In preparation for the 2026 G7 Summit in France on 14-16 June, the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) sent a letter to G7 Sherpas strongly urging them to explicitly reference Tibet in upcoming G7 discussions on China’s global role, foreign policy ambitions and adherence to international norms. Leveraging the role of the G7 sherpas as the personal representatives of the heads of government to coordinate policy positions ahead of G7 meetings, ICT lamented the G7’s omission of Tibet from its 2025 statements and stressed the importance of including Tibet in G7 talks.
ICT highlighted in the letter its recent report “Why Tibet”, which details the significance of Tibet as a key strategic concern in the region and how failing to include Tibet in security conversations risks shutting out critical avenues to address China’s growing authoritarian ambitions in the region and globally. Following the report’s recommendations, the letter proposes three key Tibet-related priorities for the G7 – Tibet’s geostrategic and security relevance; water, climate and regional stability; and human rights as a security indicator.
The letter also calls upon the G7 Sherpas to explicitly reference Tibet and its strategic importance to regional and global stability in current and future G7 Summit statements, linking Tibet to broader conversations on international security and norms and encouraging continued dialogue on developments in Tibet. ICT stressed that Tibetan issues are directly related to the stance of the G7 on international human rights standards, solidarity with communities facing systematic suppression and global security concerns and should be a main concern of the G7 in considering China and the region. The current Group of Seven leaders are Prime Minister Mark Carney, President Emmanuel Macron, Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and President Donald Trump.
ICT wrote to the G7 Sherpas:
As you prepare for the next cycle of G7 deliberations, the International Campaign for Tibet, a global non-governmental organization working towards the democratic freedoms and human rights of the Tibetan people, respectfully urges you to ensure that Tibet is explicitly referenced when the G7 discusses China’s global role, foreign policy ambitions, and adherence to international norms.
As highlighted in ICT’s recent report “Why Tibet”, Tibet is not a marginal or symbolic issue, but rather an urgent strategic concern at the intersection of regional security, geostrategic competition, environmental stability, and systemic human rights violations. Omitting Tibet from G7 language – as was the case in 2025 – risks leaving a critical blind spot in the G7’s collective assessment of China’s policies and their global implications.
Tibet’s geostrategic and security relevance
Tibet sits at the heart of Asia, bordering India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar, and lies adjacent to several unresolved and militarized borders. China has transformed the Tibetan Plateau into one of the world’s most heavily militarized high-altitude regions, with extensive military infrastructure, transport corridors, dual-use airports, and rapid troop deployment capabilities. These developments have already played a role in destabilizing dynamics along the Line of Actual Control with India, the longest disputed border zone in the world, and carry direct implications for Indo-Pacific security.
From a G7 perspective, Tibet matters because it illustrates how China leverages internal repression to support external power projection. Policies imposed in Tibet – forced relocations, surveillance systems, mass data collection, and political indoctrination – are not isolated abuses but form part of a governance model that Beijing increasingly exports abroad.
Addressing Tibet, as was the case in past summit statements (including in 2022, 2023, 2024) is therefore consistent with G7 commitments to uphold a rules-based international order and to push back against China’s coercive and repressive practices.
Water, climate and regional stability
The Tibetan Plateau, often called Asia’s water tower, is the source of major rivers that sustain nearly two billion people downstream across South and Southeast Asia. China’s large-scale dam construction, water diversion projects, and extractive policies in Tibet raise serious risks for regional water security, climate resilience, and transboundary stability. Recent construction of what experts say will be the largest dam in the world on the lower Yarlung Tsangpo River (Brahmaputra) in Tibet’s Medog county – a seismically active and ecologically sensitive area near the border with India – is an especially poignant example of China’s potentially destabilizing energy and environmental policies on the plateau. The prominence of the project, underscored by its mention in President Xi’s 2026 New Year message, highlights its strategic significance for China.
The absence of transparency, meaningful environmental impact assessments, and prior consultation with affected populations and downstream states runs counter to principles of responsible global leadership. For the G7 – whose members have repeatedly recognized water scarcity as drivers of conflict – Tibet represents a critical test case of how environmental governance, authoritarian decision-making, and regional instability intersect.
Human rights as a security indicator
Human rights violations in Tibet are not merely moral concerns; they serve as early warning indicators of systemic instability. The ongoing repression of Tibetans – through restrictions on religious freedom, forced assimilation policies, mass surveillance, criminalization of cultural expression, and interference in Tibetan Buddhist leadership – demonstrates how the Chinese Communist Party prioritizes control and repression over social cohesion and long-term stability.
On January 22, UN experts expressed their deep concern about ongoing state-organized forced labor and resettlement programs in China, including against Tibetans. “In many cases, the coercive elements are so severe that they may amount to forcible transfer and/or enslavement as a crime against humanity,” the experts said. The labor and land transfers explicitly serve the goal of “reshaping” the cultural identities of Tibetans and others under the guise of poverty alleviation.
Policies currently implemented in Tibet are precursors to, and in some cases blueprints for, broader authoritarian practices elsewhere in China and internationally. As the G7 has previously acknowledged in other contexts, systematic rights violations and security risk are deeply intertwined. Ignoring Tibet and China’s human rights abuses more generally weakens the credibility of G7 statements that link values, security, and stability and emboldens China to continue its repressive practices.
Explicitly mentioning Tibet in G7 statements:
- Signals strategic coherence between G7 values and security assessments;
- Demonstrates leadership in upholding international human rights standards, including those relating to freedom of religion and cultural rights;
- Demonstrates solidarity with affected Tibetan communities whose voices are systematically suppressed;
- Highlights how internal repression and external assertiveness and power projection constitute two sides of the same coin.
Recommendations
We therefore respectfully call on G7 Sherpas to:
- Push for the inclusion of explicit reference to Tibet – and the relevance of protecting Tibetans rights for the security of the region – in future G7 Summit or Foreign Affairs Ministers statements and/or joint declarations addressing China;
- Clearly link Tibet to broader discussions on regional stability, water security, and international norms; and
- Encourage coordinated monitoring and dialogue on developments on the Tibetan Plateau.
Tibet is not an internal matter without international consequence. It is a strategic region which shapes security, stability, and rights well beyond China’s borders. Recognizing this reality will strengthen the G7’s collective credibility and strategic foresight.
We thank you for your leadership and remain available for further briefings or policy discussions.