Unlike Tibet, which China will flatly never give in on...

That's right! China is no more likely to give in on Tibet than Britain is to give in on India, or the U.S.S.R. is likely to give in on Communism! Wait, what's that you say?

And look, I'm not an idiot, I understand that the Soviet Union didn't collapse because we boycotted the Moscow Olympics. It collapsed because of major economic and geopolitical shifts. But there are going to be major economic and geopolitical shifts in the next 40-50 years. How do I know? Because there are major economic and geopolitical shifts every 40-50 years. China may get in a border dispute with India or Russia that spins out of control. They may have their own Great Depression, maybe due to corruption in their financial markets, or a continued American collapse that undermines the value of their currency reserves and the demand for their exports. Climate change may give everybody more to worry about then trying to cling to a mountainous province full of rebellious monks. The point is to keep the number of people thinking "Tibet should be free" as high as possible, so that as "We have to hold onto Tibet" becomes a lower priority for China, for whatever reason, there are people and a movement, with broad public support, ready to capitalize on the opportunity.

We're not going to go to war with China over Tibet (nor should we). We're not going to cut off trade deals with them over it (nor should we, though that's slightly more debatable). All we can do, and at this point all we should do, are symbolic things. But just because they're symbolic doesn't mean that they're meaningless. If symbols were meaningless, then China wouldn't be hosting the Olympics in the first place. The whole point is to legitimize their regime, and that very much includes legitimizing their policies regarding Tibet. If our president doesn't agree with those policies, then why should he consent to play a bit part in their pageant?

And why not?

because it perpetuates an infantile jingoist ignorance among the voting public.

imagine a world where being dumb as a stump is the exception rather than the rule...

sometimes i feel like Lisa Simpson... but without the dress.

Ah, China, beginning to have the look and feel of an Iraq type scenario. The Dalai Lama is our Chalabi, The Tibetans our Shiites and the CIA/AID pumps money like mad into Tibetan exile groups as it did to the Iraqi fundamentalist exiles training in Iran.

The US always deals harshly with threats to its hegemony. China and Russia alternate as the perceived evil empires that want to do us in.

Money down the drain,I say. The USSR collapsed after being bled dry in Afghanistan...could happen to us as we spend out last oil dollars supporting another medieval, fundamentalist loonie in the guise of the Dalai Lama. It seems that the George Bush crowd and assorted neo-cons are going to go down fighting and take the rest of us with them.

"We" are going to bash China about invading and occupying somebody?

George Bush thinks this kind of behavior is WRONG???

Really?

John McCain, too?

Call me confused, and since when do Olympic opening ceremonies get presidents of superpowers in the audience?

Is that the normal procedure? Was FDR invited to the infamous BERLIN Olympics in 1936?

I actually don't think he was. Even Hitler knew that FDR might have more on his plate,
schedulewise in 1936...what with the Depression and breadlines and stuff going on with his job to make time for a bogus sporting event overseas...

Do the calls for Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies mean that Bush was actually planning to be there?

Which reminds me to note this: the second most typical "Hollywood lefty" political obsession, after the environment, is opposition to...Communist China. Which does not dent the insistence on the right that Hollywood is full of Communists. Probably because they're being all pro-Buddhist, which is weird.

How about arresting and prosecuting one or two western war criminals. Anything less would be rank hypocrisy!

This Olympics thing is BS. It's too easy to say "boycott the Olympics"--what does that actually cost most people you have heard saying it? Nothing. If you really want to get serious about China, don't buy _anything_ that says "Made in China." I challenge all freedom loving Americans who don't like China to initiate a complete boycott of Chinese crap (largely found on the shelves of Wal-Mart, btw).

"I challenge all freedom loving Americans who don't like China to initiate a complete boycott of Chinese crap"

Tomorrow I'm giving up underwear and all mechanical and electrical devices.

At least when China wants to occupy a foreign country, they do it in their own back yard, instead of sending their military halfway around the world...

dr sardonicus: At least when China wants to occupy a foreign country, they do it in their own back yard, instead of sending their military halfway around the world...

Excellent policy. Should we invade Canada or Mexico first? They both have oil.

What OhioBoy said. Right on point and well put.

The greatest error in policy-making is identifying cause and effect. For example: The Afghanistan debacle was not the cause of Soviet collapse -- it was merely one of the final nails in the USSR coffin. The cause(s) of the collapse go back way to the aftermath of WW II, and evolved over 40 years. The Soviet's demise was inevitable long before Ronald Reagan was improperly given credit for it.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." (George Santayana).

I am with blowback. Who from the US is going to try and make any hay about war criminals? Bush? Cheney? Yoo? Rice? Gonzalez? Rumsfeld? Tenet?

Last post, 2nd graf, 3rd line - "way back", not "back way", of course. My bad.

Human Rights Watch has probably the smartest take on this: http://china.hrw.org/

They called for very specific criteria to be met for world leaders to attend the opening ceremonies -

Human Rights Watch urged leaders to condition their attendance on the Chinese government doing the following:

* Permitting an independent international investigation, ideally led by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, into the events in Tibetan areas since March 10. The investigation should focus on issues such as access to prisoners, excessive uses of force, extrajudicial executions, torture in custody, arbitrary detentions, the failure to distinguish between protesting, which is permitted under Chinese law, and rioting, and the violation of freedoms of speech assembly, association, and religion. The findings of this investigation must be made public prior to the opening of the Games.
* Reopening Tibetan areas to the international media as part of its commitment to media freedom in the run-up to the Olympics, making those freedoms permanent, and extending them to Chinese journalists. The recent government-controlled tours by members of the foreign media should not be considered evidence of real media freedom. Indeed, participants on that tour commented that their movements were strictly monitored and their reporting freedom was limited by their government minders.
* Ceasing the practice of silencing peaceful government critics or protestors through extrajudicial measures such as house arrest or actual prosecution on grounds of subverting the state, a charge that carries a five-year sentence. The activists Hu Jia and Yang Chunlin were recently sentenced on these charges to three-and-a half and five years, respectively, for their public support of human rights and criticism of the government.
* Publicly calling on the Sudanese government to immediately cease attacks on civilians in West Darfur by Sudanese Armed Forces and allied militia, and to actively facilitate the speedy and unhindered deployment of UNAMID at all levels. If the government of Sudan fails to comply, China should then support the imposition of targeted sanctions on senior government officials by the UN Security Council.

Jeebus - focus people, focus.

John McCain says "Bush should boycott the Olympic Games", you know, because it's appeasement, because, you know, the GOP never talks to anybody but themselves. You can't be telling Taiwan that they should push for freedom instead of just getting along with whatever China says, in what was Bush's major flip-flop in the Bush/Cheney years - this is so a complete redux of Bushism part II. The nightmare NEVER ends does it?

The GOP doesn't talk to them, they don't negotiate and don't even know how, but McCain is perfectly content to let them mop up the national debt, right, before McCain learns how to be Bush, part II. McCain is a freaking A-hole. It's like a scratch in an old record, playing the same cord over and over again. I can't believe this shit.

Bush is the Messiah of freedom, but he is also a baseball team owner; and sports, "the thrill of victory, the heartbreak of defeat," are more important to red blooded Americans than freedom.

Am I the only one who remembers when Carter boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympic games? He did that after the USSR invaded Afghanistan. He later regretted having done so. The games are SUPPOSED to transcend politics.

Does anyone have quotes of conservatives from 1980 criticizing Jimmy Carter (with regard to the Olympics)?

Not to be picky... okay, to be picky: the EP-3 incident was a collision, caused by a pilot who's hotdogging exceeded his skills.

Which puts a different emphasis on the incident, from a deliberate act of violence to an accident precipitated by rashness.

When you dehumanize and demonize an entire population, you can easily convince yourself that throwing bottles, eggs and litter at blind and wheelchair-bound athletes is a right thing to do. This is what several pro-Tibet protestors did to ethnic Chinese (French national) athletes in Paris this week. And people cheered the perpetrators.

China is not a monolith. It's 1.3 billion individuals, many of whom still love their country even though they may not agree with their government. Keep that in mind.

Messing with the Dalai Lama, let alone accusing the man of fomenting suicidal terrorism, is a recipe for disaster.

I find it hard to believe the Chinese don't realize that.

And, for the record, the Dalai Lama really is a peaceful, excellent person and carries a message well worth hearing (and I don't mean anything about Tibet politically).

"whose". Ugh.

McCain, Hillary and Obama should know better. Thanks to John McCain's good friend George Bush and the rest of his corrupt political party, the United States is basically China's bitch.

