a good, smooth, learned, article - walking the issue to Tibet.

Why would pushing China's future leader be in our national interest?

So he knows what a bunch of prissy look at me, finger wagging types we are, desperate for attention on the world stage, I'm sure he already knows very well.

Of course you're a salesman with a message to sell, and I'm sure you're paid well for it, either cash or ego inflation, like most do gooder Tibet is so cool wannabees.

China liberated a subjugated people who had a life expectancy for a man of 29 years, and brought modern medicine and education to them - they used to get medieval indoctrination and get to pay tithes to the local monasteries who had literally tens of thousands of monks, who bled the land and community.

The Tibetans outside Tibet have a good life and want it for their countrymen, but they need to accept that it is China and China alone who calls the tune and they are not going to give up all the mineral wealth or defensive buffer that is Tibet.

Honestly who would believe anything Rudd says anyway, his time has gone, another PM who had no plan, and did nothing but fiddle, a BS artist of awesome proportions and Australians continue to listen to his ilk in the states.

Mind you I love the line in the article "sign an agreement between the Australia National University and the Communist Party’s Central Party School" that fits in so well with our dear lefties and their cries for human rights, right up to the point of grovelling to the Chinese.

So hey what happened to the 2008 Olympics being given to the Chinese so they would improve human rights, what .. didn't work? Or is it working so well no one bother to comment it is so self evident .. what a farce that was, and is.

Before anyone bother castigating me for not knowing what it's like, I've been to Tibet, traveled extensively there as well as to India to Dharamsala and McLeod Gang .. so know every well what a duplicitous lot they are.

Well said Amicus.
One need only familiarise one's self with the cultural history of Tibet to appreciate its adherence to primitive social norms and the suffocating feudalism of the great Buddhist monasteries. China, as much as any nation, can appreciate how great estates vested in religious organisations, were inimical to the development of an egalitarian society. The Catholic Church in south central China was as tyranical a master ruling vast estates as any war lord from the mid 19th century to the revolution.

As Bradshaw expands significantly on the Tibet issue, it's pertinant that a few remarks be addressed to his observations. A passing familiarity with the history of central Asia and the territorial ambitions of the British, the Russians and China, particularly during and following the 19th century is a great help in understanding the issues of today.

It was called The Great Game. The interests of these great powers was fixed on central Asia as perhaps the remaining "power vacuum" on the entire continent.

China is asserting an ancient and pervasive influence in Tibet that preceeds the other two powers and is herself continuinhg the machinations Great Britain began in creating buffer regions against Russia's desire to expand to the Indian Ocean. While such expansion is hardly likely now, I think it is still Russia that China is more concerned about

Although I don't believe any nation has the right to occupy another, no matter how much they have to offer them, us whinging about it to China's future leader will achieve nothing but make us look like bad (or worse, toeing the line of a US excuse to badmouth them).

All in all, won't make a difference except be not good for relations.
Kevin Rudd's speech was about as far as I'd go with the matter.

We would achieve more success if we stop chanting free Tibet and focus on the poor human rights situation in Tibet. There is no solid argument that can come from Australia. The Chinese can always say that Australia is China's Tibet, Australia's indigenous population are Tibetans and that the English occupied Australia unlawfully. Sorry to burst the bubble but this is quite true.

So we should instead tell China, well their government, that we would like to see improvements in their abysmal human rights record.

Well said LErnest. We too are conquerors and occupiers, as are most nations. The focus does indeed need to be on human rights rather than nationhood.
If Tibet is to move on it needs to focus on being a responsible part of China...it has always been impossible to opt out of the Great Game and China is probably a better occupier than England or Russia.
Gets back to the old culture vs economy vs national interests.