Approach proposed by the Tibetan government-in-exile stops short of demanding independence for Tibet and only seeks regional autonomy, the reaction of PRC authorities has been hostile in the extreme. The PRC secretary of Tibet, Zhang Qingli, epitomizes this aggressive approach. He recently described the Dalai Lama as "a false religious leader" and even went so far as to liken China's struggle with him as "a fight to the death".

As a consequence of the leadership shown by the Dalai Lama, a new sense of Tibetan unity has been forged among the large number of Tibetans living overseas. These are not only Tibetans from the central province of U-Tsang that was placed under Beijing control in 1951, but

Efforts on the part of the People's Republic of China to consolidate its control over Tibet continues unabated.

The new Qinghai-Tibet railway (which makes use of BSP cars manufactured by Bombardier), is a political move geared toward strengthening Chinese influence and control over Tibet. The political scheming behind the project is underlined by the skepticism expressed by Chinese president Hu Jintao about the tourist value of the railway.

The Western China Development policy, is another aspect of Beijing's reach. The policy will be used to justify the creation of infrastructure in an effort to extend PRC control over Tibet, rather than make any concessions to the "Middle Way" solution being proposed by Dharamsala-based Tibetan government-in-exile.

China's claims to Tibet are frankly outrageous and without justification. Many Western countries have a history that includes external political influence, military invasion, even temporary occupations - yet in almost every case in the post-WW2 era these nations have maintained their independence and territorial integrity. When hostilities have been pressed with evidence of atrocity - for example Serbian aggression in Kosovo - the international community has refused to endorse such illegal nationalistic adventures. So how come the illegal occupation of Tibet and the cultural genocide that preceded it has only received muted criticism?

Quebec was recently given recognition as "a nation within Canada" by the Canadian government, based upon markers related to ethnicity, language and heritage. On such criteria alone Tibetan society is clearly distinct.

Back in the mid-20th century Tibet's language, culture and most importantly its highly evolved spiritual tradition, made it as different from Mao's China as night is from day. The Chinese invasion of 1949 was a flagrant land grab and violation of international law.

The arguments offered by China to claim ownership of Tibet are flimsy at best. They try to establish a historical basis for their claim by referring back to the Manchu dynasty and by citing relationships between Chinese rulers and Tibetan lamas. This is a bit like saying that as a result of historical Anglo-Irish connections (that included ownership of Irish land), British diplomatic influence and military victories in Ireland - the UK should have the right to annex the Republic of Ireland. A proposition that is so outlandish under international law it would rightly be laughed out of court.

I'm not overlooking the fact that at various times in its history, the territory that more or less makes up the plateau of greater Tibet did in fact fall fall under Chinese influence of one form or another - but this argument can't be used to justify the wholesale occupation of Tibet.

Although the Middle Way Approach proposed by the Tibetan government-in-exile stops short of demanding independence for Tibet and only seeks regional autonomy, the reaction of PRC authorities has been hostile in the extreme. The PRC secretary of Tibet, Zhang Qingli, epitomizes this aggressive approach. He recently described the Dalai Lama as "a false religious leader" and even went so far as to liken China's struggle with him as "a fight to the death".

As a consequence of the leadership shown by the Dalai Lama, a new sense of Tibetan unity has been forged among the large number of Tibetans living overseas. These are not only Tibetans from the central province of U-Tsang that was placed under Beijing control in 1951, but

ing proposed by Dharamsala-based Tibetan government-in-exile.

China's claims to Tibet are frankly outrageous and without justification. Many Western countries have a history that includes external political influence, military invasion, even temporary occupations - yet in almost every case in the post-WW2 era these nations have maintained their independence and territorial integrity. When hostilities have been pressed with evidence of atrocity - for example Serbian aggression in Kosovo - the international community has refused to endorse such illegal nationalistic adventures. So how come the illegal occupation of Tibet and the cultural genocide that preceded it has only received muted criticism?

Quebec was recently given recognition as "a nation within Canada" by the Canadian government, based upon markers related to ethnicity, language and heritage. On such criteria alone Tibetan society is clearly distinct.

Back in the mid-20th century Tibet's language, culture and most importantly its highly evolved spiritual tradition, made it as different from Mao's China as night is from day. The Chinese invasion of 1949 was a flagrant land grab and violation of international law.

The arguments offered by China to claim ownership of Tibet are flimsy at best. They try to establish a historical basis for their claim by referring back to the Manchu dynasty and by citing relationships between Chinese rulers and Tibetan lamas. This is a bit like saying that as a result of historical Anglo-Irish connections (that included ownership of Irish land), British diplomatic influence and military victories in Ireland - the UK should have the right to annex the Republic of Ireland. A proposition that is so outlandish under international law it would rightly be laughed out of court.

I'm not overlooking the fact that at various times in its history, the territory that more or less makes up the plateau of greater Tibet did in fact fall fall under Chinese influence of one form or another - but this argument can't be used to justify the wholesale occupation of Tibet.

Although the Middle Way Approach proposed by the Tibetan government-in-exile stops short of demanding independence for Tibet and only seeks regional autonomy, the reaction of PRC authorities has been hostile in the extreme. The PRC secretary of Tibet, Zhang Qingli, epitomizes this aggressive approach. He recently described the Dalai Lama as "a false religious leader" and even went so far as to liken China's struggle with him as "a fight to the death".

