It is the "victor" who paints the picture of economic development, but as a generalisation I think it fair to say Tibet was a backward feudal poverty ridden dictatorship under the dalai lamas made up predominantly of Tibetans. Now it is backward semi-feudal less poverty ridden dictatorship under the CCP with a large Han population.

The uneven development in Tibet (ie major concentrations of capitalist exploitation and development among a sea of rural backwardness) is because the Tibetans played no role in determining who ruled them.

It was Lenin who argued that a nation has the right to self determination. The Tibetans do. It would be economic madness for them to chose anything other than some form of federation with China, but a federation perhaps based on the establishment of democratic principles for Tibet. Nevertheless the choice should be for the Tibetans, not that of the puppet regimes established by the guns of the PLA.

This argument that economic development is the sole determinant of the legitimacy of rule echoes comments by prominent mainstream western supporters of fascism in its early days that the trains ran on time, meaning the economies were booming and well regulated.

I have posted elsewhere that the Tibetans to win need to link up with that force in Chinese society which has the power to overthrow the CCP's dictatorship. That force is the Chinese working class. Any anti-Chinese actions or anti-Chinese chauvinism by Tibetans play into the hands of the regime and undermine the possibility of building such links.

The struggle in Tibet may (I stress may) help embolden Chinese workers and students. That in turn could up the ante in Tibet. But only if the Chinese working class overthrows the dictatorship can Tibet be free.

China is really difficult to be understood due to it huge size, population and long history and culture.

A lot of issue is not so obvious. For example, everyone including CCP member blames CCP, on the other hand, everyone believes no any other party can challenge CCP. At last, everyone believes CCP is not a communist party any more.

As "dictatorship", it is more connected with history or culture. China, or at large East culture is more care for group/national interest, while individual interest/freedom is more important in West culture.

CCP actually is the biggest winner from recent Tibet Riot, while west media is the biggest loser in China

The problem is that reporting is one-sided (state owned). Since we are not allowed to check with our own eyes or read opposing/independant views, we assume the worst.

This is fair. Particularly given 20th century Chinese history.

If the situation was all-good, why would a such restrictions be required? Similarly, government statistics are unverified by either an opposition or independant media. Why would I trust them.

All nations have some failures. Aborigine treatment in AU is a possible example. The thing is, this must be put in the open, so that we can look at the results and attempt to better them. I'd encourage the Chinese government to take that view. If nothing else, it's a smarter public relations strategy.

To the author: bravo. It's rare to see an article like this in the current environment. Regarding "balance": the full-on pro-Tibetan media campaign that we are witnessing right now is the one that needs "balance", desperately.

“Cultural cleansing”:

The article rightly mentioned the complete tax exemption in Tibet, but what also deserves mentioning is that 80% of expenditures in all Tibetan monasteries are also subsidised by the central government. This is because donation alone simply cannot support the vast number of monks in the system. This burden used to be on the shoulders of the 95% serf population in the old theocratic society.

If you have been to Tibet, you would have seen the many well-maintained monasteries, and people freely practicing their religious and cultural activities out in the open. Yes some monasteries were destroyed in the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s but the same had happened across China (e.g. Beijing lost at least 80% of its temples), it’s NOT racially motivated as some reports make it to be.

If you ever ventured out of Lhasa, you will find many Tibetan people spoke little or no Mandarin Chinese.

How are all these for “cultural genocide”?

Ethnic policy:

Ethnic minorities in China are not restricted by the “one child policy”, get extra bonus marks for university entrance exam, and get preferential treatment in education and employment.

When 2 people of different ethnicities marry, the parents can choose the registered ethnicity of the child, and for every case I know, my own cousin’s included, the parents had chosen the ethnic minority, not Han, because of all the privileges. This is one of the reasons why China’s minority population has grown exponentially from 1949’s 5-% to today's 8+% (i.e. at a faster rate than Han population). If China’s ethnic policies are really that bad, would this have happened?

And you would think important information such as the above would deserve at least a mention in our 'free' media.

There's no doubt that China has many deep issues, but if all you hear everyday is one sided stories, you’ve got to think twice.