For centuries, Tibet’s sovereignty and autonomy has been debated as a very contentious subject within international relations between China, India, the territory itself, and other nations spanning across the globe. The involvement of big powers and the idea of neutrality in Tibet creates juxtaposition that presents an array of ethical and political considerations. The historical context of the region of Tibet is important to consider when looking at powers involved in Tibet.
Over two thousand years ago, Tibet was in its “imperial age” and recognized as its own nation by surrounding nations, including China. When the Mongols expanded into this region in the thirteenth century, Tibetan Buddhists made a pact with the Mongols that promised political allegiance, protection, and religious teachings and blessings. It wasn’t until the eighteenth century that Tibet came under the influence of a foreign power again, when the Dalai Lama agreed to be the spiritual guide of the Manchu emperor. Up until 1950 when the People’s Liberation Army invaded, Tibet remained an independent state. This led to the Dalai Lama’s exile and an illegitimate treaty signed between China and Tibet. To this day, China claims that they have sovereignty over Tibet, even though Tibet has not technically lost its statehood.
Throughout the past few decades, Tibet has remained neutral in international relations. Despite pressure from China, the USA, and Britain, Tibet remained neutral during World War II. The government of Tibet maintained their own international relations with neighboring countries, who implied that they recognized Tibet as an independent nation. The British Government would not recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet unless China agreed to sign the drafted Simla Convention of 1914 with Tibet and Britain, which did not happen. However, there are limitations to the neutrality that Tibet wants to cultivate. Tibet does not have overwhelming military strength or political leverage, and in turn it is vulnerable to the influences of more powerful nations. Neutrality does not protect Tibet from the influence or invasion of big powers, which makes it more vulnerable to the strategic interests of other nations who have power.
Big powers have tried to get involved with Tibet many times for a complex number of motivations. During the Cold War era, the United States made contact with Tibet in order to pass through and use their territory. They contacted the Dalai Lama asking for this, but only referred to him as a religious leader rather than a political leader in order to not upset China. They had rhetorically supported Tibet’s independence, but instead treated them as a part of China. Tibet was serving as a tool to advance the interests of the United States, while the United States didn’t commit to their sovereignty. This example showcases how interference in Tibet causes ethical dilemmas in big power’s influence. Genuine concern for the nation were overshadowed with geopolitical gains.
The territory of Tibet showcases the complex dynamics between neutrality and the influence of larger political powers. There is a continuing challenge in fostering an international order that respects the rights of smaller states and the idea of neutrality.
Kommentare