A Now A Word On Tibet

Since I know you all have been holding your collective breath to read what this blogger thinks about this situation.

These days discussion regarding Tibet in Canada centers on whether we should boycott the Olympics and if Prime Minster Stephen Harper should take a strong stance regarding Tibet.

The short end of it is this: China should never had been given the Olympics to begin with. Its human rights record, though vastly improved in the last 30 years (Tianamen Square notwithstanding) has been abysmal. Now China has exposed itself in an unfavorable light before the world. Alas, human rights issues take a backseat to what China is doing economically. Too much is economically and financially at stake with China.

And yes, taken in its totality (by this I mean considering both sides of the equation), the Prime Minister should assert Canada's moral voice on the issue. Harper is the type of leader that is willing to take such action.

As for Tibet itself, all I will say is that Tibetans don't necessarily want outright independence but autonomy within China. They demand China respects Tibet once and for all with dignity and integrity. Sounds pragmatic to me. Sometimes you need to swallow your pride and compromise. Is it in China to do this?

However, I'd like to pose this question:

Is the situation there similar to Canada's claims to the Arctic (and the Dene) and Quebec? I ask this in recognition of the fact that Tibet has been occupied by Communist China since 1949. Speaking of which, can we contemplate physical occupation and a psychological one that regions Quebec and Nunavut have argued in order to gain concessions from Ottawa?

I'm surprised our resident nationalist nomad Mario Dumont hasn't hopped and skipped to Tibet to learn about how that society survives under true oppression.