We're nearly a trillion dollars in debt with China and nearly one third of our $60 billion/month trade deficit is with China.

China has economic leverage over us, not the other way around. The only real leverage the US HAD over China was our military, but thanks again to the Republicans, our military is severely strained.

Push it much farther and could provoke them into f*cking us up the backside while the rest of the world watches on in bemused horror. They could flood the market with our debt instruments and bankrupt this country over night (we have to borrow money every month to pay our bills, and if a trillion dollars in US treasuries were dumped on the market overnight, we wouldn't be able to raise the money to stay solvent without jacking up interests rates... which would add to inflationary pressures and weaken the dollar, which would undermine confidence in the US dollar and our solvency, which would require even higher interest rates to compensate for the added risk... a negative feedback loop. If the dollar were to lose it's status as the world reserve currency - we're nearly there already - the rules about debt as a percentage of GDP which currently do not apply to us would start applying to us and could trigger a relative economic death spiral for our already weak economy).

This is more than hollow tough talk by John McCain and the rest, it's playing with fire.

Boycotting the Olympics might sound like a trivial thing, but China is trying to showcase its nation to the world. If you'll forgive the poor analogy, it's their prom night. Humiliate them on their prom night and, economically speaking, they could turn it into Steven King's horror movie Carrie. The Idiocracrats will get a moment of looking tough, followed by a generation of economic pain for everyone else.

Good plan.

Many of the comments here continue to think that there's a call for an Olympics Boycott. Maybe by some but most human rights organizations are not calling for that.

Orville Schell and others argue that global warming cannot be meaningfully addressed unless the United States and China get very serious very soon about working together on it. But it is so much simpler to boycott the Olympics and drive al Qaeda out of Tibet.

Its usually not a good idea to give your banker the finger...

Wait till China calls their loans due to them from the US (and Europe). Even a small fraction due would turn this economy over like a canoe on a stormy ocean.

Bush-McBush... Go right ahead boys... free trade, I tell you.

Man overboard!!!

PS: F Bush. F McBush. F Republicans.

Unlike twenty years ago, though, or even 2001, China is now somebody we can't afford to really piss off. It's a small matter of their hands being firmly on our financial gonads.

Kevin's point is well taken, but American leverage would be much greater had President Bush not committed to attend the opening ceremonies long ago.

Withdrawing now would produce a serious negative reaction among the Chinese, and would be hard for Chinese (and many others) to understand if it were based both on Tibet and the Darfur issue. Had Bush's attendance been negotiated privately with Beijing beforehand instead of volunteered, some concessions in terms of China's policy toward Sudan might have been available. On Tibet, probably not, both because of its greater sensitivity to the Chinese and because disturbances in Tibet began very recently, taking both Beijing and Washington by surprise.

In 1976 Jimmy Carter chastized Gerry Ford for coddling to Chinese dictators. Then Carter practiced amiable relations with them.

In 1980 Reagan chastized Carter for coddling to Chinese dictators. Then Reagan practiced amiable relations with them.

In 1992 Clinton chastized Bush for coddling to Chinese dictators. Then Clinton practiced amiable relations with them.

Because both sides chastized each other, only for both sides to continue the same diplomacy after elected, I automatically assumed that there was little difference between left and right in American politics for much of my childhood. As a result I practically ignored it as a subject. I figured that when a person was elected president, regardless as to his party, when elected, he did the practical thing in regard to civics. Since I thought they all practiced pragmatics regardless of party, it didn't matter who got elected, long as they were sane and rational.

That is, until September of 2000 when I was killing time in a McDonalds restaurant in Omaha, happened to pick up a piece of newspaper just lying there that had a column written by, I think Robert Scheer (spell?) then a sindicated columnist for the L.A. Times (I think). I had no idea who was right and left then, pundit wise. I read that Condi Rice, Bush's foreign policy tutor, was advocating for a fundemental change to Nato's charter that would, in effect, render it dead. It's at that point I realized that the Republicans that Bush represented were dangerously insane.

Nato for the U.S. is a force multiply on an enormous scale. For the price of almost token diplomacy (a willingness to listen respectfully to our allies and give their thoughts consideration) the next ten or so richest nations of the world basically put their armed forces at our disposal. How can you beat that? Why in all God's graces would you ever consider scrapping that?

