Tibetan positions and strategies have gone through many changes since 1959 when the Dalai Lama escaped to India. From 1959 until the mid-1970s, the Tibetan exile leadership consistently cast its chief objective as regaining Tibetâs independence. In 2007, the same Tibetan leadership is calling for a sincere, letter-and-spirit implementation of the provisions of the Chinese constitution and national regional autonomy laws, albeit, in a re-unified Tibetan administrative entity within the Peopleâs Republic of Chinaâ"a far-cry from the independence agenda of only three decades ago. Tibetan strategy has also evolved from the CIA-backed guerrilla movement to a completely non-violent form of activism. Inside Tibet itself, the Tibetans have deployed various strategies ranging from collaboration with the communist regime to open rebellion for national survival. Beijingâs policies inside Tibet have also oscillated from the violent, oppressive and assimilationist strategies of the Maoist years to the ethnically-sensitive policies of the Hu Yaobang era in the 1980s and back to the hard-line integrationist policies prevalent today. Chinese efforts to engage the Dalai Lama and exile Tibetans have also had an on-again, off-again quality. What drives these fluctuations? This paper attempts to answer this question by examining if, and how, the international campaigns and diplomacy of the Tibetan Diaspora effect these fluctuations. How do the activities, successes and failures of the Tibetan exiles shape the activities of the Tibetans inside Tibet? How do the fortunes and misfortunes of the Tibetan Diaspora shape Chinese policies towards Tibet? Equally importantly, how does Tibetâs place in some of Chinaâs most important foreign relations, such as the US-China relations and Sino-Indian relations influence Sino-Tibetan relations? This paper will provide a dispassionate analysis of these important linkages that have direct bearings on a people struggling to survive and a state rising in power but struggling with its international image and domestic legitimacy. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]