On the Issue of Tibet

There’s an American senator named Charlie Keel. He believes that China occupied the country of Tibet in 1951. Many Americans believe in this claim as well, mainly because their geographical knowledge is too poor. Recently, the American media starts to spread this false claim again, and they said such things like even though Japan changed history in its textbooks, China also concealed the occupation of Tibet. This post will clarify many things and review some history with you.

In 1951, China occupied Tibet, this is a fact. The reason is that as the Chinese Civil War ended, Chinese troops from 1948-1951 not only occupied Tibet, it also occupied Heilongjiang, it also occupied Hainan Island, it also occupied all provinces of China. So occupation of Tibet is natural, because Tibet has of course always been a part of China. Now you may scream hysterically and yell, “Math! Prove it!”, well what’s the rush, why don’t you let me show you.

In mid 13th century, Tibet was formally included into the map of China’s Yuan Dynasty. The emperor named Kublai Khan gave the authority over Tibet, and established the “Central Ruling office” (Zong Zhi Yuan in Chinese), this office was responsible for all the Buddhist and Tibetan affairs of the nation.

In late 14th century, the Ming Dynasty inherited from the Yuan Dynasty the system of governing towards Tibet, and implemented the policy of “Paying money and titles to local Monks and Monestaries, and respecting their political power”, and this made the relationship between the Central government and Tibet even stronger.

After the 17th century, the Qing Dynasty increased their rule over Tibet. In 1721, it sent 4 powerful Tibetan “Ge Lun”‘s to rule Tibet. In 1727, it sent a representative-governor to Tibet. In 1792, it published 29 rules regarding the affairs of Tibet. And those rules were about reincarnation of Llamas, local laws, economies, military, foreign affairs, etc. This symbolized that the Qing’s rule over Tibet is legalized and systematic.

When the Republic of China was first established, it declared China to be a Republic containing the Han, Manchus, Mongols, Ughers, and Tibetan ethnic groups. Sung Yat Sen wrote in the declaration that, “The foundation of a nation depends on the people. Uniting Hans, Manchus, Mongols, Uighers, and Tibetans to be one nation and one people, is the unity of the people.” And the temporary flag of the China then was 5-colored, representing the unity of those 5 ethnic groups.

In March 11, 1921, the Nanjing temporary gov’t published the “Temporary laws of the Republic of China”, and it stated: “The Chinese territory is of 22 provinces, plus Mongolia, Tibet, and Qinghai”. “All Provinces and Inner Mongolia, Outer Mongolia, Tibet need 5 representatives, and Qinghai needs one…”. This clearly states that Tibet was a part of China, and has political involvement in China just like other provinces.

In 1927, The KMT gov’t was established in Nanjing. Jiang Kaishek wrote to Dalai and Gelun, in which he said “Even though Tibet is far away, it is a territory of China.”

In 1947, the Nationalist gov’t published the Constitution of China, and it says “China’s territory includes Tibet, and without a vote in the Assembly, this status cannot be changed.”

In 1931, May 5, the Ninth Banchan in Tibet went to participate in the National Council, and he made a speech called “Tibet Is A Part of China’s Territory”. This Banchan traveled across China for 14 years, and made great contributions to the unity of different ethnic groups. In December of 1937, he died. But even before his death, he urged to make the ethnic groups more unified and that is the best for China.

On March 29, 1948. The Constitutional Council had a a national meeting. And 13 representatives from Tibet attended. There are 3 law makers from Tibet: Bu Dan San Bu, Ba A Wang, Da Zeng Dang Que; Three inspectors from Tibet: Tu Dan Ce Dan, Ba Za Xi, Dan Ban Peng Cuo. 5 committee members: Ji Jing Mei, Cai Reng Tuan Zhu, Tu Dan Ni Ma, Luo Sang Jian Zan, Na Wang Jing Ba: Three seniors: La Ming Yi Xi Chu Cheng, Ji Yu Jie, He Ba Dun. Luo Sang Jian Zeng was even hired to be a member of the council of National Policy by the President.

So from the Yuan to Ming to the Nationalist gov’t, each gov’t recognized Tibet as part of China and each increased their relationship with Tibet.

So of course Tibet has already been established as part of China, much earlier than when the “Puritans” landed in the Americas. In fact, those histories are not important at all. The important thing is that Tibet is currently a part of China. When America occupied Hawaii, Hawaii could also be considered an independent nation. But America occupied it, so what’s wrong with it? When America occupied California, Nevada, Utah ,Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, wasn’t Mexico also an independent nation? But America took many lands from Mexico, so what’s wrong with it? People often accuse China of destroying Tibetan culture, but Tibet today has more monestaries and monks than it had before 1951. And who destroyed the culture of Native Americans? In fact, China did a very good job of preserving the original culture of China’s ethnic groups than America preserved the Native Americans’ culture.

