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: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the Tibet-China conflict
Estimated Size: 100000
- Tibet has a total population of over 6 million people including those living in the TAR and Tibetan areas of nearby provinces.
- There are large Tibetan diaspora communities around the world including in India, the United States, and Europe.
- China, as the country administering Tibet, has a population of over 1.4 billion, whose governmental policies may be influenced by this bill.
Reasoning
- The budget for this policy is limited considering the broad scope of influence it seeks to achieve, meaning the direct impact might be subtle and primarily diplomatic in nature.
- The American Tibetan community is likely small but has a concentrated interest in such policies, leading to higher impact on those individuals despite their small numbers.
- More impact may be felt among advocacy groups and academics than the general U.S. population due to the specialized nature of the bill dealing with international diplomacy and human rights.
- Public interest will likely increase if the policy leads to notable diplomatic engagements or media coverage, impacting U.S. citizens concerned with international human rights and governance issues.
- Most American citizens might be indirectly aware due to increased media coverage about Tibet, but no significant changes in daily life for the broader population are anticipated due to budget constraints.
Simulated Interviews
Tibetan Activist (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a welcome step to bring more clarity to the U.S. stance on Tibet.
- I hope it results in more informed discussions about Tibet amongst policymakers and the general public.
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 | 7 |
Technology Sector (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although it's encouraging to see movement on Tibet, I doubt there will be immediate tangible benefits.
- The policy could, however, lay the groundwork for more informed international relations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student in International Relations (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these can influence international law discussions, which impacts my research focus.
- Stuff like this makes me hopeful for future diplomatic tremors, even if academic for now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired State Department Official (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy strengthens the moral stance of the U.S. on human rights, which is highly valuable.
- It may spark crucial discussions but requires careful negotiation with China.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies that address global human rights issues inspire me.
- Though small in the U.S., the Tibetan community's struggles resonate especially when recognized by major powers.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Human Rights Lawyer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a positive first step in framing the international dialogue about Tibet.
- Implementation should focus on diplomatic leverage which might enhance U.S.'s role globally.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Educator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Educating about geopolitics is critical; policies like this can foster debate.
- There's potential for a positive shift in educational focus if this gains traction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Business Executive (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies reflecting ethical stances are vital for businesses' reputations.
- This aligns with ethical principles, though direct impact on business seems limited currently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Social Worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential for this policy to extend awareness of cultural and human rights issues.
- Direct impact on the communities I serve might be minimal, but awareness is key.
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 |
Journalist (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these serve as interesting stories worth following for shifts in international dialogue.
- It remains to be seen how much impact it will have beyond rhetoric.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Political and diplomatic impacts in U.S.-China relations, which could have broader implications.
- Support or opposition from Tibetan diaspora and human rights groups domestically and internationally.
- Non-monetary impact is significant in terms of foreign policy stance and potential influence on global narratives around Tibet.