Are the DL and the exile government still representing Tibet?

On Apr 13, 2:28 pm, netvegetable <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [snip fascinating historical interlude]
>
> You do not seem to understand the Western POV on this. Nobody cares how
> many Chinese entered Tibet, whether or not it was an invasion or a
> liberation. Nobody cares what the British did there 100 years ago. All
> that matters is what the Tibetan people want *now*. EOF.
>
> As has already been explained to you, the "principle of self-
> determination" overrides all the above.
>
> If that were not the case, England would still be fighting to reclaim
the
> original 13 colonies of America, France and Prussia would still be
> fighting each other over the Rhineland.
>
> So you passionate argument that Tibet is part of China will fall on deaf
> ears here.

Are the DL and the exile government still representing Tibet? The
reason I went through the history is that the DL as well a large part
of the Kashag chose ot leave Tibet voluntarily 49 years ago. They wre
not forced out as the resutls fo Chinese acition. They abandoned Tiebt
and ihe Tibetans. What makes anyone think they are still representing
the Tibetans. Religiously speaking, the DL could still be a religious
leader. But not politically. Even if one accepts unilateral self-
determiantion, it has to come from within, not from without as the 13
colonies of America. In addition, after they had abandoned the Tibetan
****p, the region called Tibet had changed had changed. It is no longer
a single ethnic region like 49 years ago. It had developed to a multi-
ethnic region.