Damian posted a week or so ago about the situation in Tibet, suggesting that things might not be quite so black and white as they were being painted in the media. I agreed; I had the same response as I do when I hear of any ’separatist movement’, namely when is it legitimate for a group of people to demand sovereignty and when should they be told to shut up and accept that they are part of a bigger nation state and they’d better get used to the idea?

I don’t pretend to have a pat answer to that question, by the way. I just wish other people wouldn’t leap so reflexively to the side of the perceived underdog without thinking through the implications. Are we supposed to support, for example, demands for independence in Aceh and West Papua? If not, how can we rationally distinguish those situations from that of East Timor? There might be a good case in support of different treatment but I never heard Alexander Downer make it. Why was it OK to support separatism in Northern Ireland but not in Mindanao? In both places the justification hinges fundamentally on alleged religious incompatibilities. Why are we expected to cheer for the Tibetans but condemn the Tamil Tigers as terrorists?

There are no glib answers to these questions and I just wish people would consider them with a bit of calm thought instead of getting all ‘Boycott the Olympics that’ll show the bastards!!’ about it.

A thought-provoking piece appeared in the Asia Times yesterday. It suggested that the CIA might have a hand in the Tibetan troubles. I hasten to say that I found the article unconvincing; it was completely speculative and the circumstantial evidence that it relied upon was thin. Nevertheless it remains true that many people in Washington, including the Bush Administration, would welcome the embarrassment that the Tibet situation will cause China. Moreover they must be delighted that for once, the despised lefties are just as vocal as the conservatives about the perceived Chinese oppression. It must be great to have the whole nation finally unite behind a bit of Commie bashing.

If the American Civil War broke out today, I wonder how many international voices would support the right of the North to use force to prevent secession … and how many would advocate the rights of the separatist South to go it alone if they wanted. The latter would be the majority view I suspect, but you don’t read many views these days that Lincoln was a great oppressor of human rights.

This is not an argument that all these issues should be decided on pragmatic grounds. They have a strong moral and ethical dimension. I just think many people are a bit too quick to adopt the dominant moral view presented by governments and the media, which tends inevitably to be a simplistic black and white one. Complex situations deserve calm considered analysis, not sloganeering.