent state and controlled not only its internal affairs but also its territorial defense and foreign relations. During that period, China was under the rule of the Nationalist Party or Kuomintang (KMT) and till that time it had exercised no authority in Tibet. The Roosevelt administration, after several efforts, finally succeeded in seeking permission to enter Tibet with the help of the British envoy in Lhasa with the explicit desire to build roads and an airfield in the region and to seek moral support against the Axis. In 1942, the United States made its first contact with Tibet. But at pragmatic level, Washington has been opportunistic in its dealing with Tibet and has been prone to wide fluctuations: the provision of financial and military aid to Tibetan guerrilla forces in the 1950s and ’60s neglect and almost no official contact in the ’70s and ’80s the enactment of the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 and most recently the Trump administration proposal to withdraw all monetary assistance to the Tibetan community. Strategically, the United States has consistently and explicitly supported the Chinese position that Tibet is a part of China. The Tibet agenda of the United States was tactically inspired by a dual policy encompassing both a strategic and a pragmatic aspect. ![]() Since the second half of the 20th century, the “Tibet Question” remained an important factor in the US-China relationship. ![]() Bush on September 30, 2002, as part of the U.S. “Tibetan Policy Act of 2002” clearly states that it is intended to “support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to safeguard their distinct identity,” including by supporting “projects designed … to raise the standard of living for the Tibetan people and assist Tibetans to become self-sufficient.” This act, a major piece of Tibet legislation, was enacted as law by President George W. This move points to both the changing internal politics of the United States, especially after Trump’s election, and also the new geopolitics and emerging world order, which is overshadowed by the People’s Republic of China. Reversing its stand on Tibet policy and giving a huge jolt to the Tibetan aspirations, the Trump administration recently took a step away from precedent by proposing zero aid to the Tibetans in 2018. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |