Comments on Huw Slater “Tibetan autonomy: A compromise three-state solution”, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/22/tibetan-autonomy-a-compromise-three-state-solution/
I have no experience or expertise in terms of autonomy governance.
While there is some common understanding how autonomy works, in reality it is likely to be more complex.
For example, what about the rights of non-Tibetans in any of those areas mentioned by the author and their role in the autonomy proposed or insisted by Dalai Lama?
Should they have equal rights as Tibetans, or should they have fewer rights?
I don't know how many non-Tibetans in those areas and their share in the populations.
But it can be expected they may be significant and that can have serious implications for how the autonomy can work.
It is probably inappropriate to ignore their presence and not feasible to ask them to leave to make the region more pure in terms of ethnicity.
But unfortunately most commentators do not mention their presence and its implications in their analysis.
After all, this is not too different from the Northern Ireland situation where you have two groups that have or had different aspirations or goals.