I think the issue lies mainly with the fact that the slogan of the movement has become 'Free Tibet'.

Granted, the invasion was relatively recent. But removing the Han Chinese from Tibet would be rather like removing the Israelis from the Holy Land or the Spanish from Latin America. They're already there, they're entrenched and you're only likely to end up with violence if you try forcibly to remove them.

So the idea is: what could a reasonable modus vivendi look like? One that respected the culture and traditions of Tibet, of course, and that gave them some meaningful autonomy.

Which is a bit more nuanced than 'Free Tibet'. But it doesn't fit so well on a placard.

Just to be clear - I find China's "one world" bollocks distasteful, and I think Beijing treats the minorities like shit.

But as someone very much the product of the imperial age - UK/US dual national, Hispanic, with indigenous American and African slave blood also in my veins - the idea of trying to undo the social changes wrought by imperialism seems to me as feasible as separating out which bit of me is the result of which part of my DNA.

Much more practical, to my mind, is to try to find a way to be constructive with the DNA you've got.

Edit to add -

I realise that there have been 'successful' anti-colonial movements - successful in that they got rid of the foreign oppressors. But often local elites have stepped in to fill the power vacuum, adopting the same tools as the colonists they just usurped and continuing the same systems of extracting the surplus from the masses. So to be honest I find it difficult to support anti-colonial movements just because they're anti-colonial - sometimes the new bosses the same as the old bosses, just with different colour skin.

Which is why I tend to support the Dalai Lama's calls for greater autonomy for Tibet rather than calls for 'Free Tibet'.

I never mentioned benevolent imperial rule? Whether China did it for the han chinese or for Tibet itself makes no difference but Tibet is certainly improved from the days of the fuedal theocracy, and you are oversimplifying buy assuming Tibet will be better off just because the dalai lama is back, a man who was born into the role not through his own merits but by the timing of his birth who has not been too tibet since he was 13 years old.

Thurman: Your Holiness has said that in the future, when Tibet is free, you
would cease to be the head of the government of Tibet. Is this because you
would like to introduce the democratic principle of the separation of
church and state to your nation?

Dalai Lama: I firmly believe democratic institutions are necessary and very
important, and if I remained at the head of government, it could be an
obstacle to democratic practice. Also, if I were to remain, then I would
have to join one of the parties. If the Dalai Lama joins one party, then
that makes it hard for the system to work.

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/mother.htm

If you bother to find out about whom you are talking about you maybe surprised to find a very humble, compassionate and wise man.

Buddha.