We learned later, that the Bushies planned to perform illegal and insane foreign policy and so being in Nato makes them accountable to our allies. We have to explain to them what and why we are doing something. If you plan on doing things that are illegal and insane you, then explaining them to rational people is insulting and makes you look stupid.

So I learned by a very long route, that politics does make a difference. (Of course, I was really naive about Reagan, but at that point, still young enough to not pay attention or care).

Matt Yglesias, noting that John McCain is now calling for the president to boycott the Olympic Games opening ceremonies in Beijing....

Yeah, like Bush is going to pass up on his last chance to visit China all expences paid.

As 41 would say, "Wouldn't be prudent."

Rumor is the Tibet unrest was CIA stimulated. China has 800 million people living in poverty. It can be brought to a state of anarchy with little effort.

The Dalai Lama is pretty universally loved too, around the world, and for good reason with his message of compassion and humility, so when China starts accusing him of fomenting suicidal terrorism, very serious alarm bells start going off, and you start to fear for the future of humanity, if such a system ever gained control and influence over more than the billion people it already arches over today.

Honestly, any government that would seriously suggest that the Dalai Lama would encourage suicidal terrorism really doesn't deserve the Olympics or any other prestigious international event that celebrates peace and humanity.

I'm not about to defend China's record on Tibet.

But China sees criticism on this and on Darfur coming from citizens/politicians of a nation that:

- invaded a sovereign nation on a trumped-up threat and threatened/threatens to invade other nations on other trumped-up threats and a nation that unlike say Serbia refuses to bring the individuals responsible for this criminal act (not too heavy a characterization) to task

- has now joined the ranks of nations that torture

- refuses to cooperate with other nations on the issue of greatest concern (global warming)

As much as I detest Chinese actions in Tibet, it's hard not to have some sympathy for Chinese feelings that any criticism coming from America/Americans is just a tad rich. No one else recognizes this moral pedestal too many of you believe yourself to be standing on.

The grandstanding of HC and JM is totally counterproductive. It's a pity, Mr. Barack has joined them in this.

China will only change its behavior when China changes to a more democratic form of government. And to that end, the recent successful elections in Taiwan will do far more to influence the Chinese people to want/demand that change than anything we do here.

Andy: China will only change its behavior when China changes to a more democratic form of government. And to that end, the recent successful elections in Taiwan will do far more to influence the Chinese people to want/demand that change than anything we do here.

That hit a few nerves.

I say poppycock--and dangerous, deluded, and ignorant poppycock. Check Taiwan's or South Korea's history for clues. And talk to a few Taiwanese while you're at it (the ones who live and work in Taiwan or the mainland).

When a significant chunk of China's population is satiated and decide there might be something more to life than Stuff--cars, refrigerators, TVs, whatever--or when rulers screw up and those artifacts of "progress" disappear and the collapse of their rule makes those people feel at risk--then they'll start thinking about things like individual rights, protections, and the kind of government that goes with them. Until then, prosperity and security rules (aka, food, shelter and more Stuff), along with the government that can provide them.

Democracy is an important step for any country, and I celebrate those that successfully make that step. But the journey is as important as the end, and there don't seem to be any good (or at least universal) shortcuts.

PS Not to go too far OT, but that in a nutshell is the problem with Iraq. As a rule, prosperity and security and a large middle class with a vested interest in maintaining that security and prosperity--ideally looking for a little more than simply the ability to accumulate more Stuff--is a prerequisite for democracy, not a result of democracy. Get it backwards and you end up with Iraq, or any number of the other banana republics we've seen in the past 50 years.

PPS An anecdotal by illuminating case in point: I was in South Africa many years ago, during the apartheid years, and I had a very enlightening conversation with the gardener and maid of my host. They were illegal immigrants from Mozambique and Zimbabwe.

The gardener was in SA because that was the only place he could find work and send money back to family so they could stay fed and sheltered. The maid was there for similar reasons. At that time, neither gave a rat's ass about the right to vote, or any other aspect of democracy, individual rights and protections, or whatever--and spent little time dwelling on the the oppressive discrimination, both as a colored and illegal in SA. They had other priorities, such as figuring out how to keep themselves and their loved ones alive.

South Africa had a *huge* illegal immigrant problem from the *cough* "front-line" states during the apartheid years. You think the "coyotes" we hear about transporting illegals across the Mexican border are bad? The park rangers I met in SA--and many of them were not exactly equal-rights proponents--were incensed at the brutality. Those parks were favorite transit areas, the "coyotes" often literally left people to the animals.

