The idea that MFN is somehow responsible for China's repression in Tibet is profoundly wrong.

The Han Chinese culture has been in an extended civil conflict with Tibet culture for many centuries.  This is not a new conflict that emerged over the past 50 years.  

As with, for example, Russia and Kazakhstan, or Persia and Azerbaijan, it is just not clear where "China" (in the Han sense) ends and where Tibet begins.  The concept of "Greater Tibet," for example, encompasses not only the Tibet Autonomous Region, but also parts of Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan provinces -- all of where unrest has been occurring in recent days.

To be sure, the Tibetans are the aggrieved party for the past 50 years.  Beijing is being incredibly short-sighted in refusing to talk to the Dalai Lama, who recognizes Chinese sovereignty and renounces the use of violence.  It's entirely possible that one day the Chinese leadership will profoundly regret this, much in the way Israel now regrets cutting a deal with the PLO in the late 1980s, when it had the chance.

But I think that at least some consideration must be given to the broader civil conflict.  Certainly the analogy that some have been drawing between China and Nazi Germany is deeply misplaced.

Periodically you find Mexican nationalists who want to reclaim "Aztlan" (i.e., the U.S. southwest) for Mexico; most people think they're batty, and a few conservative radio talk-show types react with alarm and demagoguery.  

I think this is perhaps how Han Chinese view the prospect of Tibetan independence.