Its funny becuase Democracy is exactly the solution to each of the problems you name, even while preserving China's legitimate national interests (rather than those of The Communist Party, don't conflate the two)

1. Tibet. Even the Dali Lama "Dog" has regonised China's historic rule over Tibet, and has stated that full independance is not sought. A democratic solution would be to allow a free and open depate in the region about tibet's status, probably ending with allowing tibet a stronger Provincial governement. One China 2, 3, 4, systems.... it has the potential to be a functioning Federal relationship similar to the USA and other democracies. The bottom line is let them be Tibetans, while being a part of China.

2. Tiawan. If China Democratized there is no longer even a conflict here. Of course Taiwan would probably also want a strong autonomous government, under the Central Governement setting national rules and foreign policy.

3. South China Sea. I'll reinterate, legitimate intersts. China's claim to the ENTIRE South China Sea is objectively laughable. In a Democracy with a free speaking population that's not fed Communist Nationalist propaganda through the media, there would be an open debate on the issue and the Chinese population would see how foolish China's claim to an entire region of ocean is. Problem solved.

4. Sino-Indian Border. Ok, this one is a little harder to solve through Democracy but again the issue is with free flow if information, debate and ending propaganda. As things stand now, the Chinese government cannot negotiate on the disputed territory, becuase any consession to reach a peacefully mutual agreement that does not end with the entire territory handed to China will be be denouced by Chinese hyper-nationlism as a show of weakness. The Communist Party cannot currently allow that because it currently derives its legitimacy in part as a defender of Chinese nationalism post-"century of humiliation." On the other hand, if the Chinese government dirived its legitimacy through real elections, and the true will of the people in a country where the free flow of information and open debate is encouraged. Then there would be more freedome to make reach a mutually agreeable deal with concessions from both sides.

The key difference is that Democracy will allow the government to approach problems with finding a solution in mind, whereas the current Chinese government much approach problems with its primary concern being maintaining its own power.

1. Tibet. Some people want Tibet Independence, which clealy violates the current China anti-secession law. Democracy does not mean freedom of law violations.

2. Taiwan. Will the US welcome a democratic and unified China, under current Taiwan Relationship Act? Or will the US still keep selling weapons to Taiwan, to keep a democratic mainland and a democratic self-ruled island divided (as the current status quo)?

3. South China Sea. I don't think a democratic China will give up the claim of marine rights in the region, by vote or by referendum.

4. Sino-India Border. I doubt the possibility of the willingness of the democratic Indian government to give any concessions in bilateral negotiations.

In global games, sure democracy can help, but geopolitics matter most no matter how democratic you are. That can well explain many pending issues between democracies in today's world.

Democracy won't necessarily hinder China’s objective on Tibet and Xinjiang or any ethnic issues.

China can follow the USA’s footstep of coercive progressive social agenda, selectively.

Three factors should be the focus.

First, freedom of expression does not mean any expression at any place and at any time. Even in the USA, demonstration requires a permit, which can be denied on the simple realistic ground that disorder is likely and fund for police overtime is lacking. Study the US response to the recent “occupy” movement.

Second, just allowing demonstrations does not mean that a government has to heed the expressions in the demonstration.

Third, allowing democratic participation from minorities does not mean that the USA has to yield on its assimilative policy, such as related to the Akaka Bill of 2000 that could have granted cultural autonomy to the Hawaiians.

China can give its Tibetan citizens a small platform to demonstrate with very heavy police presence if it really wants to and this will not affect any assimilative effort.

Note the in New Kent county VA, black parents under the “freedom of choice” program were given the freedom to choose segregated all-black schools or integrated schools for their kids. 85% chose to send their kids to segregated schools (surprised!) . The Supreme Court ruled that they were no to have such freedom. It ruled that the outcome of integration (cultural genocide/!) was paramount and black parents were to be compelled to send their kids to integrated schools so that their kids will have to sit next to white kids 40 hours a week. Note carefully. Demonstrations against busing were fervent and allowed. The elitist and progressive mind of the government has been firm and unyielding. The crux is that a democratic government must allow freedom of expression to a degree, but is never obliged to heed the message of the demonstration.