I hope after reading this post, you will be more open minded and learned more history.

March 14, 2008 @ 11:21 am | Comment

Yeah…the post didn’t say anything about whose territory it was, so nice quick cut/paste job without, you know, actually doing any reading.

BTW: I agree with Math regarding Qing political history, though Tibetan language sources from the time suggest the Manchus weren’t as welcome as later Chinese historiography would have us believe, before that it’s a little murkier than what he suggests too. Others might also be interested in historian Tsering Shakya’s writings on the period between 1913 and 1952 as well as Fudan professor Ge Jianxiong’s 2007 article, “To exaggerate the size of China’s historical territory is not patriotic” which argues that issues of control and resistance are rather fraught when it comes to the Tibetan plateau region. I’m not necessarily disagreeing, just pointing out the question is far from as clear as either Tibetan activists or Han nationalists would suggest.

For the record, I’ve always thought the PRC should take a firm stance of “We invaded it. It’s ours” and go from there rather than use history, which is always an uneasy ally in contemporary political disputes.

(Side note to the other admins: How did I lose the bet so quickly? You guys were right…I’m too much of an optimist.)

March 14, 2008 @ 11:33 am | Comment

Math’s reading Qing history is rather naive. The fact that the Qing court promulgated rules for the administration of Tibet is no proof that the Qing empire actually exercised jurisdiction over Tibet; it only states that the Qing had an ambition to rule over Tibet. The same goes for all the other documents he cites (but probably never has read in the original).

The intensity of Chinese rule over Tibet today atypical historically; at no point in time prior to 1951 did China or any Chinese dynasty exercise full sovereignty over Tibet.

March 14, 2008 @ 11:43 am | Comment

Amban,

You’re putting me in the odd, awkward, and unprecedented position of defending Math.

While the Ming almost certainly had little if any direct control (a historically difficult term to define in any case) over the region, the Manchus after the 1750s did exercise authority through their garrisons, working with local elites as they did later in Xinjiang. That said, generally speaking–and there were exceptions–the Qing ruled with a relatively light touch, especially compared with the PRC.

But before we go down this road…because I know we will eventually before this thread is over…and while this may seem odd for a history teacher to suggest, I’m personally more interested in what happened this week rather than in the events of the 18th century.

March 14, 2008 @ 11:50 am | Comment

I think we agree more than you may think, when I talk about sovereignty, I mean the modern sense of the term. I am aware of the fact that the Qing sent officials (called amban) to Tibet and that there was a garrison in Lhasa. But that was more to prevent Tibet from being invaded by Nepal than to exercise full control over the region. Western statesmen typically used the term suzerainty to describe Qing supremacy in the area. Many of the arrangements that were promulgated by the Qianlong emperor soon fell into disuse, and if my memory serves me right, several Dalai Lamas were appointed without reference to the famous set of rules.

As for working with local elites, yes, that was the ambition, but until we have access to Tibetan, Manchu and Chinese archival collections held in Lhasa, it is very difficult to assess the precise nature of that cooperation. What we do know is that the Qing never attempted to integrate Tibet into the Chinese administrative system until the last stumbling moments of the Qing dynasty.

What all this means for Tibet today has more to do with how much weight we are giving to popular sovereignty in comparison to the harsh realities of geopolitics. So in that sense, yes, what happened the last couple of weeks is more interesting.

March 14, 2008 @ 12:12 pm | Comment

Amban,

You raise an excellent point: We still don’t have access to all the sources necessary to really look at this question historically. Even at the Number One Archives here in Beijing, asking them to pull materials relating to Tibet and Xinjiang can be quite a hassle.

As you said too, using modern concepts of sovereignty can be problematic when looking at historical questions, even the nation-state as it exists today is a relatively recent form of political organization. Good comment, raises all kinds of great issues to ponder.

March 14, 2008 @ 12:20 pm | Comment

If you are genuinely interested in the finer details of the Tibet history, you can read up the vast quantity of old posts in USENET newsgroup talk.politics.tibet. To me after a while, it gets incredibly boring — sort of, who cares?

Tibetan culture such as music is pretty hip in China nowadays. If you are into meditation & spiritual style of music such as those played in the Buddha Bar or seemingly all Ibiza radio stations, Tibetan music could be your thing.

March 14, 2008 @ 1:18 pm | Comment

Jeremiah, you raise an excellent point about thinking about this week rather than 200 years ago. I personally find discussions of Chinese sovereignty over different lands quite tiring: after all, America is no longer under the control of Britain. Vietnam and Korea are independent countries. Things change…
The discussion of history, I believe, deflects attention from the pressing issues at hand, such as the fact that Chinese rule of Tibet has not been very nice, to say the least. And I personally believe that no degree of historical claims should distract us from this quite unfortunate fact.

March 14, 2008 @ 1:22 pm | Comment

Good comment, ferin, but you are banned for now. Maybe forever. You can’t call people names like you did earlier today. I’ve warned you many many times. How can you be so stupid?

Richard

March 14, 2008 @ 1:52 pm | Comment

These protests come at a really inconvenient time for China. Imagine if a Free Tibet flag was fling over Everest when the Olympic torch is taken up to the summit – that’s why China has closed down the whole north side of the mountain until then. Imagine if Tibetans went on hunger strike and started dying while the Games are in progress – a PR nightmare for the PRC.

And to colonialists like like Math: if the people of Tibet want to be free why not let them be free? Just give them a referendum.

March 14, 2008 @ 5:39 pm | Comment

@Jxi
“If you are into meditation & spiritual style of music such as those played in the Buddha Bar or seemingly all Ibiza radio stations, Tibetan music could be your thing.”

A pity that Tibet does not look so peaceful like Ibiza.

What kind of music are playing now on Tibetan radios?

March 14, 2008 @ 7:16 pm | Comment

kevin and michael are entirely correct – it doesn’t matter who did what to whose granny. what is clear is that the tibetan people are marginalised in their own country and have no right to debate their own future other than through the ccp prism. i think little will come of this as the ccp would literally rather die than accept any form of genuine tibetan autonomy.

before people come along and say “you are british but you would not accept scottish independence or irish reunification” i’d just like to say that i would – provided it was done through a free and fair referendum. the reason ireland isn’t reunited and scotland isn’t independent isn’ t because opposition is violently put down, but because those espousing those views don’t have enough support at the ballot box. so please don’t bother with the ad hominem.

March 14, 2008 @ 7:19 pm | Comment

As a matter of timing, I actually think they would have been better off waiting. I don’t think the world’s attention is fully focused on China yet.

What if they did this in July or during the olympics when many foreign visitors come to China, many are actually in Tibet, and the world media is focused on China?

China might have a tougher time repressing them (I mean “stabilise the situation through democratic administration of the temples”) during that period.

March 14, 2008 @ 7:30 pm | Comment

Hate to say it, but anyone could see this thing coming.

How deftly the Chinese security units handle these incident will have a positive or negative effect for the Olympics games. Like it or not.

Beats me why the Chinese government do not hold talks, public or secret, with the Dalai Lama. The man is quite reasonable, I believe a convenient agreement for both sides could have been reached.

Given the popularity of the Dalai Lama abroad, (like it or not), it could have been a good public relations coup for China. Maybe too late now. A lost opportunity?

I can well imagine a crisis scenario. Monks demonstrations in Burma, Tibet and India. Hunger strikes to the death, some bonzos(?), Tibet flags on the stages during the events, security units been pod casted while trying to remove them, athletes and tourist protest against security clamp down and internet firewalling, nationalistic (over)reaction of Chinese people/government

Disclaimer: I do not live in Ibiza, neither am I t a fan of Buddhist music/philosophy/religion.
I am agnostic, scientifically minded and prefer modern Celtic Music.

March 14, 2008 @ 7:37 pm | Comment

And do not count the Falung Long people out…

March 14, 2008 @ 7:40 pm | Comment

I was at this televised campus debate about Tibet a few days ago, and I cracked some Liberal skulls.

I do think history is a relevant part of the issue, but I only raised it to counter the Liberal myth about China coming out of no where and conquered Tibet for no reason.

So if you do wish to debate about history, please do enough research before initiating the debate.

Otherwise, I will tell you what I told my audience: the struggle in Tibet is a class struggle, not an ethnic struggle.

This conflict is about the feudal theocracy/aristocracy wanting to wrestle power from the new, modern Bourgeoisie state, i.e., the CCP. Because the Tibetan priesthood, like all feudal theocrats do, believe that they should hold on to both political power and “spiritual leadership” (whatever that means).

No self-respecting Bourgeoisie state would agree to that, and like all Bourgeoisie states, it attempts to regulate religion. And THIS is what the whole thing is about.

March 14, 2008 @ 7:42 pm | Comment

@jinhan

have you entered some sort of competition to see who can fit the most schoolboy marxist generalisations into one post?

don’t suppose you could tell us when this televised debate was and who broadcast it?

@ecodelta

the reason why the ccp doesn’t hold talks is because having spent 60 years demonising the dalai lama, they can’t back down now. if they admit they are wrong about this, the whole pack of cards collapses. it isn’t like the cultural revolution where they can just say some dead loonies took over.

March 14, 2008 @ 8:11 pm | Comment

Ecodelta, I don’t know what type of music played on radios since I’ve never been to Tibet (TAR or the “Great Tibet” where Tibetans have been minority at least since Karl Marx was born).

According the 2nd hand information I gathered, other than Tibetan music, Chinese pop (or should I say Han Chinese pop?) is very popular there. During the shooting of “A World Without Thieves”, Andy Lau was often surrounded by Tibetan fans. Not quite NYT or Reuters or CSM worthy material, but I suspect FAR — I mean REAL FAR — more closer to ground reality.

