U.S. Policy To Tibet Before And After The Tibet Revolt In 1959

The United States initially intervened in Tibetan affairs in late 19th century to the early 20th century. In its "open door" policy guidance, the United States firmly opposed to the British monopoly of Tibet, the so-called non-recognition of British suzerainty over Tibet theory, adhering to China's sovereignty over Tibet. During World War II, as a result of seeing Tibet's importance in the post-war geo-strategic position, the United States began to pay attention to Tibet. However, taking into account China's ally and the relationship between the KMT and the the key role that China played in World War II, the United States maintained in Tibetan issue as much as possible a low profile. After World War II, the the United States and Soviet Union entered into the Cold War era. With the Cold War expansion from Europe to Asia and the significant change in situation in China, the United States began to re-examine the strategic position of Tibet, trying to forge Tibet an outpost against the Soviet Union. After the founding of new China, the U.S. government in accordance with the changed international situation timely adjusted its China policy and policy on Tibet, taking Tibet as a "buffer zone" to resist the so-called "communist threat", uninterruptedly supported Tibetan separatist forces against the regime of New China. However, the United States had ambivalence on the Tibet issue: although it is intended to separate Tibet, it was unwilling to interfere in the internal affairs of China, and would like to meddle in Tibetan affairs. Thus, the United States had no choice but to secretly support the Tibetan separatist forces to confront with the central government so as to achieve the aim of employing Tibet to contain China during the Cold War.Through an analisis of the United States policy on Tibet before and after 1959, we can see that that the U.S. policy to Tibet is more from the start of the Cold War containment strategy to intervene in Tibetan affairs. Its policy has been of double standards: on the one hand, recognizing China's sovereignty over Tibet status; on the other hand, supporting the Dalai Lama's separatist forces for "Tibet independence activities". Its policy related to Tibet has experienced processes from the recognition of China's "suzerainty" to Tibet to 'Tibet, a part of China", to "national-determination in Tibet".In 1959, the U.S. government paid more attention to Tibet issue, and the changes of its policy were more frequent. Based on Amercian public diplomatic archives and declassified documents as well as the latest research works in this field at home and abroad, the dissertation tries to open out a panorama of U.S aiding policy towards Tibetan separatists before and after 1959.This paper tries chiefly to expound the causes and consequences of 1959 Revolt in Tibet, and how CIA publicly or covertly provided military assistance to the Tibetan separatists during Tibet Revolt. After Tibet Revolt broke out, the United States positively promoted Tibetan issue internationalized by employing the United Nations to pass a series of so called Resolutions concerning Tibet. Such actions listed above are all proofs to show how U.S. by aiding Tibetan separatists to interfere in China demostic affairs.This dissertation includes five sections as follows:Section One looks back the U.S. Tibet policy before 1959, in the meantime, analyses the causes and background of U.S. aiding policy to Tibetan separatists. Section Two mainly discusses the causes and the process of Tibet Revolt in 1959, and the adjustment of U.S. policy towards Tibet after Tibet Revolt in 1959, including how CIA provided paramilitary aiding to Tibetan separatists. Section Three mainly expounds how U.S. government promoted Tibet issue internationalized, and the process of U.S. assistance to "Tibet Independence". Section Four is mainly about how the U.S. government continually pays more attention to the Tibet issue by employing the United Nations to pass a series of resolutions concerning Tibet. The last section is a brief conclusion.