Nor will minority participation in the democratic process undermined assimilative policy. In rejecting the Akaka Bill of 2000, the US Senate simply and summarily claimed that there is an American “tradition of assimilation” so the Hawaiians do not need any autonomy. The Akaka Bill could have granted the Hawaiians cultural autonomy. Many Hawaiians demonstrated fervently but their message of self-determination was not heeded.

Democracy does not impede coercive policy toward assimilation, but democracy is expensive in terms of cost of crowd control. Police overtime is very costly. A rich country with a long tradition of freedom of expression can afford token protests to message of which it has absolutely no intention to heed. A poor country like China might not, and once protests on ethnic issues are allowed then those on other issues will have to be formally, then China will have to spend a great deal more on crowd control.

China now in fact allows some demonstartions, those that are deemed manageable.

The underlining factor is still money for crowd control.

Democracy does not hinder assimilation of Tibet and Xinjiang and does not impede reunification with Taiwan.

But democracy is NEVER the instructment of assimilation.

Assimilation always has coercive element because there is an extremely wide gap between the subjective feelings of ethnic elders' toward cultural preservation vicariously through their offspring, and the objective virtues of assimilation that is salubrious to a country.

No coercion exposure, no assimilation.

Assimilation is the only desirable social goal.

1. Tibet. Current Chinese law is not the issue, and in a Democratic China such a law would be repealed (if as I understand from your post it makes illegal merely wishing or talking about seccession). There are people in Quebec, Canida who want to seceed, their are people in Texas, USA who want to seceed, there are people in South Carolina who want to seceed. So what? Let them talk about it, let them want it. Doesn't hurt China one bit.

2. The purpose of the Taiwan Act will no longer exist and it will be happily repealed. That goes without saying. With Taiwan and China happily reunited, there would be no reason to continue selling arms to Taiwan, as the only reason the USA currently does so is to prevent an invasion from the mainland. The USA doesn't have problems with the Chinese people, only the undemocratic Mainland gov. that likes to kill and lock up its people.

3. South China Sea. Maybe it won't. An open and honest public debate is important.

4. Sino-India Border. You are wrong on this one, Stable national government's conceed territory relatively commonly in bi-lateral negotiations. Educated citizens given all the facts will favor stability in foreign relations over stupidly holding on to a grudge. Same for SCS

The idea of an anti-secession law is really laughable. How many countries have pro-secession laws? Yes, we encourage you to separate from the country, as quickly as possible.

Further, the Scotland can leave the UK, Quebec can leave Canada, and neither country is worse off for it. If anything, the Scots and Quebecois would probably be happier and have better relations towards the country than ever before. Chinese are simply way, way too sensitive about this whole sovereignty nonsense, to the point where you can't even talk about alternative theories without being labeled a traitor.

power with alliance, and mercantile relationships with friendship.

Taiwan never really stood a chance against the PRC's claim on being the one and only China. This much was already recognized in the West as early as the 50s. China didn't really need any allies to win Taiwan's seat in the UN, although the Nixon visit certainly helped. Likewise, China won't need any friends to convert Taiwan into HK II. Its ability to do so will not depend on its network of alliances, but simply on its overwhelming heft.

And obviously, trading relationships do not equate to friendship. I shouldn't even have to say that.

It is time to recognize that China does inspire fear and loathing in its immediate neighbourhood, and not blame this on some sort of neo-colonialism by the West. People sometimes unfairly focus on China's faults, but this is inevitable given the PRC's status as a rising, authoritarian power with blood on its hands that have not dried yet (figuratively speaking).

As far as China is concerned, this is a very good situation.