BTW, if you haven’t done that, I strongly urge you to check out “A World Without Thieves”. In my opinion, it’s one of the best film in the 00s worldwide.

March 14, 2008 @ 9:32 pm | Comment

@Jxie

My question about music in Tibet radio stations is allegoric/ironic. Usually in political crack downs you may just get military/patriotic music through the airways, therefore my question about what if been radioed right now (if anything)
I think you missed the irony in the question…..

On the other hand.
Thanks for the film tip. I will certainly check it out.

Taking the chance some off topic questions…
I keep hearing that current music scene in China evolves at a highly rapid rate. Could you provide me with some tips?
What it is considered “classical” modern music in China (something equivalent to the Beatles, Jimy Hendrix, Dire Straits, Police, Bruce Springfield” but in Chinese time frame and taste)
What is rabiously modern today among young people? ( please cover several styles)
Any electronic Music “a lá Kraftwerk”?
Any mixture of modern and traditional music like Hevia?
Are there any similarities between pop culture and singers of china , taiwan, korea and japan?

March 14, 2008 @ 10:20 pm | Comment

@Si

I think the same too.

March 14, 2008 @ 10:23 pm | Comment

@ecodelta
Check out Cui Jian. He’s totally rad.

March 14, 2008 @ 10:27 pm | Comment

The latest..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23629811/

March 14, 2008 @ 10:39 pm | Comment

@Jinhan
“and I cracked some Liberal skulls.”

Using just logical arguments or something else…. ….heavier and more solid?

Just kidding. Could not help it 😉

March 14, 2008 @ 11:34 pm | Comment

The situation in Lhasa appears to be degrading quickly, and this is the kind of stuff that’s very difficult to put back together once it falls off the wall. Reports of racial violence (Tibetan versus Hui, Tibetan versus Han), markets/cars burning… and a Chinese government hesitant to use force.

I really don’t see how it gets better on the short term. Tibet is really bifurcated into two segments. The religious + faithful (which represents a large majority in Tibet) versus those who’ve bought into China’s economic/social structure more fully. It’s the former that’s rioting, and I don’t think the latter have much influence over them.

In my opinion, only the Dalai Lama, or the overwhelming use of force, can end this at this point.

Look at Kenya. It doesn’t take much for racial violence to spiral out of control. It doesn’t take much for people who considered each other brothers/sisters to start focusing on differences and similarities, and to start redirecting their dissatisfaction on part of life onto others. I don’t think for a second Tibet will descend into people taking machetes at others… but while the scale is different from Keyna, I think the trend is similar.

It’s very tragic. The impact of this week will resonate on China (certainly the Olympics) for years, and on Tibet for decades.

I think this is an indictment on Beijing’s failure to relax and seek compromise on Tibet sooner. Beijing has made huge compromises in terms of a potential political settlement with Taiwan; why has it been completely unwilling to do so in Tibet? Why are relations with Tibet essentially frozen in 1980?

It’s very possible that Hu Jintao’s former posting as party secretary in Tibet brought him too close to “retired cadres”, all of whom are going to be absolutely opposed to the concept of any compromise with the Dalai Lama.

If I were in power in Beijing, which I’m obviously not, I’d have a few firm points on which I would not compromise:

– complete separation of church/state. Monks must focus solely on religious matters;

– refuse to carve out a large “super-Tibet”, assigning regions of Sichuan/Qinghai to the TAR on the basis of race along;

– anti-session law;

– all races must have equal legal rights in Tibet;

… but everything else, all other forms of autonomy, I think Beijing should be willing to compromise on. If Tibetans in Tibet prefer to educate their children in Tibetan, let them do so.

I hope it’s not too late to work out an agreement. In ’58 and ’88, the Dalai Lama saw this sort of instability and violence as an opportunity to gain concessions that Beijing wouldn’t consider.

I hope if there’s one good thing that comes out of this, it’ll be a long-standing, peaceful resolution for the status of Tibet.

March 15, 2008 @ 12:39 am | Comment

You know, CCT, I don’t say this often (or ever) to you, but I basically agree… in a sense.
Personally, I don’t believe that the Dalai Lama is an ardent nationalist determined to establish his own state, but rather an individual interested in true autonomy (as he has explained many times). Thus, I think that true autonomy would be an answer: the only question is if it could ever be implemented (the controversy over whether Hong Kong is truly autonomous springs to mind).
Where you are getting into shaky ground, however, is the assertion of: “-complete separation of church/state. Monks must focus solely on religious matters.” The main question is who determines what “religious” vs. “political” matters are. For example, it is often claimed that having pictures of the Dalai Lama is a political, and not a religious matter, which is why it has not been allowed (except for a brief hiatus in the 80s): if even that was not allowed under “autonomy”, this would be a shallow form of autonomy.

