A provocative argument. Tibet has nothing to show for its well-intentioned pacifism, says the author.
Tibet today has the distinction of being the world’s largest colony. In official Chinese documents, it is classified as “Water Tower Number One”— a source of prized minerals and hydropower. Since annexing Tibet, Beijing has relentlessly disfigured it. It has mined and carted away its mineral wealth, dammed and diverted waters from its bountiful rivers, herded innumerable Tibetans into communes, stamped out the expression of Tibetan identity, and annihilated whole ways of life.
Does the author have also some evidence for statements like, "Beijing’s refusal to deal with him [the Dalai Lama] has eroded some of his authority within the Tibetan community in exile," and other claims or is this just a baseless rant?
Let's be honest, I could post an article about Sichuanese cuisine, or C-pop, and you'd get upset and say it was pro-Beijing.
Does the author have also some evidence for statements like, "Beijing’s refusal to deal with him [the Dalai Lama] has eroded some of his authority within the Tibetan community in exile," and other claims?
The statement is unfalsifiable. And the article expresses an opinion. That opinion is generally deeply hostile to the Chinese government. But still you find a way to comb its every phrase looking for some shred of "evidence" of wrongthink. This behavior is typical of an authoritarian mindset.