PPPS Oh, and my hosts wife worked for a Japanese shipping firm and that was her job--getting stuff in and out of SA without getting busted. Very interesting job, and we had many educational (at least for me) conversations. And virtually all of the traffic she managed went through the front-line states who were most vocal in railing against SA and apartheid. Go figure.

As others have said, the US of A lost whatever moral authority it may have once had to criticize human rights abuses by other nations when George Bush (so to speak) decided to deceive his fellow citizens and their soldiers into an illegal, colossally stupid, and morally indefensible war.

Yeah, I know, everybody has Iraq fatigue, including me; but until we come to grips with the fundamental fact of our country's great violation of human rights and international law - invading Iraq - we will find no dignity, nor authority, in preaching to other countries. In fact, any and all attempts to moralize to other nations only further erode our credibility.

As for what to do about the Olympics, hell, that's a tough one. How about we say to China, "OK, we'll give you your Olympics, be on our best behavior, have a good time, celebrate this global event with you - if you promise to open a dialog about these issues with some neutral international body (ok, somebody has to work out the details) before the end of 2008."

But then, heck, what's the chances the Chinese will do that on their own. Are any international bodies having dialogs with the Americans about their human rights abuses?

And so it goes. We've got some very interesting and, it increasingly seems, turbulent months ahead of us.

Somethings to keep in mind:
1-most human rights organizations are not calling for a boycott of the Olympics. Rather, most of us are wanting to use the Olympics as leverage to lobby China on Darfur, Burma, Tibet, or on the oppression of their own people.

2-it's fine to say that the US has lost moral authority. In many ways it has. And a good way to gain that moral authority back is to not turn away in the face of another genocide.

3- the United States is not the only country in the world we want lobbying China around Darfur. It's only one of many, many countries...including countries who showed moral backbone in the lead up to the Iraq War.

4- Just throwing this out there as well: read Nick Kristoff's latest NYT's piece on Bush and Darfur. In it he mentions the valuable point that we need to start re-framing "Save Darfur" to "Save Sudan." The entire country is on the brink of horrific violence that would continue in Darfur but also all over. So there is no time to waste in getting China to get out of the way when it comes to UN legislation.

5- For the isolationists out there whose world view I do not share: please consider that there is an enlightened self interest to helping bring peace to Sudan. Also diplomatic work needs to be done with Chad. Desperate situations in non-Western nations breed terrorism on Western countries down the line (remember, bin Laden used to live in Sudan). One "trick" is to alleviate desperation before it comes to this.

There are many other ways to protest the Chinese actions in Tibet without resorting to any Olympic boycotts. A boycott is unlikely to achieve anything except to prevent athletes from participating in an event many of them have worked their entire lives to get to.

Boycott China where it hurts, stop letting them buy US Bonds. Oh, wait...

"A boycott is unlikely to achieve anything except to prevent athletes from participating in an event many of them have worked their entire lives to get to."

Is it their fault that the stadiums are built with slave labor and paved with the bones of the dead? Since when did speaking out against an autocratic regime with the blood of millions on its hands become more important than running around in circles and throwing things? Aren't our dreams more important than other dreams?

BTW the big protest seems to be boycotting the opening ceremonies as a gesture of our displeasure… I haven't seen any serious calls for not actually participating in the events.

OhioBoy +1

It's "all more of the same" - and it's a GAME! Despite the fact that our media is pretty SOFT on Obama and McCain (buthave THE CLINTONS under a microscope)there are few outlets existing (now I include blogs because so many have lined up in the "Oh, Obama touch me!" crowd)that have any contact with truth or transparency so the public can be INFORMED...that dog has died!!!

Unlike Tibet, which China will flatly never give in on

For the life of me, I have never been able to figure out why Beijing gives a shit about Tibet. Seems like it would be so much easier for them to say "OK, you're autonomous. Whatever."

It's hyperbolic comments from the likes of "sleepy" above that make this whole conversation pointless. Using the word genocide to brand China is the equivalent of Godwin's Law. All these accusations of "Cultural Genocide" border on hysteria. It's called modernization and urbanization you nimwits. Only a bunch of First World liberals and state-employed monks would prefer Tibet and its people to stay frozen in time with their poverty.

jon: It's called modernization and urbanization

Yes, kind of like the way we modernized and urbanized the Lakota. And damn, them Tibetans sure are putting up a struggle to keep their "state-emplyed monks."

