Tibet

Tibet needs to be mentioned, although I'm not going to pretend to have any coverage of it, that what the internets is for (and a lot of places have done a good job). Here, for instance, is the NYT's Week in Review. Besides the loss of life, and of the Tibetan culture, it is rather sad to see how empty the West's stand on democracy, self-rule, and human rights really is. Might is right, that is all there is. The US can invade Iraq because no one will stop Bush (either politically or, in terms of the invasion, militarily). The West can declare Kosovo independent because we have troops on the ground. Tibet is screwed (that is a technical term, widely used in international policy circles) (that was humor) because China invaded in 1950. Kurds, Basques, Native Americans (you could write a paper about how Native Americans have some level of autonomy but I still won't get it, but they do), all have been mentioned as examples of nations without states (or is it states without nations?). Castells covers it all pretty well in his trilogy. So, why Kosovo and not Tibet? Might makes right.