It has to manage trade relations with the West and Japan, but as long as it manages trade relations there is not much to worry about from mere suspicion from other countries.

What could the USA do as long as China does not act aggressively? It always will have increasing capabilities, but intents and willingness to forego goodwill will be more telling. In the SCS dispute, China has already indicated that it will not be the first to use force or the threat of force to settle disputes. Just having the much bigger stick is threat enough, even if China does not brandish it. China will throw its economic weight around and then compromise some and then settle.

Fear and loathing is too much of an exaggeration; concerns are very real. Inter-governmental relations between China and SE Asian countries are still and will be manageable. These countries need China economy; the governments know but the people may be more fervent. China doesn’t want to use force and it won't have to.

China needs to better manage its internal affairs like environmental problems. Internationally China is in fine shape, lonely or not, US "pivot toward Asia" or not..

It just so happens that without the critical support of third world countries in China's accession vote at the UN, Taiwan would probably still represent all of China at the security council. It also happens that trade relationships are extremely important in forming real relationships--two trading countries could be diplomatically cold towards each other, but two countries will never be close without the economic ties backing the friendship.

And should I mention that there are no friendships between countries? I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an example when a country even sacrificed its short-term interests for the sake of another country.

"And should I mention that there are no friendships between countries? I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an example when a country even sacrificed its short-term interests for the sake of another country."

not true.

Israel to the USA is precisely one such relationship, both short term and very long term interests.

There are the religious, ideological, and puppy dog factors, not only interests.

It is not true that the Jews control the USA; some Jews control too many Americans willing and yearning to be controlled.

To refute Betalover's il-logic

1) This is false, because all of the democratic and freedom advocates are thrown into jail. That doesn't mean it's not important to the Chinese, only that the government persecutes those that advocate it.

2) Communists killed more Chinese and destroyed more Chinese culture than the Japan and West combined, yet Betalover forgot about that.

3) Why would Taiwan want to be a part of Mainland China? Did you ask them? Something like 2% want reunification. Just because the mainland is big and strong doesn't mean they can eat up anyone they like. Further, recent polls have shown that fewer HKers feel Chinese than in many years past. How can Beijing convince Taiwan should be absorbed when they haven't convinced Hong Kong yet?

"1) this is false, because all of the democratic and freedom advocates are thrown into jail. That doesn't mean it's not important to the Chinese, only that the government persecutes those that advocate it."

I don't know what this refers to.

Observe empirically that there are generally two ways for a country to become democratic. First is economic progress that creates a major middle case that aspires for democracy such as in South Korea. Second is being conquered by a later repentant aggressor that felt obliged to spread democracy to its subjects (England-India).

“2) Communists killed more Chinese and destroyed more Chinese culture than the Japan and West combined, yet Betalover forgot about that.”

I don’t think the Communists killed more Chinese than the West and Japanese combined. What is your source? My college text books indicate that with the exception of the period 1958-1961, Chinese economic progress was quite significant and the Chinese population doubled between 1950-1979. I have never made any comment on Chinese culture from this context

On Communism in China, it was made prevalent on the backdrop of an ideological tempest. What caused the Chinese to be so fervent after WWII? Their suffering for the past 150 years at the hands on the West and Japan. Constructive thoughts should center on China’s recovery from such ideological tempest; intellect should appreciate the history that has led to such ideological tempest. It is pointless to be accusative now.

“3) Why would Taiwan want to be a part of Mainland China? Did you ask them? Something like 2% want reunification. Just because the mainland is big and strong doesn't mean they can eat up anyone they like. Further, recent polls have shown that fewer HKers feel Chinese than in many years past. How can Beijing convince Taiwan should be absorbed when they haven't convinced Hong Kong yet?”

I never comment on Taiwan’s right of self-determination. May be Taiwan should have such a right. The Taiwan situation is different from that in Tibet. I agree that freedom is valuable to human happiness (ethnic culture is not).