And damn, them Tibetans sure are putting up a struggle to keep their "state-emplyed monks."


Most of them Tibetans protesting are enjoying their lives in First World countries and could give a rats arse about the poverty in Tibet and the guaranteed violence that would ensue should Tibet become independent. Remember those Iraqi exiles? Remember Chalabi? It's all wonderful and utopic until the bill arrives. Everyone has self-interests that aren't quite so noble, including the Tibetan exiles and the monks. Don't be pawns of others' political schemes.

There should be two conditions for independence:

1. The country you are breaking off from agrees. Otherwise, you fight for it yourself or have a stronger ally fight for you (which in Tibet's case, the US will certainly not do).

2. You can economically sustain yourself after you become independent, without a third government permanently based in your territory.

If you can't achieve these two conditions, you are reckless to call for independence, and risk the suffering and bloodshed of millions of innocent people for your misguided cause.

Hey Jon! Does it matter that I never used the word 'genocide'? I also never used the words 'cultural' or 'Tibet' either!

Most importantly, I never used the word 'Nazi'. That really is important when invoking Godwin's law. If I say "The Chinese gov't has done some really bad things and stood idly by while others did really bad things", you can't just jump up and yell "Godwin!" Not how it works.

And when you use the word "hyperbole", it refers to exaggerating for effect. When I said millions I really meant millions!

I think it'd be great if a couple athletes were to stand up and say "We can't in good conscience participate in these Games since we think they violate the Olympic Spirit of coming together in peace to respect moral universal principles". But I'm not asking them to do that and I don't see much clamor for a boycott of the Olympics.

Some people are saying maybe the leaders of the world's democracies should skip the photo opps and use this as an opportunity to register a symbolic protest against stuff we think is bad. And then let the Games begin. I'm one of those people.

That also happens to be the position of Human Rights Watch, but you probably don't have time for them either. If you get a chance, maybe you could check out their website… You might want to start with “One Year of My Blood: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in Beijing" (hrw.org/reports/2008/china0308/). I wonder what their so busy building in Beijing that they'd need to bring in over a million migrant laborers?

Hey Jon!

Wilson should of used these in Paris! Self-determination, but only if it doesn't cause a fuss.

What should the conditions be for invading an independent neighboring country and causing suffering and bloodshed for millions of innocent people?

If you go ahead and do it anyway, how long until its just the status quo?

By Jon's reasoning the US should never have declared independence. We would not have succeeded against the British without the French and the Hessians, so we were just being "irresponsible".

Besides, the Dalai Lama is not calling for independence, because he knows that is impossible and unsustainable. He wants autonomy for Tibet within China, to keep its culture and religion. I know it's hard for most of the posters here to understand, but those things are important to some people.

As for the claim that most Tibetan exiles don't care about Tibet, that is the kind of snide ignorant statement only someone who had never met any Tibetan exiles. I worked with Students for a Free Tibet, and we met many refugees, all of whom had suffered terribly in Tibet, gone through great struggles to leave it, and were passionate about helping their countrymen. So just because you in you cynicism never found a cause worth fighting for, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Liberals are not concerned about getting tough with anybody but Republicans. "I hate Republicans," screams Democrat chairman Howard Dean. Liberals spoke softly when the Soviets were around and before Reagan challenged them and then dispatched them to the ash-heap of history; liberals never mention jihad or islamic terrorism. Liberals live in utopia. "If we're not mean to them maybe they'll go away (if they exist at all.)"

Posted by: mhr on April 11, 2008 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

That 'mhr'....he's so funny!!

Actually, Kevin, channeling Matt, you're wrong. Obama has only called for a boycott if, in essence, things get even worse.

Obama has a friend among the group trying to land the 2016 Olympics for Chicago.

Coincidence?

So much for the "Politics of Change," eh?

Just. Another. Politician.

Frito Pundito, you should read my conditions again. The US would have qualified for independence. It had the military capability of defending itself from the British (helped also by the Atlantic Ocean). Secondly, the Americans were able to economically sustain itself after independence (afterall, that was one of the major reasons for American independence).

But Tibet fails both conditions. Hence, no nation-state is foolish enough to recognize Tibet.

I've met many Tibetan exiles. Many of them are just naive nationalist punks, like any other country's entitled nationalist punks.