Wang Lixiong, a Chinese writer who recently helped author the twelve suggestions open letter to Beijing signed by 30 Chinese intellectuals and dissidents, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today.

I am a supporter of the Dalai Lama’s “middle way,” meaning autonomy for Tibet in all matters except foreign affairs and national defense. This arrangement eventually would have to mean that Tibetan people select their own leaders — and that would be a major change from the way things are now. Tibet is called an “autonomous region,” but in fact its officials are all named by Beijing, and are all tightly focused on their own personal interests and the interests of the Communist Party. Tibetans can clearly see the difference between this kind of government and self-rule, and there is no way that they will support bogus autonomy.

It follows — even if this is a tall order — that the ultimate solution to the Tibet problem must be democratization of the Chinese political system itself. True autonomy cannot come any other way.

It is time for the Chinese government to take stock of why its long-term strategy in Tibet has not worked, and to try something else. The old problems remain, and they are sure to continue, perhaps in places like the “Uighur Autonomous Region” of Xinjiang, if a more sensible approach is not attempted.

I think Wang is fundamentally right in the assessment that the most likely resolution to the Tibet question for China will likely have to be proceeded by the democratization of the Chinese government.

Earlier in the piece Wang also had this sensible assessment of the recent weeks’ events in Tibet:

It should be no surprise that beatings of monks and closings of monasteries naturally stimulate civil unrest, or that civil unrest, spawned in this way, can turn violent.

I would only add something that I know Wang is familiar with: that the beatings of monks and closings of monasteries that took place in response to the peaceful protests of March 10-14 were proceeded by 50 years of beatings of monks, raping of nuns, destruction of monasteries, and oppression of lay people. The response surrounding the March 10th protests may merely have been the final straw that lead to civil unrest.

China continues its practice of using dog and pony shows guided tours to substitute for real access to Tibet. This time, instead of journalists, the Chinese are bringing a group of foreign diplomats to Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. The US, UK, and France will have representatives in the tour, though the US doesn’t think this is enough:

US state department spokesman Sean McCormack said the trip was a “step in the right direction”.

“But it’s not a substitute for the ability of our diplomats, as well as others, to travel not only to Lhasa, but into the surrounding area specifically,” he said.

The biggest difference between diplomats and journalists, as I see it, is that diplomats don’t carry video cameras and microphones. On some level, the risks for China of another interruption of their guided tour by Tibetans who want to tell the world what has been done to them are diminished.

The Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian government has levied the harshest criticism of China’s human rights abuses and violent crackdown in Tibet thus far:

The Canadian government yesterday called China’s recent repression of the protest movement in Tibet a “military crackdown” and took the Dalai Lama’s side in some of the strongest criticism any Western government has levelled at China so far.

Peter Van Loan, Government House Leader and Minister of Democratic Reform, expressed concern yesterday that human rights are still being violated in Tibet.

“We’ve shown our support for the Dalai Lama, for the people of Tibet. We want to see human rights respected there. And we will continue to do that,” Mr. Van Loan said.

“Right now the priority has to be to see a return to peace in Tibet and an end to the military crackdown that has taken place there and a genuine respect for human rights.”

When asked whether his government believes the Chinese authorities have made the necessary efforts to “genuinely respect human rights” in Tibet, Mr. Van Loan’s response was categorical.

“Obviously we are concerned that it is not happening right now and we want to see a return to that,” the minister said.

While senior figures in Western governments have urged restraint and warned China to respect human rights, they have generally avoided terms like “military crackdown” to describe China’s response to protests that turned into violent confrontation on March 14.

Good on Canada. I’d like to see more of this candor and principle from the world’s governments. And then I’d like to see these statements of clear principle backed up by action: withdraw from the opening ceremonies at the Olympics, withdraw from the Olympic Games in Beijing, demand that China allow foreign journalists unfettered access to Tibet, author resolutions at the United Nations condemning China’s military crackdown in Tibet. All you have to do is meet principle with action and the world will change for the better.

Robert Thurman, preeminent Tibet scholar and father of Uma, has a piece at WashingtonPost.com titled, “China Needs the Dalai Lama.” It’s a powerful article and this passage stood out to me as best capturing the moment that has been created for there to be resolution to the Tibet question resulting in freedom for Tibetans.

The promise of the present moment has been precipitated first by the innovative leaders of China, gingerly stepping out into the glare of world publicity and opinion by hosting the Olympic Games and second, just now, by the brave people of Tibet stepping out on their own past the plans of their leader and, against great odds, standing up for the truth of their existence as Tibetans. Risking their very lives, they protest the total destruction of their culture, environment, and way of life. They have done this in the spirit of nonviolent resistance, although decades of bitterness and the extremity of their present situation did cause some of them to lose sight of this foundational principle of their struggle and commit some acts of violence. They stood up to the firing of armed Chinese troops, they raised their flag of freedom, and they remain standing in spite of the massive loss of life and liberty they knew would come.

The Dalai Lama didn’t ask them to sacrifice themselves in this way. He tells them he will resign if they commit more violent acts, even exceptionally, and he agonizes over the vengeance the hard-line authorities can be expected to exact. At the same time, he and the rest of the world stands in awe of the extraordinary depth of faith being exhibited by his brave people, an echo of similar courageous acts witnessed in the last century during the Civil Rights struggles in the U.S. and South Africa.

As David Dayen wrote yesterday,  “The Tibetans can and will be free, and China’s remaining in denial will only harm them more in the end.”

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk says he won’t go to the Beijing Olympics’ opening ceremony because of China’s violent crackdown in Tibet. The BBC piece also says that “French President Nicolas Sarkozy has not ruled out a boycott of the opening ceremony.”