Bill Overview
Title: Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Conflict Act
Description: This bill addresses issues relating to Tibet, including by establishing a statutory definition of Tibet that includes areas in Chinese provinces outside the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). For the purposes of U.S. policies and activities relating to Tibet, this bill defines Tibet to include the TAR and the Tibetan areas of the Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, and Yunnan provinces. (Generally, when China's government refers to Tibet, it means only the TAR, while Tibetan exile groups consider historical Tibet to include the TAR as well as areas in the provinces included in this bill's definition. China's government formally established the TAR in 1965.) Furthermore, the objectives of the Office of the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues shall include working to ensure that U.S. government statements and documents counter disinformation about Tibet by China's government and the Chinese Communist Party, including disinformation about Tibet's history and institutions. The bill also authorizes the office to take other actions to counter such disinformation. This bill also states that it is U.S. policy that the conflict between Tibet and China is unresolved and that Tibet's legal status remains to be determined in accordance with international law.
Sponsors: Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]
Target Audience
Population: People living in the Tibet Autonomous Region and Tibetan areas of Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, and Yunnan
Estimated Size: 30000
- The bill directly impacts the people living in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan areas in the provinces of Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, and Yunnan.
- Tibetan people are the primary population impacted because the bill addresses issues of Tibetan status and countering disinformation about Tibetan history and institutions.
- The bill may affect the relationship between Tibetans and the Chinese government, which could influence the broader Han Chinese population in these regions.
- The Tibetan diaspora, including those in the United States and India, could be indirectly impacted through changes in U.S. policy toward Tibet.
Reasoning
- This policy is primarily relevant to U.S. foreign relations and its effect will resonate most with the Tibetan-American population, plus Americans with a strong focus on international human rights and foreign policy.
- The budget constraints imply limited direct financial aid or activities within Tibet and rather focus on diplomatic and informational measures, hence a limited direct impact on U.S. residents' wellbeing. However, it might have emotional or ideological impacts on certain groups.
- Given the policy's core about U.S.-Tibet relations, primary impact is on awareness, advocacy, and activism communities in the U.S., not direct tangible benefits or harms.
Simulated Interviews
Tibetan Community Organizer (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel a sense of hope seeing the U.S. officially acknowledge Tibet's unresolved status. It strengthens our advocacy efforts.
- The policy's emphasis on counteracting disinformation could help preserve Tibetan culture and history.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Human Rights Lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Legally, acknowledging Tibet's status is a step forward. It might not change day-to-day realities but it sets a framework for future actions.
- The domesticated impact will depend on this strengthening of international law discourse.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hadn't paid much attention to these issues before; this policy might increase awareness in my circles.
- Personally, I think it's important to understand both sides, including China's perspective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
University Professor (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Academically, I'm very interested in how this policy will influence Sino-American relations.
- The impact on Tibetans in the U.S. will be more intellectual than financial or tangible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't follow international politics closely, so this policy doesn't change much for me personally.
- I'm more focused on local education and children's welfare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a significant move in U.S.-China diplomatic dynamics.
- It’s strategic, but for most Americans, it’s more about global positioning than local impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy represents a moral victory for Tibetans and those who support Tibetan autonomy.
- It doesn't directly change my life, but it heartens me to see international recognition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Digital Marketer (Austin, TX)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wasn’t really aware of these issues. If it becomes significant news, I might read more about it.
- For now, this doesn't affect my daily life or worldview.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Buddhist Monk (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Spiritually, it's meaningful that such policies are created, even if their direct impact is limited.
- It's about the message and the recognition of Tibetans' struggles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Sales Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Since it's more about national policy, I view it from a business perspective—one that requires caution.
- I hope it doesn't strain U.S.-China trade relations too much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's implementation largely revolves around diplomatic efforts and countering disinformation, which require a delicate balance to avoid escalating tensions with China.
- Costs reflect maintaining U.S. positions on Tibet through diplomatic channels rather than large fiscal outlays.
- The broader implications for U.S.-China relations could potentially influence other areas of economic and political concern over time.