On February 16, 2024, the US House of Representatives passed the ‘Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act,’ aka the Resolve Tibet Act. It has reignited the longstanding controversy surrounding Tibet’s contested status. The prolonged dispute between China and the international community has expanded to include human rights, cultural preservation, and strategic geopolitical concerns.
China claims sovereignty over Tibet, stating it has been part of the nation for centuries. Tibetans argue that they have always had a unique cultural, religious, and linguistic identity. The Chinese military invasion in 1950 was an illegal occupation. The Resolve Tibet Act proposes a range of measures to increase pressure on Beijing and support the Tibetan cause. The US government wants to appoint a Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues to safeguard the rights and cultural identity of the Tibetan people.
Mineral Wealth
Yet, the reasons behind the Resolve Tibet Act go beyond the Tibetan people’s welfare and China’s exploitation.
Tibet possesses abundant strategic resources, such as water, minerals, and potential sources of energy. It holds approximately 17% of the world’s lithium deposits, making it a valuable asset for China’s global lithium market goals. Lithium is a crucial component in the production of rechargeable batteries for electric vehicles and consumer electronics. Tibet also has abundant reserves of at least 126 valuable minerals like copper, zinc, lead, iron, uranium, borax, and potash, etc. Critics claim that China values economic gain over the well-being of Tibetans and their cultural heritage, as they exploit the region’s mineral wealth.
Geostrategic Reasons
China has been aggressively expanding its borders and influence in the Indo-Pacific region. The United States wants to halt the rampaging dragon. Tibet is strategically located on historic trade routes, like the Silk Road. Its proximity to important waterways, such as the Brahmaputra River, could impact regional trade and economic interests. So, a friendly and independent Tibet can provide a strategic foothold for the US and its allies in the region. A self-governing Tibet could function as a neutral zone, separating nuclear-armed China and India, who have a history of territorial disputes along their shared borders. Often, these disputes result in skirmishes.
The rivalry between the US and China in the Indo-Pacific is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. It results from the shifting balance of power, divergent interests, and competition for influence. The Indo-Pacific region, which extends from Africa to the Americas, contains over half of the global population. It holds immense importance for trade and strategic hotspots. There are other powerful actors in the region, such as India, Japan, Australia, and ASEAN, each with their own interests and perspectives on the regional order.
The US-led Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) strategy aims to promote a rules-based order, uphold freedom of navigation and overflight, and enhance economic and military cooperation in the region. The FOIP strategy aims to enhance alliances, increase military presence, and offer alternative development initiatives to counter China’s BRI.
China has constructed and militarised man-made islands in the South China Sea. Its geostrategic ambitions have escalated naval and air activities in the East China Sea and Indian Ocean. Clearly, the dragon is throwing a not-so-subtle challenge to the US and allied influence in the area, which has intensified tensions in the region.
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), a loose grouping of the US, Japan, Australia, and India, seeks to coordinate policies and actions on regional security issues, such as maritime security, counterterrorism, disaster relief, and cybersecurity. The Quad has been revived and upgraded in recent years, amid growing concerns over China’s behaviour and intentions in the region.
Entities such as ASEAN, the EU, the UK, and France have varying degrees of involvement and engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. Many endorse the FOIP strategy and the Quad. Others have adopted different visions, such as the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific, the EU Strategy for Cooperation, and the UK Integrated Review. The aim of these actors is to foster stability and prosperity in the region by maintaining harmonious relations with both the US and China.
While the US may employ the Tibet issue to challenge China’s stance on Taiwan, it is essential to consider the nuances and potential implications of such a strategy. The Tibet and Taiwan issues have distinct historical and legal backgrounds. These have different implications for regional and global stability. Overplaying the Tibet card or explicitly linking it to the Taiwan issue might provoke China and escalate tensions. This will undermine the prospects for dialogue and cooperation. Experts point out that the US should pursue a more nuanced and balanced approach that respects the differences and complexities of each issue.
The Implications India
The Resolve Tibet Act could have both positive and negative implications in India’s efforts to secure its borders against China’s aggression. On the positive side, the Act could signal the US support for India’s position on the Tibet issue and its solidarity with India in the face of China’s actions. This could strengthen the growing partnership between India and the US, particularly in the Quad, which aims to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific region.
On the negative side, the Resolve Tibet Act could provoke China to retaliate against the US and its allies, and escalate tensions in the region. China could view the act as a serious interference in its internal affairs and a violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity over Tibet. China might respond by intensifying its military and diplomatic pressure on India, increasing its activities and presence in Tibet and along the India-China border. Beijing might also retaliate economically by targeting Indian businesses operating in China or disrupting trade and investment flows between the two countries.
The Resolve Tibet Act has far-reaching implications for the strategic dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region. While the Act ostensibly aims to support the Tibetan cause and address human rights concerns, it also serves as a tool for the United States to challenge China’s assertiveness and expansionist ambitions in the region, particularly regarding Taiwan.
The effectiveness of the Resolve Tibet Act in aiding India’s efforts to secure its borders against China’s aggression and expansionism depends on the coordination and cooperation between the US and India on the Tibet issue. For this to be successful, all parties involved must adopt a peaceful, inclusive, and cooperative approach to resolve the Tibet issue. This approach requires addressing the broader regional security concerns while respecting each other’s strategic interests.
The Tibet issue is intertwined with complex geopolitical considerations, including the struggle for control over strategic resources, such as minerals, water, and potential energy sources. The escalating tensions surrounding Tibet could intensify this resource competition between China and the US.
For India, the Resolve Tibet Act presents both opportunities and challenges. It could strengthen the growing partnership between India and the US, particularly in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad). The US’s support for the Tibetan cause could be seen as an extension of its broader strategy to counter China’s assertiveness in the region, and India could leverage this to bolster its own position in the ongoing border disputes with China.
The Act could complicate India’s delicate balancing act between its strategic partnership with the US and its efforts to maintain stable relations with China. India has historically been cautious about overtly taking sides in the Tibet issue, recognising China’s sensitivity and its own strategic interests in maintaining neutrality. The Resolve Tibet Act could force India to navigate this complex diplomatic landscape more carefully, potentially straining its ties with either the US or China.
Ultimately, a peaceful and sustainable resolution to the Tibet issue and the broader regional tensions will require a nuanced and cooperative approach that respects the legitimate concerns and interests of all parties involved. This approach must uphold the principles of human rights, self-determination, and international law, while also addressing the broader regional security concerns and respecting each other’s strategic interests.
The success or failure of the Resolve Tibet Act in aiding India’s efforts to secure its borders against China will depend on how China reacts to the legislation, and how the US and India coordinate their policies and actions on the Tibet issue. It is crucial for all parties involved to engage in constructive dialogue, seek mutually acceptable solutions, and avoid escalating tensions or taking unilateral actions that could further destabilise the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment