Actually, comment is far beyond of any specific topic.

Many people are so arrogant and narrow mind after so many years biased ... They already got the conclusion before judgement.

Put aside this difficult judgement. Lets take a simple one to test our judgement.

Most news related to zimbabwe are abuse of democracy. But how many know the foundamental conflict is land nationalisation, a land reform program announced by President Robert Mugabe in 2000. While a few british anglos who occupy majority land taken from zimbabwean decades ago, asked zimbabwean to buyback their land in market price.

Then, there are overwhelming reports such as "Human Rights watch slams Zimbabwe govt" ...

Here's a bit of Zen for everyone:

Which party did the people in China vote for in their last election?

>>Which party did the people in China vote for in their last election?>>

This is big question.

China is a big country with a long history. They have their own value system. Millions of people lost their life in order to find a better system. West style democratization is not a solution for China, at least currently.

I can name some west style democratic countries for you: Australia, Zimbabwean, Israel, Palestine, UK, Iran, USA, Iraq ...

This paper could be helpful for you:
<<Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War>> Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10308

West countries should be confident and democratic enough to let others choose their own system.

Quite a loaded topic.

I'd be interested to see where the critics stand in relation to the statistics the author highlights.
If they are indeed true, they do make a very good point, even if that point doesn't sit well with my general opinion of how Tibet was annexed.

I don't for a moment think China was in any way justified in seizing the country or for the brutality that has been inflicted on the Tibetan monks and the people. Whilst I imagine the Chinese historically have always viewed Tibet as one of their provinces, it's evident the Tibetans didn't see it that way.

But while it's a historical injustice, globally there are many such injustices which are unlikely to be reversed. From that perspective, I look to what the future holds if not separation for Tibet.

I think it most unlikely that Tibet will be separated - thus I wonder, within the confines of Chinese policy, what the best way forward is for the area.

Of course we can discuss what'd be best - I agree, it'd be nice if Tibet was allowed to be an independent nation. Yes, it would be great if China adopted a pluralist party system with genuine democracy. Yes, it'd be great if their human rights abuses were halted.

But in lieu of those things, I guess this article highlights the reality on the ground for Tibetan people, is they've had an improvement in standard of living - and it'd appear, perhaps the history of the area combined with public opinion, has meant that after the initial brutality of the invasion, and yes, the repression of aspects of their culture, the Chinese Government has been put in a position where they treat Tibetans a little more favourably than the Han majority.

I guess what I'm saying is that while the idealist perspective states that it'd be nice for Tibet to see greater autonomy, the cynical realist in me sees that perhaps Tibet isn't quite as oppressed, save for issues of independence, which ultimately, isn't something most Chinese citizens have a great deal of either.

trtl, I do so admire your ability to do that: look rationally (albeit somewhat cynically)at a question. Yep, I guess your conclusions are pretty much the same as mine. And have you ever been there? Its a barren-desolate place where, apart from the monks, the illiterate inhabitants barely managed to eke out a living. The improvements to lifestyle have indeed benefited the original inhabitants. So, yeah, trite but true: nothing is ever as clear-cut as it may seem.

TRTL, this critic's opinion is that the author's statistics are entirely irrelevant. if China has been so wonderful for Tibet, then presumably the Tibetan's can come to that conclusion themselves. I don't see any evidence of them being asked, or that they would agree if they were asked. Would Lo agree to the Tibetans having a vote for independence? If not, why not?

Look, I'm not blind to the author's point. I don't automatically buy his statistics, but I don't rule them out either. I have no illusions about Tibet having been a Buddhist paradise, but it is somewhat of a strawman to presume that without China, Tibet would have remained an unchanged backwater. It's mixed. There is an argument there.

And yes, I understand the moral question is distinct from the question of realpolitik. (so does the Dalai Lama, by the way). But Lo's post was not about realpolitik: Lo's post was about the Chinese government as the Good Guys.

And that is THE point: when it comes to Tibet, it is for the Tibetans to decide whether the Chinese government are the Good Guys. it is this point that Lo refuses to consider. My opinion of his post remains unchanged.