March 15, 2008 @ 1:02 am | Comment

CCT, too pity that those demonstraters won;t listen to you. What you proposed is actually what Beijing did in the past few years. Difference between Taiwan and Tibet? I think it is quite obvious.

Anyway, August will be a difficult time for China. But hey,it is only 2 weeks.

March 15, 2008 @ 1:04 am | Comment

I just wanna post my comment before free-tibet freaks start their free tibet blablabla…

1. Tibetans should be divided into Monks and normal citizen when analysing Tibet:

Monk: they r the ones who lost most under the rules of the CCP. They lost all of their political & r gradually losing their spiritual power among the young. They r the most strictly controlled ones. They have to visit pro-china politics lesson
every day. their indoctrination of ccp reminds me of the C.R. 30 years ago. As a result, they r the most pissed off ones when it comes to ccp. If u watched/read the news carefully, u will notice that nealy most of the riots r being started by monks and they r the main group in riots.

citizen: 99% of them live a normal life like the chinese citizen undisturbed by the ccp. they can carry a picture of DL with them. They r not allowed to show the picture in the public, but ppl can have it at their home. Most of them r trying to make a living. They r not happy with the chinese gov., but serioulsly, they care more about their jobs and how to pay the rent next month than what free-tibet freaks want them to do. The younger ones r even more sinolised than their parents. I suppose in two generations from now on, u will find a lot young tibetans growing up with an attitude similar to those of american natives: proud Indians on the one hand, americans on the other hand.

3. Freaky Tibet informations from outside:

Problem: Most of the infos about Tibet comes from ppl from outside.

1. From tibetans living in EU/India/US who , no insult, dont have a clue what is really going on in Tibet and r stil fantasising about a Tibet already lost long ago.

2. Free-Tibet groups mostly living in their own – DL= Tibet=heaven, CN=Tibet=hell – fantasy island.
The irony is most of those ppl never even set a foot in Tibet.

3. Tourist: Now this is a very special bunch of guys. Most of them come from the west with a pre-formed opinion about China and Tibet. Mostly Anti-China and that Tibet is something close to a gulag under Ccp. They then set out to find evidence to prove their pre-formed opinion, while ignoring positive changes which can only be notice when u stay longer. Their reports of Tibet r as true as the reports from bbc reporters who came to china, stayed 3 days in a shanghai 5 star hotel, than went back and claimed they r china-experts now.

4. China does not have a transparent news media. Its a lot easier for anti-china groups to fabricate or blow up stuff. And China cant defend itself cos every defence will be regarded as propaganda. The irony is that even when China says the true from time to time, nobody will believe it. Karma?

If u r interested in what Tibetans inside Tibet really think+u can read chinese:

I recommend two sites:

1. http://blog.tibetcul.com/index.html

2. Famous antichina tibetan writer 唯色 http://woeser.middle-way.net

Bye.

March 15, 2008 @ 1:47 am | Comment

@kevinnolongerinpudong,

Having a picture of the Dalai Lama could only be considered political because the Dalai Lama himself is political.

That said, I agree the vast majority of Tibetans who want to hang a picture of the Dalai Lama, celebrate his birthday, and even the vast majority of those who “escape” Tibet to India are not political. They’re religious, trying to spend a few minutes celebrating their living God.

And in any modern country, a living God must stay far, far away from affairs of government.

I don’t see a fundamental problem with giving Tibet what Hong Kong and Taiwan has… as long as the Dalai Lama’s people live up to his side of the bargain.

March 15, 2008 @ 1:50 am | Comment

What would the Dalai Lama’s people’s side of the bargain be? Just stop causing trouble?

March 15, 2008 @ 1:56 am | Comment

and a Chinese government hesitant to use force.
Posted by: CCT at March 15, 2008 12:39 AM

Ummm… no.

Reports of at least 2 dead in Lhasa.
Live ammo being used for crowd control. Just as was done under Hu Jintao in ’89 when he was head of Tibet.

March 15, 2008 @ 2:05 am | Comment

@Lime,

I laid out what my position would be on an earlier post:

– complete separation of church/state. Monks must focus solely on religious matters;

– refuse to carve out a large “super-Tibet”, assigning regions of Sichuan/Qinghai to the TAR on the basis of race along;

– anti-session law;

– all races must have equal legal rights in Tibet.

March 15, 2008 @ 2:06 am | Comment

There is no upside to comprimise on Tibet issue for Beijing. You do not make strategic move based on some short term events. The only downside is PR. I wish they have the ability to control the situation not using lethol force. I hope it is not too much right now.

March 15, 2008 @ 2:07 am | Comment

@Tom,

Reports of at least 2 dead in Lhasa.
Live ammo being used for crowd control. Just as was done under Hu Jintao in ’89 when he was head of Tibet.

