"Misty-eyed China-loving westerner needs a general history lesson"

I think that is a more appropriate title. On the balance of this article I would suggest Mr. Hennessy knows next to nothing about Tibet, either its history or current situation, nor does he evidence much knowledge of China's history. He would do well to put down the narratives that the CCP provides, and seek out independent interpretations of the facts.

Regarding the recent history between Tibet and CCP ruled, might I suggest "The Dragon in the Land of Snows" by Tsering Shakya. As for a readable account of China's own history, how about "China: A New History" by John King Fairbank and Merle Goldman.

Reading this history we can see how the CCP is copying the same formula as the various ruling dynasties that preceded it, and that the fears of 'invasion, political and territorial disintegration, and social disorder' are the natural by-product of a system of control that puts more importance on power and control than on the general welfare of the society at large. If you clench your fist around a glass, eventually it will break in your hands.

End of Part 1

If you are saying that the CCP's brutal methods of controlling its territory are justified because of the neighbours it keeps, well, maybe it shouldn't have invaded its neighbours (Korea, India, Burma, Russia, Vietnam) or helped to prop up unstable and brutal governments among its neighbours (Pakistan, Burma, North Korea).

Frankly, I find your regurgitation of CCP history to be an insult not only to the Tibetans, but to the Chinese people as well. After all, there are millions who do not share your viewpoints. China Digital Times (http://chinadigitaltimes.net/) is a good place to find such different Chinese views.

The true way of understanding the issue of China and Tibet is not through mind-numbing historical debates. The idealized view of Tibet by its supporters actually does do a disservice to the issue, because one doesn't have to clean up Tibet's past in order to make the point that China is not a legitimate ruler of Tibet.

The proper way of understanding the issue is to understand the general history of colonialism, and to realize that China is as much a colonial power today as any of those European nations were that once carved up its coastal areas and gave China its current victim complex. And Tibet is as much a colony of China as Ireland was Britain's.

China today does not rule Tibet because of history, it rules it because of force. Tibet and China are two different people, two different cultures, two different languages, two different views on spirituality, two different feudal traditions. The Tibetans are not ethnically 'Chinese'.

End of Part 2

When I discipline myself to ignore Brian Hennessy's patronising tone and his assumption that all Western supporters of the Tibetan cause are ignorant of history, I can see that he has a point. (According to some, anyone who supports the Tibetan cause *must* be ignorant, otherwise they would agree with the PRC government's version of things!)

However, it is true that *some* supporters of the Tibetan cause are naive, and some reporting is shallow and ill-informed, like reporting on everything. Deeper knowledge of a complex situation and history would indeed help.

He asks us to "put aside our moral outrage over Tibet for one moment" in order to see the other side of the coin. Good idea! But since our moral outrage is justified, what are we to do when we take it up again?

Peace in Tibet is unlikely as long as the PRC government insists that the only solution is to agree with their version of history and to accept their "morally outrageous" actions (to borrow Brian's expression).

Just now getting around to finishing off my post with part 3:

Ah, you say, the idea of China is not an ethnic one, but a national one, and the Tibetans are 'Chinese' because they are part of the nation of China. Wrong. To meet this definition of being 'Chinese', the Tibetan people cannot be forced into being 'Chinese' or being a part of the nation of China, they must choose to do so. And they most clearly have chosen not to be 'Chinese', they have chosen to be 'Tibetan'.

Good article about the difference between a nation-state and an empire, and why those differences matter to this situation: http://granitestudio.org/2008/03/20/from-imperial-subjects-to-national-citizens/

China could engage the Tibetan people in a more productive and peaceful manner, making the notion of being a 'Chinese citizen' more attractive, but that would take a measure of diplomacy and acceptance of the differences that exist which appears impossible for the CCP. To bring Tibet into the embrace of China by any means other than force would require the CCP to rewrite their own narrative for control over China, a risky proposition. Remember that the CCP only acts in its own interests, and never does what is best for China as a whole unless it matches those interests.

Much better to terrorize a people into submission than risk any action that might undermine one's control over the nation. Sure, unless you can flood the land with settlers or kill off the original inhabitants (and Tibet's geography actually protects it from the fate of Inner Mongolia), historically colonies don't remain under the thumb of their oppressors forever.

If Beijing is to have true power in Tibet, power that does not involve terror and suppression, it's rule must be legitimate in the eyes of the Tibetan people. So far the CCP has failed to achieve that, and yapping about how 'Tibet has always been a part of China' does nothing to further that goal. And so long as the CCP continues to spin fictions and use force as its only means of authority, violence will continue to occur.

Yes yes yes... but all the arguing/historical debate in the world cannot justify all this horrendous violence, horror, torture and human rights abuses.
Most offensive to me is the smiling relentless of so many Chinese officials, making 'trade deals' as if this is the most important human value...in the light of the very real deaths and suffering of beautiful human beings!

Burma is only 'economically challenged' because China, abusing power from the Security Council itself, backed the junta to destroy its own people, and creat a horror in yet another place of very great suffering.

When will China get it. We do not WANT to sit around debating with a whle new generation of keen young nationlistic bloggers... believing all they hear from controlled media...we want the women and men hanging from wires in cells to be released to start living.

It is NOT the Middle Ages!

And Mr Hennessy, where is your conscience!

Whatever the political arguments, Tibetans are a different race from Han Chinese. They have a different language, and different culture going back thousands of years. There is no evidence of a connection between Chinese and Tibetans except for Chinese assertions of political ownership, along with assertions of ownership of the entire world and the Chinese Emperor being a devine being.

In 1951 the Chinese (Han) army invaded Tibet and slaughtered Tibetans. Now they are supressing Tibetan culture and "settling" Tibet with ethnic Han Chinese, discriminating against Tibetans and pushing Tibetan people out. Whatever their reasons, they are effectively attempting a racial and cultural genocide.

We all have our dark histories, Australia included, but Mr Hennessy, are you seriously defending these actions?