Re: Is a 'Free Tibet' a possibility?

On May 12, 12:44=A0pm, netvegetable <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:28:53 -0700, fyfp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > "The Dalai Lama's stated aim is for Beijing to grant some kind of
> > limited autonomy to Tibet......... has been that the new autonomous
> > region would include so-called "greater" Tibet, that is, all the
> > traditionally ethnic-Tibetan areas now parts of the provinces of
> > Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai. In total, that would compromise
> > around a quarter of China's current territory. No government in
Beijing
> > could ever contemplate such a giveaway, which would almost certainly
> > unleash a nationalist backlash of frightening pro****tions."
>
> >http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=3D17363
>
> So that's the real reason the People Republic of China opposes Tibetan
> self-determination? =A0i.e, There is no such thing as China, just a
bunch
> of Chinas, under a Han Chinese Empire?


UN charter on self-determination did not apply to secession movements.
Neither does it apply to any particular ethnic group.

The consensus defined a "people" entitled to self-determination as
persons living in a particular geographic area, rather than persons
sharing a common culture or language.

Don't abuse terms that you half understood.