Graeme you preaching to deaf ears, people are too eager to stand on the side of "the suppressed" without knowing the facts. I'm a UK photographer for the popular Chinese travel website findchina.net and travel extensively throughout both China and Tibet and I know exactly what you are talking about it is very difficult to explain to my friends and family as the mindset of different cultures.
I do sympathise with the Tibetin's and cringe when when political opportunists and presumptuous liberals jump and the opportunity to incite this violence. They really don't know what they are doing however at the end of the day the same people who they profess to care about are the same ones that are dying its a shame the Tibetan people are lovely and deserve only to be given hope when its a realistic possibility and in the mean time the billions China is poring into developing Tibet while their future is being decided really cant hurt, their infrastructure really needs it. Come on people if you want a do some good in the world make a donation to the millions of Asian orphans who knows your popular opinions could have made them one in the first place.

Once again, it seems that there are few people who would agree that Australia should give up one-quarter of its territory to its indigenous peoples. The fact that no one has yet agreed that it should seems to prove this fact. The response to such proposal in previous instances has been that the Aboriginals don't deserve self-determination because they are somehow less organized, or less populous, or less cohesive, or otherwise less of a nation.

However, if Canada can give Nunavut to its northern indigenous peoples, then this argument does not work, since the Inuit are, if anything, even less populous both in absolute terms and relative to the Canadian population as a whole, and more sparsely distributed, as well.

Nunavut was made possible because Canada has been especially generous, and also because most of the area spoken of is in the frigid north which was not already a province. (Nunavut was carved from the Northwest Territories.) However, the principle on which Nunavut was given over was the same as that advocated for the Tibetans: Self-determination as to control over historical territories.

By rights, therefore, the indigenous people of Australia should be given a chance to fully and autonomously "own" almost all of Western Australia in which their ancient settlement pattern could be found. Would all of Australia readily accept a referendum in which most of Western Australia was given over to them? Would Australians willingly evacuate Perth, for example, if the indigenous people decided that the presence of white Australians was "cultural genocide"?

Answering this question should answer the question of whether China should be expected to give up Tibet on similar terms. Moreover, Australia is, by population, a much smaller country; in theory, all Australians could be eventually evacuated to New Zealand. To those who are making demands of China: If a resurgent China in twenty years were to insist that indigenous people be allowed to self-determine on the question of whether not just Western Australia, but all of Australia, should be returned to them to avoid "cultural genocide," what do you think Australia's response would be?

I am equally unsure what type of respect can you show it to Dalai Lama, the man who conspired with the CIA in the armed uprising, before losing Tibet to China. He has absolutely no right to demand anything from China if he still has some little honor left.

Passy,

You are an unbelievable hypocrite. Your support for a two state solution for the Tibetans but not for the Israelis shows you to be a bigot.

A one state solution (as per your suggestion for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) is exactly what China is trying to achieve in Tibet by moving tens of thousands of Han Chinese into Tibet to change the political situation on the ground.

However you are in great company. Hamas also believe in a one state solution for the conflict, funnily enough because it would deliver ultimate control of all the land to them.

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

Sounds an awful lot like the one China policy with religious dressing if you ask me.

What's The Deal,

I agree with self-determination of indigenous nations. Note the plural; yes, they ARE less cohesive than the Tibetans and even a modicum of understanding of aboriginal cultures would reveal that to you. There are actually several hundred aboriginal nations throughout Australia.

From various legal implements which have provided some sense of self-determination (including initially the Wiki and Mabo decisions), there does not seem to be many who demand separate aboriginal countries; although there is calls for sovereignity, which I agree with.

This seems to differ significantly from the situation in Tibet. There it seems there is a genuine body of people who want an independent state. Of course the only way to determine this would be a free referendum of Tibetans on their future.

Paul,

Israel is a country, not a nationality (and Judiasm isn't a nationality either, it is a religion). The Tibetan however are nationality and a country, but one who have been unable to determine their own state.

And you really should know by now that Islamist movements are not the be-all and end-all of those who support a single, democratic and secular state in Palestine. It is quite disingenous of you to keep suggesting this when in your heart you know it is false.

Paul L calls me a hypocrite for supporting Tibet but not Zionism. SO be it.

Do Afrikaners have the right to self determination? No. The solution - one state - was appropriate. This stopped the rule by one group over another.

A one state solution for Palestine does the same - it is the answer to Israeli apartheid in the region. (In addition, Paul L, Tibet's right to self determination is not at the expense of, or genocide of, another people.)

Tibet is culturally and ethnically and linguistically different to China. They had no say in their incorporation into China (other than the feudal Dalai Lama supporting the CCP, even if uneasily, for some time.)

The struggle for Tibetan independence (i.e. their right to self determination)is part of the struggle for democracy across all of China.