That’s not overwhelming force. That’s a government that has no alternative when mobs start to form around police stations and government offices.

For that matter, as far as the people that are dead… are you really positive these are people being killed by the authorities? CNN has a quote from a “Han Chinese girl” sitting in the hospital after being attacked by a Tibetan mob.

As I said, the situation is degrading rapidly. We can sit here and discuss political theories all day long, but what happens in Lhasa over the next few days will be violence, and more violence.

The Woeser blog includes a comment that…
藏族人里面都流传杀光“加郭”，皮肤白的人都要捅刀子。

“… the word spreading amongst Tibetans in Lhasa is that they should kill all Chinese; anyone with lighter skin should be stabbed.”

March 15, 2008 @ 2:14 am | Comment

Very disappointed by Woeser’s blog. She’s deleting comments left and right. I haven’t posted any comments, but I’ve seen comments by others which weren’t at all extreme.

March 15, 2008 @ 2:22 am | Comment

@CCT
Sorry, I interpretted that as what the PRC should do rather than what the Dalai Lama & co. should do. The complete separation of church and state to me means that Tenzin Gyatso and his… followers(?) would not be recognised as entity with any legal authority to bargain at all, as any political claim to authority he might have would be derived through his religious position. Otherwise we have to accept his reincarnation as legal fact, and subsequently the Dalai Lama as some kind of a legal entity within Tibet, which really defeats the separation of church and state in my mind.

March 15, 2008 @ 2:25 am | Comment

http://tinyurl.com/2tho52

March 15, 2008 @ 2:26 am | Comment

Looks like a degrading situation. Possibly catastrophic

Pressure cooker firmly close for too long time.

If I were in the government, and I am not, I would set up an emergency committee, overrule local authorities if they are too repressive

and….. call the Dalai Lama fast.

It is not the time for getting concessions from each other side, it is time to avoid mayor conflicts

If the leaders on both sides are smart enough to see it, much harm can be prevented. If not…..

A major clamp down and …. bye bye Olympic games. And no, I do not want to get it that way.

Time for bold decisions.

March 15, 2008 @ 2:32 am | Comment

@Lime,

Otherwise we have to accept his reincarnation as legal fact, and subsequently the Dalai Lama as some kind of a legal entity within Tibet, which really defeats the separation of church and state in my mind.

I don’t think the Dalai Lama should be given any legal authority. And I don’t think there should be a treaty signed by Hu Jintao and Tenzin Gyatso.

Legally speaking, I think it would look like:
– Beijing implements specific reforms,

– simultaneously, Tenzin Gyatso should return to Lhasa, be given a shenfenzheng just like any other Chinese citizen, be appointed to appropriate government organizations (like the people’s consultative conference),

– Tenzin Gyatson should also speak out in his *moral* and spiritual capacity, and ask for his followers to respect the new law of the land.

March 15, 2008 @ 2:38 am | Comment

@CCT
I guess I just interpretted your ‘bargain’ statement too literally.
Your plan is very reasonable, especially from China’s perspective, but why do you think Tenzin Gyatso would have any interest in it? He has asked his followers to abstain from violence, but he doesn’t seem to be all that enthusiastic about the ‘new law of the land’.

March 15, 2008 @ 2:48 am | Comment

@Lime,

Beijing doesn’t have many good options in Tibet, but it does have options.

Beijing has been accused of many things in the West over the last 20 years (including intentional cultural genocide, large migration of Han Chinese, etc, etc). That hasn’t been true, at all.

But if Beijing becomes desperate, the above can become true overnight. All schools can start teaching Han Chinese exclusively, tomorrow. All government activity can be exclusively in Han Chinese. Government incentives can be put in place to actively encourage Han Chinese migration.

Tenzin Gyatson can either return and build a Tibet in which there is true cultural and local autonomy, or he can die in exile and watch all of his hopes/dreams fail. Like all difficult political negotiations, it is either win/win, or lose/lose.

March 15, 2008 @ 3:00 am | Comment

Looks like I was too optimistic when I said Lhasa wouldn’t look like Kenya, that there wouldn’t be machetes.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16953228@N07/2332679417/

That guy in the corner there is holding a machete.

March 15, 2008 @ 3:00 am | Comment

The picture you post is deleted. Wonder why

March 15, 2008 @ 3:17 am | Comment

@CCT
That picture was deleted fast. I didn’t even get to look at it.

I’m not sure that the culture-o-cide program is an option for Beijing at the moment. In the long run it would have the desired effect, but in the short term it would just lead to more of the violence we’re seeing today, and, with the international media paying more and more attention to China, especially with the Olympics coming up, and, more importantly, the economic integration of China with the rest of the world increasing, I don’t think China could afford it.
Even if it were a real option, I’m not sure that Tenzin Gyatso would be willing to trade the legacy of 14 reincarnations of a being who has achieved budhahood for a PRC passport and a chair on a committee in Beijing.
I’m thinking that he may be gaining the advantage.