As a consequence of the leadership shown by the Dalai Lama, a new sense of Tibetan unity has been forged among the large number of Tibetans living overseas. These are not only Tibetans from the central province of U-Tsang that was placed under Beijing control in 1951, but

/p>

Quebec was recently given recognition as "a nation within Canada" by the Canadian government, based upon markers related to ethnicity, language and heritage. On such criteria alone Tibetan society is clearly distinct.

Back in the mid-20th century Tibet's language, culture and most importantly its highly evolved spiritual tradition, made it as different from Mao's China as night is from day. The Chinese invasion of 1949 was a flagrant land grab and violation of international law.

The arguments offered by China to claim ownership of Tibet are flimsy at best. They try to establish a historical basis for their claim by referring back to the Manchu dynasty and by citing relationships between Chinese rulers and Tibetan lamas. This is a bit like saying that as a result of historical Anglo-Irish connections (that included ownership of Irish land), British diplomatic influence and military victories in Ireland - the UK should have the right to annex the Republic of Ireland. A proposition that is so outlandish under international law it would rightly be laughed out of court.

I'm not overlooking the fact that at various times in its history, the territory that more or less makes up the plateau of greater Tibet did in fact fall fall under Chinese influence of one form or another - but this argument can't be used to justify the wholesale occupation of Tibet.

Although the Middle Way Approach proposed by the Tibetan government-in-exile stops short of demanding independence for Tibet and only seeks regional autonomy, the reaction of PRC authorities has been hostile in the extreme. The PRC secretary of Tibet, Zhang Qingli, epitomizes this aggressive approach. He recently described the Dalai Lama as "a false religious leader" and even went so far as to liken China's struggle with him as "a fight to the death".

As a consequence of the leadership shown by the Dalai Lama, a new sense of Tibetan unity has been forged among the large number of Tibetans living overseas. These are not only Tibetans from the central province of U-Tsang that was placed under Beijing control in 1951, but

en Chinese rulers and Tibetan lamas. This is a bit like saying that as a result of historical Anglo-Irish connections (that included ownership of Irish land), British diplomatic influence and military victories in Ireland - the UK should have the right to annex the Republic of Ireland. A proposition that is so outlandish under international law it would rightly be laughed out of court.

I'm not overlooking the fact that at various times in its history, the territory that more or less makes up the plateau of greater Tibet did in fact fall fall under Chinese influence of one form or another - but this argument can't be used to justify the wholesale occupation of Tibet.

Although the Middle Way Approach proposed by the Tibetan government-in-exile stops short of demanding independence for Tibet and only seeks regional autonomy, the reaction of PRC authorities has been hostile in the extreme. The PRC secretary of Tibet, Zhang Qingli, epitomizes this aggressive approach. He recently described the Dalai Lama as "a false religious leader" and even went so far as to liken China's struggle with him as "a fight to the death".

As a consequence of the leadership shown by the Dalai Lama, a new sense of Tibetan unity has been forged among the large number of Tibetans living overseas. These are not only Tibetans from the central province of U-Tsang that was placed under Beijing control in 1951, but

Approach proposed by the Tibetan government-in-exile stops short of demanding independence for Tibet and only seeks regional autonomy, the reaction of PRC authorities has been hostile in the extreme. The PRC secretary of Tibet, Zhang Qingli, epitomizes this aggressive approach. He recently described the Dalai Lama as "a false religious leader" and even went so far as to liken China's struggle with him as "a fight to the death".

As a consequence of the leadership shown by the Dalai Lama, a new sense of Tibetan unity has been forged among the large number of Tibetans living overseas. These are not only Tibetans from the central province of U-Tsang that was placed under Beijing control in 1951, but also Tibetans from the provinces of Kham and Amdo.

It is little wonder this unity is being forged in the Tibetan emigre community when you consider how the Chinese accomplished their ambitions within Tibet. The invasion was marked by atrocities that some international observers have likened to genocide.

Following the Tibetan uprising of 1959, roughly 80,000 Tibetans were killed in Central Tibet alone. All told, it is estimated that 1.5 million Tibetans died as a result of Chinese repression that included summary executions without trial and torture.

The damage to Tibetan society was staggering, and included the desecration of the rich Buddhist heritage that was one of the greatest gifts of that society to the human family. The Chinese military destroyed religious art and statuary. They turned sacred sites into war zones, employing heavy guns to destroy thousands of monasteries. Priceless literature and art was plundered and either destroyed or sold.

The Nazis have long since paid the price for precisely this type of ruthless occupation. Yet the Chinese government, far from offering a comprehensive apology, reparations and political concessions - seeks to further consolidate its power in Tibet at the expense of a people and a culture it has all but destroyed under the eyes of the international community.

The fact that China is an emerging superpower and holds billions in foreign debt, has the effect of silencing a lot of critics who are prepared to give it a pass irrespective of criminal violations of the very worst sort. Violations that are simply being whitewashed by Beijing.

The people of Tibet have a right to self-determination and the international community should press this right by insisting on a justly administered plebiscite to determine their democratic will.