My comment on Taiwan centers on reality. The first is that Taiwan will be helpless. The mainland will harass Taiwan’s abjectly exposed energy link with very little force and Taiwan will be economically paralyzed. The USA will not START a war that will destroy Taiwan. Hong Kong II is in the offing; such is reality.

The second is that what matter most to Americans should be whether China’s design to recover Taiwan forebodes that we cannot get along with China. Self-determination for Taiwan cannot be the prime consideration.

Peace and humanness will be paramount over any ideal of self-determination.
Peace is relative. Single digit casualties on the crew of an oil tanker leaving Taiwan c 2040 will be peace; 7-digit casualties if war broke out will be inhumaneness. The USA will not rob Taiwan of the chance to negotiate for a niche within China. The USA is too decent and will certainly see the bigger picture when the time approaches, more clearly starting may be 2025-2030.

Your right, the Jews do not control the US. It's a small number of people claiming to be Jewish that have control of the US and most other country's aswell.

- Zygor

China hardly practices avoiding foreign entanglements, even a grade schooler can see that. It blunders through Syria, Norway, Africa, South America, etc.

Quite frankly China's current foreign policy of deceit and blatant landgrabbing is increasingly looking to be the real "f**king stupid way", as it has given a reason for a major US return to the region, and smelling like f**king roses while doing it.

China's lack of allies increasingly becomes a burden as it continues to rely on the outside world for resources. Hell the US practically feeds a large portion of China anyways. They wouldn't have the guts to take on the US lest a quarter of their population starve.

China's lack of allies is hampering it on all political fronts, and don't you fuc**ng tell me allies are not needed in geopolitics, such arrogance is something China should have thrown away 200 years ago.

The rest of the countries around the world aren't China's tributaries, they are equals. China must acknowledge that and deal in an inclusive manner, or watch as its 3000 year old history burns to ash and is left to rot in the trashbin of history.

Oh, sure, it has a foreign POLICY, and by that very nature it has foreign RELATIONS.

But it doesn't have allies, and the reason why may be as simple as this: it has made the decision that "alliances" lead to "entanglements", and it would rather not be so entangled.

Relations, sure. But obligations, no.

And isn't that what an "alliance" really is i.e. a formal treaty of mutual obligation between two or more signatories.

The USA loves 'em, and can't understand why China doesn't embrace the idea.

Maybe, just maybe, the Chinese can't understand why the USA thinks that "alliances" are a good idea.

Who's to say they ain't correct?
After all, whose treasury is bulging with cash, and who is cash-strapped?

China is slowly building up its relations around the world where it suits them. They need resources from Africa, so they invest heavily. They need technology from Europe, so they invest heavily there too. As both regions need the money from China, it is a win-win situation, without burdensome and unnecessary political obligations. The US prefers to have great photo ops about leaders signing charters of mutual understanding and like, but what is the point? The rewards can be reaped (for both parties) without an alliance, moreover, there are no auxiliary obligations. Having no allies but many partners gives you what you want, but saves you from being obligated to go to war for them. Elephant in the room: US-Israeli relations. It landed the US small economic benefits, but large and unnecessary military burdens. China would never give such an "ironclad" commitment to any but the strategically most important states (like North Korea which is on their border).

China would love powerful allies to help push its interests internationally. The problem being most of the developed world has a distaste for autocracy these days. That coupled with a long history of antagonizing nations surrounding it doesn't help it either.

They would love to project military power abroad and have made attempts to start such things, but don't have the money or ability. Right now an invasion of Taiwan would be described as a "million man swim".

Its very tough to say a country is doing things well when they were capable of evicting over a million people just to build a temporary olympic village.

China is in a bubble economy which will make ours pre-2008 look like a quarterly dip. They are hardly known for economic transparency. Whatever you think you know about their situation, is probably wrong. This is a country with a ridiculously inflated construction bubble, a vast gulf between those living on the coastline and the very large interior and the inability to get along with its neighbors.

