During its long history China never was an expansionist power and yet never abandoned lightly any inch of gained territory. The notion of Yellow Peril originates in the Mongols, the most expansionist people in the history of mankind, not in the Chinese. The common absorption of China and Tibet by the Gengiskhanids, in the 14th century, put an end to their old rivalry. Since that time, Tibet has always been considered somehow as a Chinese protectorate. Even though most Tibetans would certainly prefer to regain their independence, the protectorate is at least de facto accepted by both the Dalaï Lama and the international community. A Tibetan war of Independence would mean nothing else than a war between India and China, a most unrealistic prospect. The only thing at stake for Tibet is therefore a possible return to home rule within Chinese borders. Can this happen?
Humiliating China over the Olympic Games can achieve little. Chinese nationalism would be exacerbated to no avail. On the other hand, the international community is not prevented from stating that the Chinese presence in Tibet is acceptable if and only if the cultural and legal internal autonomy of Tibet is achieved. Should this stance be adopted simultaneously by the United States, Japan, India and the three main European countries, not precluding discrete and yet firm prospects of commercial sanctions, this strategy would have a limited but real chance of success. Its current trade balance makes China ultra sensitive to such pressures.
However, would the International community be willing to keep a united front that China should try to break by using Game theory and extending here and there commercial favors? Odds are high that any single player having a greater advantage in betraying the group than in obtaining a collective advantage, will indeed betray the group.
This is how the world goes.
