Centripetal vs Centrifugal: China, Tibet and the Dalai Lama

To understand the complicated Tibet Question one must separate what is "political Tibet"(a defined region)from "ethnographic Tibet"(a vast area where ethnic Tibetans historically reside). The Dalai Lama, the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism and the presumptive political leader of the Tibet Autonomous Region, believes that Tibet is actually the larger domain. To Beijing "Region" designates Tibet as an area within China. The conundrum deals with the heady debate over nationalism and whether political units should directly parallel ethnic units. Do a people have a right of self-determination and independence or does a state have the right to protect its historic territorial integrity by preventing secession? Lincoln decided to maintain the Union at all costs!The former Yugoslavia is a major case study. The Dalai Lama appears to be an opportunist, an expansionist with imperial or dictatorial propensities, who has relied on western anti-Beijing sentiments,stemming from the 1949 Communist Revolution, to further his agenda. On historical records alone China wins the debate, and the Dalai Lama is increasingly irrelevant in political affairs. But, he remains very popular in the US, among the misinformed and uninformed. Rank and file supporters are well-intended, but sadly duped by corporate media.Interestingly, the British invasion of Tibet in 1904, to force trade agreements upon Tibetan officials, muddied the waters for the Dalai Lama. When,ironically, Britain(the conquering power)obtained forced Tibetan concessions, it had to secure China's approval, which then and today confirms or reaffirms China's legitimate authority over its dependency, Tibet! Britain could make concessions because it had no interest in bringing Tibet into the British Empire. Maintaining good trade relations with China was more important to London. The US took interest in Tibet during WW ll and became heavily invested during the Cold War era(ostensibly to frustrate and embarrass Beijing). But the US,too, had to appease China to further trade ambitions. Time and again western powers, including the UN, turned their backs to the Dalai Lama's independence claims and appeals. Simply stated: the Dalai Lama and his advisers in Dharamsala thought they had the upper hand and could compel China to give away both political Tibet and a vast area beyond with an ethnic Tibetan population. They continually refused to negotiate in good faith with Beijing. I believe that short of secession or anything that might dilute de jure Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, Beijing was intent upon reaching a mutually agreeable Tibet Solution. The Dalai Lama's circumvention in the selection of the tenth Panchen Lama in 1995, was another miscalculation, and further proof to Chinese hardliners that the Dalai Lama was untrustworthy. The Chinese leadership continues to believe that the Dalai Lama would insist on political autonomy for Tibet, which China will not accept. The Dalai Lama is 73 years old(b.1935). Some believe that a solution will not happen until after his passing. Dharamsala seems to be sitting on its haunches, while Beijing is assertively transforming Tibet. The Dalai Lama's vision in too imperial and he has made too many diplomatic blunders. He has been too temporal and not spiritual enough. Tibet is but another example of competing political and ethnic movements: the centripetal and the centrifugal--peoples and nations coming together as one world or spinning off in fragments. At the very moment the world is coalescing, it is also splintering. If the latter prevails there will be no peace and no livable human habitat on the planet.