Here we will follow the Tibet question

Today, just a remain of the problem
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/4152353.stm

Here is a chronology of main facts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/6299565.stm

On 1 september 2005, China marks 40 year ruling Tibet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4203624.stm

Before opening the debate on Tibet, are the main facts on that area
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456954/html/ nn0page1.stm

One more archive article on Tibet future before realy open the debate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4942412.stm

But before to debate the Tibet question : who is the dalai lama ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1347735.stm

It's OK, after I gave you some archived articles, that's the fact that push me to rise the Tibet question
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6929462.stm

Can Tibet keep its culture under PRC rule ?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/14/news/tibet.php

Dear Jaques,

I think it's the right time to raise the question of Tibet. With the countdown to the Olympics this issues might bring about changes in China's policy towards Tibet.

Illegal occupation of another state has be a cardinal sin in international politics, isn't it? Does it makes the difference because it's in Tibet and not Palestine, or Darfur in Sudan. If it's wrong for Russia to invade and occupy Afgahanistan and Vietnam to Cambodia why should it be a different standard to China illegal occupation of Tibet? Was it because of trade?

China should be made aware that it's not right to be accepted as a civilised while it's conduct of propping up illegitimate regimes merely for the sake of quenching its thirst for energy.

Business will be as always wouldn't shy away from making quick profit, ethically or not. It's the shareholders who have to make their intention clear about investing their money.

As for various Olympic committes they will use their mantra of not mixing politics and sports. Is that possible though? If China was denied of its bid to hold the Olympics in 2000 because of its poor human rights record then how much have changed now?

Thanks for raising this question and we should have more views on this.

First : Thank you Warazein for your contribution.

The historic Tibet was much more large. It was divised in three province : U-Tsang, Ambo and Kham.

The current Tibet (Xizang) is mainly U-Tsang and Qinhai province was Ambo. Kham was the eastern part of the current official Tibet, plus a part of Sichuan and even a small part of
Yunnan. The Southern part of Xinjiang belonged to U-Tsang. <br><br>Post edited by: Jacques, at: 2007/08/17 10:50