They are very much dependent on the US as the main market for the cheap goods produced there and for capital needed for industrial growth. The problem for China being that the West has alternative countries for the same things. India, much of Latin America and South East Asia provide labor just as cheaply and don't have the attendant headaches dealing with China entails.

China sure does not need lets-march-together for war WWI type ally.

China does not need the tail that wags the dog type ally, like Israel to the USA.

"China hardly practices avoiding foreign entanglements, even a grade schooler can see that. It blunders through Syria, Norway, Africa, South America, etc."

I have two Master's degrees and I don't see major foreign entanglement.

These are all small issues (syria) or small in comparison to gain (Africa) for China.

The fatal entranglement that the USA suffers from called the ME for Israel dwarfs such "entanglements" by orders of magnitude.

Is Israel a friend to the USA? Is the USA not lonely due to Israel?

Oh c'mon now Anon. Buddy, why you so angry.

I am adhere to International Relations's Neo-Realism line of thinking. All rational nation-state actors are concerned about security and surviving. There are no "real" long term alliances and allies. A bi-polar model is inherently more stable than a uni-polar (definitely) or possibly even multi-polar world (not fully sold on this).

In a uni-polar world, all eyes are focused on the hyper-power country and ill-will and blame is also directed at the hyper-power. In a bi-polar world, power is balanced and disputes are handled via proxy skirmishes.

Get real, with your crap about other countries are "not being tributaries and are equals". A country with 30 million population and a GDP 20 times less is an "equal"?! When has this ever been the case in human history. All powerful states have circling satellite states. Power and wealth are not created equal. A small and weak state with little resources are ALWAYS ignored except when national interests of the powerful state aligns with it.

Anon, stop being so angry and naive. Learn the governing rules that drive the system.

Not many critical international relationships are based on trust.

Investigation, expectation with probability, knowledge about motivation, history and intent form more bases for durable realtionship than trust.

Trust is really a rare article in international relationship.

Says who? You?

So sorry, but the Chinese had said no such thing, and acted in no such manner.

Spood is simply assuming that because the USA just looooooves to sign alliances then EVERY country must be green with envy at all those wonderful friends that Uncle Sam has.

The classic example of someone who can't step out of his mindset and, therefore, can not conceive that others might think differently.

I'll repeat: the most likely reason why China doesn't have alliances is because it thinks that "alliances" are soooooooo 20th century. That in the 21st century there is much more utility to be gained by currying favours within an ad-hoc grouping like the BRICs, rather than to sign treaties that impose mutual obligations upon China.

All the benefits, with none of the entanglements: what's not to like about that?

I say there is friendship among a few countries.

USA, UK and Canada are really friends for more issues than otherwise.

Israel-USA relationship is more than friendship. A tail is wagging a dog so masochistically wanting pain.

The China–NK relation is not just calculated gains either. There is an ideological element to it.

...Issues dealing with the border of India, Taiwan's national sovereignty, control of the South China Sea. The list goes on.

Every time they have tried in the past, it has been failure:
-They failed to dislodge UN forces in Korea
-They were beaten back by the Soviets in 1969
-They were beaten back by the Vietnamese in 1979
-Its war against India in 1962 was a diplomatic disaster for them.

China doesn't extend its force beyond the immediate region because they lack the ability to do so. They don't brandish power because they don't have it. You are mistaking lack of ability for virtue here.

Whaaaaaaat?

If the Chinese had wanted to assist a North Korean takeover of South Korea then the PLA would have been there from the very beginning, at which point the "war" would have been over before anyone could wake MacArthur from his afternoon nana-nap.

The Chinese did not intervene until it became obvious that MacArthur was going all the way to the Yalu River i.e. they came into the war to eject UN forces from NORTH Korea, they did not take part in the fighting to overrun SOUTH Korea.

Q: Did the PLA manage to dislodge UN forces from NORTH Korea?
A: Oh, yeah, they were spectacularly successful in achieving their aim.