March 15, 2008 @ 3:23 am | Comment

I have no idea why Flickr has deleted that image. Very suspicious. I’m hoping I have a copy on my local cache, will look for it.

Here’s another one:

http://tinyurl.com/39xsrc

From the looks of it, the guy lying on the ground is wearing some kind of uniform.

March 15, 2008 @ 3:39 am | Comment

Also deleted. Very suspicious.

March 15, 2008 @ 3:42 am | Comment

Here’s the image that was deleted:

http://tinyurl.com/3bqyrb

March 15, 2008 @ 3:46 am | Comment

This is the second image, which I guess has also been deleted? I’m lucky I’m coming across these before they’re deleted.

http://tinyurl.com/3a4be5

March 15, 2008 @ 3:49 am | Comment

The people lying on the ground with uniform is a firefighter.
see link here:

http://tinyurl.com/382spd

March 15, 2008 @ 3:52 am | Comment

The first image with the machete (the guy burning the flag is also holding a metal chain) is actually on the AP wire now, which is probably why it was deleted from Flickr earlier.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:02 am | Comment

@CCT

I think this is an indictment on Beijing’s failure to relax and seek compromise on Tibet sooner. Beijing has made huge compromises in terms of a potential political settlement with Taiwan; why has it been completely unwilling to do so in Tibet? Why are relations with Tibet essentially frozen in 1980?

I’m delighted to say that I completely agree with you on this, but I’m less sure about the non-negotiable demands you listed. Anyway, now is the time to starting talking so violence does not escalate.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:02 am | Comment

@Amban,

On the short term, I don’t see any alternatives to more violence. No government that claims to have any authority can allow people who beat/kill firefighters and burn cars to go free… otherwise, you’re essentially punishing all of the Tibetans who believed in the concept of China. Local government has to regain control and stabilize the situation.

On the long term, part of the reason negotiations with the Dalai Lama has been frozen is precisely because members of the exile government have basically hedged on some of the non-negotiable demands I mentioned above.

If the Dalai Lama doesn’t fully, whole-heartedly endorse something like the above position.. if he even murmurs something that sounds likes “self-determination”.. then there will never be a deal.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:39 am | Comment

You can see a collage of images from today’s Tibetan protests in Lhasa/Xiahe at http://china.notspecial.org/. Most are from Reuters.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:44 am | Comment

Initial reports of possibly 2 unidentified dead + Free Tibet Propaganda = 2 TIBETANS SHOT BY CHINESE ARMY!!!!

It doesn’t seem to be that large of a demonstration. The Free Tibet network is carrying reports of 900 or so demonstrators (read rioters) in Lhasa itself.

Most of the actual physical violence seems to have been perpetrated so far by the rioters. Targeted shops burned, assaults on non-Tibetan Lhasans.

The dozen photos I’ve seen seem to indicate mostly passive crowds with a few agent provacateurs. The burning car photos seem to have been taken after the rioters were already dispersed as the people seem to be simply strolling along, one even had a woman with a pair of kids along.

Most people can’t distinguish between PAP & the Army, so I doubt they can differentiate between the sound of rubber bullets and live ammunition.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:52 am | Comment

Rioters are the typical kind of people who come out at events like this. Barely employed young men without careers or family, without much in terms of political or religious “thought”… just reacting impulsively and loving the feeling of being in power.

At the ground level, it’s the same kind of violence that you saw in LA in 1993 and Paris in 2002. (And in Beijing in ’89, really.) There might have been a righteous political spark at the heart of it, but none of that matters at the street level.

I believe the Dalai Lama can stop the monks from marching in the streets, but I don’t think the Dalai Lama walking down the street could stop these rioters. Only the PLA can.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:57 am | Comment

Tenzin Gyatso has two major disadvantages when I think about it.
The first is that his considerable and undeniable support internationally is based on his advocacy of peace and his promise that he would want a democratic (by which I think he means a big ‘D’, universal suffrage type Democracy) Tibet as an autonomous region within the larger China. I don’t think he can comprise this and retain his credibility and it seems like the CCP has very limited enthusiasm for universal suffrage anywhere, considering how much they have dragged their feet in the relatively aquiesient Hong Kong.
The second is that, in spite of CCT’s laudable hope for a separation of Church and State, the CCP doesn’t seem to share this notion, considering, how they have granted themselves the right to appoint bishops and lamas alike. So if Tenzin Gyatso returns to Tibet under any conditions, the institution of the Dalai Lama is in danger of being hijacked by the CCP on his death in a manner similar to the hijacking of the Panchen Lama.

As an aside here, does anyone know how Tibetan names work? Is Gyatso a surname or patronym or what?

