Wow, on the defensive much?
Ok first of all, Third Echelons don't mean shit. The peasant running can't really oppose the federal government in its main policies, it's mostly like a chamber of commerce and small petty village policies. In a highly centralized government, the municipal district officer is elected....wow.
Democratization in the west? Which country? what do you mean took thousands of years? England might have took a few hundreds. After WW2, most of Western Europe adopted democracy fairly quickly Poland did not take long at all either. I haven't heard much from Spain since they declared elections (in what? the 1970's?).
Glasnost was half ass democratization (much like China) and subsequently it failed. I'm not saying China is failing, but I see little improvement in its democratization, it's in fact been going down hill since Deng Xiaoping.
Further, the USSR was in an economic shit hole MUCH worse than China. Are Chinese supermarkets' shelves empty? Is unemployment staggering? So it hardly correlates.
USA supports autocracies? That means what? I didn't say a single thing about the US........... defensive much.
Give it time, seems like time is not helping democratization in China to me.

I was just illustrating how pointless claiming legitimacy over land is. No one can do this aside referendums.
Tibet has NOT been part of China for thousands of years. It might have given tribute to China once in a while, but it only came under Chinese rule during the Yuan Dynasty when it was simply allocated as the same administrative region for the Mongolian Empire. Then lost in the Ming dynasty, and given back to China as the de facto ruler during the Qing dynasty.
Eitherways, legitimacy claims mean NOTHING. You just proved it to yourself with the German example.
And yes, Germany own Shandong, whether your friends want to ignore history of not. I'm not saying it's right, I'm simply illustrating that occupation doesn't mean a single god damn thing.

***owned Shandong as a colony.

^^Further, if you want to tlak about the economics of it, then you should know that economics is the allocation of scarce commodities. Since market equilibrium cannot be achieved in any other way than the free market, and since the government of China and its people have realised this since its Gai ge kai fang (open door policies), then economics is no longer a matter of democratization. If there were votes tomorrow, market equilibriums all over China would be the same, unless of course the People elect some extremist militant anti-freedom party, which I doubt it will do since China's economic success and which CCP supports should doubt extremely since the CCP is supposedly so great.
Economic growth would persist through elections, decentralization and referendums -- if not increase evermore, like in any other country in the world.

If there had been free election in 1949, I bet the commies would have won by a landslide

If legitimacy over land is pointless, then we have Tibet now. Period.

Please enlighten me on the Queen's influence over the UK government and the Anglican church.

Perhaps. But this is what the guys you support want, as this is the nature of their government in Dharamsala. Has their Parliament ever voted against the wishes of the DL? There was a documentary by the Swiss Public TV that touched on this issue.

And here is another article on the actual working of the exiles government.
Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

By supporting the exiles, you're alienating the Chinese (Han or otherwise) who actually believe in more autonomy for the Tibetans.

The Queen is the head of the constitution - the government is called by her, her signature brings laws into force. The Queen is also head of the Church of England.

Did I say I supported the TGIE?

What I would like is for the Tibetan people to have what they want. If the Tibetan people want to be part of the PC then that's great. If not, then that'd mean they're being oppressed. To that extent, I support calls for greater openness and democracy in Tibet - it seems to me that that's the way to know what Tibetan people want.

I agree that there's a danger that the debate will become polarised, squeezing out moderate opinion. Thoughtless criticism of China makes it harder for Chinese moderates (and thoughtless counterattacks by Chinese nationalists likewise makes things harder for Western friends of China).

__________________
No Fear No Hate No Pain No Broken Hearts

To all the rest who advocate "non violent" struggle, tell that to the Free Tibet groups, some of which are fundamental, overzealous and violent.

Quote:
"Maybe it is time now for the 'Tibetan People's Uprising Movement' to use the means of suicide attacks to carry on the struggle" ... time to change the "tactics of struggle" as "there are opportunities for the Chinese to take advantage of the line of non-violence" ... The TYC would seek to achieve "Tibet independence" as soon as possible at any cost, and the means of suicide attacks could be used

Cewang Rigzin also clamored for a worldwide boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games.

The remarks of the TYC head have drawn strong criticism from many Italians and overseas Chinese in Italy.

It's "absurd and wrong" to use suicide attacks to solve "the Tibet issue," said Paullo Salom, the Corriere della Sera journalist in charge of reports on China and East Asia.

xxxx

It's an "extremely horrible" act of terrorism to seek "Tibet independence" through violence, which is bound to be condemned by the peace-loving people, said Vittorio Mancini, chairman of the Italy-China Friendship Association.

It's a mistake to politicize the Olympic Games, he added.

The TYC, a hardline organization affiliated to the Dalai Lama supporters, was established in 1970 in India, upon the order of the Dalai Lama.

Shortly after its establishment, some TYC members declared that they would "use violence forever" to seek "Tibet independence."


Chief Tibet separatist clamors for suicide attacks

oneworldtalk :: View topic - Tibet Youth Congress Seeks Independence through TERRORISM

And the Dalai Lama has little influence over these extremist groups.
Improvements can be made within framework of one great nation, mutually beneficial, but not seccession that many so call freedom campaigners are confused and have muddled all the issues together.

Time is not helping USA - going backwards on freedom and betraying founding fathers' ideals.

Smallpox, Europe and China never wanted to be occupied and fought successfully against Japanese, Nazis, German, etc.


Nonetheless, sustained occupation over many years does give some legitimacy. That's history and realpolitk. As in the case of Ireland and Scotland.

US Administration and western countries that support autocratic regimes - including free Tibet are hypocritic. They can pick and choose who and what they want to support, and has proven detrimental to their national interests. Just that. Sincere friends with good intentions would discuss and counsel not use clandestine means to break up another sovereign country.