Those UN forces retreated South quicker than they had previously advanced North, and in less than to months every UN soldier had scuttled back over the 38th parallel.

Indeed, so quickly that I believe some US battalions are still looking for their battle flag.....

Because all rational states are essentially governed by similarly thinking elites. In selectorate theory, the winning governing body is selected by a winning coalition. In a Democracy the size of the selectorate (active voting members, political insiders, special interests, and large institutional players) are much larger than autocracies (power-brokers, political insiders, special interests, and institutional players). As can be observed, there isn't all that much difference. It all comes down to the winning coalition.

Observe the GW Bush Jr. 's win in 2000. He won only 49-51% of actual votes. His winning coalition was composed of big corporations, evangelicals, pre-dominantly white males, foreign policy hawks. His winning coalition only composed of at maximum half of the USA population. President Obama's winning coalition in 2008 consisted of first time voters, pre-dominatly African Americans, urban dwellers, college educated professionals, and etc. Even Obama's winning coalition probably consisted of roughly at maximum 60% of the population. Both presidents were elected with a lot of help from powerful power-broker champions, special interests, political insiders, and institutional players.

Autocracies, or at least China's style of Politburo are actually similar (though distributorship is very different). At the end of the day, the elites that govern states and help shape policies share much more in common at times than people realize.

No, I do not believe in "real" long-term alliances in general. But I also believe that autocracies and democracies can form long-term mutually beneficial relationships.

"The Tibetan issue has to be settled by assimilation."

Didn't the Serbians used to call that ethnic cleansing? So in essence you are trying to make a point for genocide or at least at the cultural level.

Maybe the problem with Tibet has been that it was part of China out of a modern conquest. That sort of behavior tends to breed resentment. Its occupied territory. A place which was autonomous before it became part of China. Its not like they had a choice to join the country.

"Tibetan minorities should be given the chance to practice their religion in the proper places with only minor limitations, as the situation is now."

Of course another problem China has is NOBODY gets to practice their religion in a way which is intended. Those "minor limitations" tend to be ones which amount to a level of interference many with a religious bent consider persecution.

OK, coercive busing is genocide

Ok, just cultural genocide.

"Didn't the Serbians used to call that ethnic cleansing?"

Please, ethnic cleansing is not assimilation. In fact, it is the polar opposite.

Is Obama a product of assimilation or ethnic cleasing?

Why and whay not?

The "message against bussing", was nothing short of pure racist hostility. Of course it was not meant to be heeded. It was the kind of behavior the government sought NOT to give sanction under color of law. You also don't get the nature of protests in this country.

We are not like China, we don't crush protesters under tanks and shoot them on sight. If the protests aren't violent destructive, or on private property they are allowed by the government. The government has the burden to prove its actions to break it up were necessary. As opposed to China where it is assumed the protesters do not have the right to public assembly without official sanction.

Btw the Akaka Bill was rejected for many reasons having to do with the possibility of creating a semi-segregationist situation on Hawaii and could lead to the disenfranchisement of native Hawaiians. Autonomy being used as an excuse for discrimination and removing people from political power.

"Coercive assimilation" is essentially the government attacking the personhood of its citizens. Showing a blatant disregard for individual liberties for the purposes of furthering government ends. The US tried in in the late 19th/early 20th Century. It didn't end well. It was a sign of the racism of the times more than anything of benefit.

The "message against bussing", was nothing short of pure racist hostility. Of course it was not meant to be heeded.

Is it racist to say no to my black kids having to spend ten hours a week on a school bus so that he can sit next to white kids 40 hours a week? I don't think so. Is it bigotry for a Tibetan Chinese to say non-Tibetans should not be here, that is within 100 miles from me?

"We are not like China, we don't crush protesters under tanks and shoot them on sight."

Yes, the USA is not like China.

