Neutrality vs Big Powers in Tibet
China is the definition of a "big power". Their military and economy are strong enough to overpower any smaller countries through soft negotiation like trade deals or brute force to demand obedience. Tibet is a small country that borders China and India and has remained very peaceful on the global scale. In the early 1900s, Tibet tried to establish their independence but was never officially recognized. So, when power-hungry China attempted to invade Tibet in 1950, the other big powers of the world (India, U.K., E.U., U.S., +) opted for "neutrality" in the matter. This neutrality quietly signifying their permission of China to take Tibet because opposition to this big power's conquest could mean war. Furthermore, Tibet was never officially independent, so the neutral big powers were not legally bound to defend Tibet in this unjust takeover of their land, people, culture, and traditions.
When a neutral country must decide whether to be involved in a global conflict, much goes into weighing the advantages and disadvantages of their involvement. Consideration of historical alliances and economic outcomes is paramount, despite the moral obligation citizens may feel to help a country in need- a national government may seemingly operate in the contrary but in the name of protecting their own citizens. Despite a "brutal crackdown" by the Chinese in 1959 where thousands of Tibetan innocents were killed and hundreds of monasteries destroyed, the rest of the world stayed quiet. From reading about the historical relationship between Tibet, The U.S., and The Peoples' Republic of China, I now understand the complex and sneaky nature of this situation. In my words, the U.S. wanted to assist Tibet against China but knew that they needed to maintain positive neutrality towards Tibet in order to stay civil with China. The U.S. did not recognize Tibet's attempt to be independent from China for this reason but went behind China's back to supply weapons and training to Tibetan guerrilla groups that were rebelling against invading Chinese forces. This dynamic has gone on for decades and continues to perpetuate inaction for Tibet but peace for the U.S. The most recent attempt to save face by the US government was Trump's removal of all financial support for Tibet. The U.S. decision to withdraw its financial support to the Tibetan community may be seen as an initiative to normalize its relations with China under the changing geopolitical circumstances.
Although the United States has the military and economic power to make the ethically correct choice to defend Tibet against China, I acknowledge the threat that opposing China's efforts will present. The issue is complex and as an American citizen, I can only begin to imagine the strains that a war against China would place on America. Therefore, I understand the U.S. government's hesitancy to get involved with a matter that does not directly impact their sovereignty. I am not well-versed in the political debate that is occurring around this issue, but I hope that even if big power countries are unwilling to provide direct military/financial support to Tibet, they are willing to supply negotiation advice and legislative support to hopefully establish a semblance of peace for beautiful Tibet.
Comentarios