The USA has a per capita income now of over $40,000, and with wealth and education came social progress. The USA has a long tradition of freedom of speech.

The USA is also the usurper of a continent who has extracted a lot of wealth form it. Oil/mineral, forestry, fishery, land agriculture that is far more land intensive than labor intensive. Prudhoe Bay as part of Alaska was bought from the Russians. The USA also imported slaves who are racially drastically different from their masters.

For the past two hundred years, the USA has benefited from aggression while China had suffered from it. What do you expect from a China that has suffered this way and is only recovering? Don’t forget the situation that China was in after WWII that gave rise to the Communists and the ideological tempest. There is a cause for such ideological tempest; it is the recent experience of a country.

“Btw the Akaka Bill was rejected for many reasons having to do with the possibility of creating a semi-segregationist situation on Hawaii and could lead to the disenfranchisement of native Hawaiians. “

Tibetan autonomy should be rejected for many reasons having to do with the possibility of creating a semi-segregationist situation on Tibet and could lead to the disenfranchisement of the more secular Tibetans.

"Coercive assimilation" is essentially the government attacking the personhood of its citizens.

Coercive assimilation implies mind control on an individual. If you respect a human being, do not easily say that he or she is subject to “coercive assimilation”. Coercion is on the parents so that there is exposure of his or her offspring to the majority and other minorities.

We never have “coercive assimilation” in the USA. We have coercive exposure of which forced busing of kids and the rejection of the Bill are parts.

Is there prevalent “coercive assimilation” in China? I would say NO. The minority elders fear that their offspring will not choose cultural preservation. This is their gripe.

The Tibetan and other ethnic languages are allowed in China. It is sociological deterministic that they will likely be marginalized. As Nike says, “Just do it”. Don’t mind if your offspring or kinfolks will or will not. This is American; otherwise is Un-American.

Spood:

I hope you don't think that only whites protested against busing.

Black parents did very vehemently as well. They wanted their black cultural ID.

Remember malcohm X; you must be crazy to want integration; we want separation, not segregation. There is some Malcohm X in most ethnic parents mind, vicariously for their offspring.

I hope you don't think that during the Civil Rights movement most blacks jumped with joy at the chance of mixing their kids with white kids and a chance to have white in-laws. The same old store, culture, culture and culture prevailed.

A progressive govrenment cannot yield to the wishes of the present generation of minorities to seek cultural isolation.

Assimilation is not ethnic cleansing. In cultural cleasing, a culture is deliberately washed away, together with the human packaging. In assimilation, cultures have the chance to be integrated, may be even with the human packaging treated as a lover.

Love is not the same as hate; assimilation is not cultural cleansing.

Please understand some social issues before you opine. If you are white, I hope you know that many minority youths do not want their culture; they want to have the same chance as any white man to make love to your daughters.

Yes, even when their parents sought cultural preservation thru them.

You are an idiot! The main objection to bussing didn't come from the black kids or their parents. It came from white people in the towns the kids were going to school.

Please stop using it as an analogy. You don't know a goddamn thing about it beyond some extremely screwed up propaganda take on it. It was a crap example the first time, all you are doing is showing an ignorance of conditions from the US almost 40 years ago.

Its like if I referenced Mao's murderous policies as an example of China today and claimed he was a Christian Fundamentalist. Not only is it not current, its factually incorrect. Just like your posts.

And we still don't run over our protesters with tanks nor jail people for life because of their political views.

"Tibetan autonomy should be rejected for many reasons having to do with the possibility of creating a semi-segregationist situation on Tibet and could lead to the disenfranchisement of the more secular Tibetans."

Tibetan independence is a much better policy. Btw it wasn't even something I really cared about until you showed me what arrogant pricks the Chinese government are to them. Your blase attitude towards what amounts to cultural genocide and essentially colonialism just rubbed me the wrong way.

"While protests against the rejection of the Akaka Bill were staged"

What would you know about staged protests? Are they the only ones allowed in China?