March 15, 2008 @ 4:59 am | Comment

@CCT

Well see about the future of negotiations, the less the Chinese government and the Tibetan government-in-exile say about what is non-negotiable, the better. No one wants a situation where the parties have painted themselves into a corner. If the goal is peace in Tibet, then the PRC government has to be prepared to make far-reaching concessions.

March 15, 2008 @ 5:23 am | Comment

Before Ferin or anyone else jumps on me, l”ll say I’m not necessarily advocating it, but, can anyone see any good practical reason why China could not de-colonize Tibet?

March 15, 2008 @ 5:37 am | Comment

More Photos

http://www.spiegel.de/

In German. Just click at the photos you will get a slide show

March 15, 2008 @ 5:39 am | Comment

@Amban,

I think we should be clear here: the goal is not peace in Tibet at any cost. That’s obviously true for both sides. If the Dalai Lama or the government in exile wanted only peace in Tibet (at any cost), they could close up shop and go home to Lhasa tomorrow.

March 15, 2008 @ 5:41 am | Comment

@CCT

I think we should be clear here: the goal is not peace in Tibet at any cost. That’s obviously true for both sides.

You fail to take asymmetry between the two parties into account. You can’t say that both sides have equal responsibility to restrain themselves and then say that certain nonnegotiable preconditions set by Beijing should be the basis for talks.

March 15, 2008 @ 5:46 am | Comment

Lime,

Two words: geopolitics, chain-impact

March 15, 2008 @ 6:00 am | Comment

@Ferin
There’s no doubt that decolonisation can be an extremely messy process, especially when you’ve moved two culturally different groups into the same area and they’re expected to work it out for themselves. The British twentieth century experience in the attempted white settler colonies of Kenya and the Rhodesias might serve as a good comparison for Tibet. But trying to keep colonies in the modern world has become a losing proposition in almost every case.
The need to retain a colonial empire for material resources has been rendered largely obsolete by the growth of the global economy in the latter half of the 20th century. China is integrating itself into that same economy, and I believe this will mean that it won’t need to rely on a occupied Tibet for water or any other natural resource. Tibetan culture can be imported, and I don’t really get what you mean by ‘her own soul’ (the idea of a nation finding its soul in the deepest darkest centers of its conquerred territories is kind of neat though. Could that be what Livingstone was looking for?).
The only real hope I see of China retaining Tibet in the long run is to achieve a large majority ethnically Chinese population, but I expect that it wil be a painful process either way.

March 15, 2008 @ 6:59 am | Comment

China has never relied on Tibet for any natural resources. The flow of wealth has entirely been one-directional. Any resources “taken” from Tibet would’ve been much cheaper purchased on the open market. Tibet is important to China for the same reason that Taiwan is.

The current Communist Party’s position is that China should be a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country. Frankly, this is a minority perspective.

The majority perspective is that this is a waste of time, that the government shouldn’t be involved in trying to preserve Tibetan culture, that ethnic minorities shouldn’t get any favorable treatment the average Han Chinese don’t get.

As I’m sure all of you know, there are plenty of Chinese who oppose the Communist Party… Hu Jia comes to mind. Tibetan or Taiwanese independence, on the other hand, is supported by no one.

The only mainstream dissident that I know of who even talks about Chinese policy on Tibet at all is Wang Lixiong, and even his perspective is still “get rid of the Communist Party”, *not* independence or “de-colonization” for Tibet.

Serbia would’ve never “de-colonized” Kosovo without NATO soldiers holding a gun to Serbia’s head. China won’t “de-colonize” Tibet without a similar condition.

March 15, 2008 @ 8:08 am | Comment

Right now Serbia may be a good comparison, but the future, most people here seem to believe, will be defined by political reform and liberalisation. This will hopefully yield a state that has more in common with the French Fourth Republic than with modern Serbia and with it, perhaps, an end to this odd nationistic psychology, shared by France and Germany of yesteryear among others, where possessing large, useless, money draining colonies for the apparent purpose of decoration and bragging rights is seen to be essential.

March 15, 2008 @ 8:58 am | Comment

“China has never relied on “Tibet for natural resources.”

That is because it was too costly to get the resources out of Tibet. That dynamic has changed with the completion of the railroad.

Import Han and export resources.

March 15, 2008 @ 9:02 am | Comment

odd nationistic psychology?

Well, that is another double standard

March 15, 2008 @ 9:09 am | Comment

How fitting it is that such a big push for freedom and the resulting deadly crack down by the PAP occur not even a week after the Bushies removed China from the State Dept’s list of human rights abusing nations.

March 15, 2008 @ 9:15 am | Comment

@CCT

As economic historians give ample testimony of, most European colonies were a drain on the resources of the home government. Very few colonies were self-sufficient, so Tibet is not peculiar at all in this regard.

You will also find that it was very common that “public opinion” in metrolpoitan coiuntriues were against pandering with the natives. But any good colonial government has to make concessions.

The current Communist Party’s position is that China should be a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country.

That is the official position of the PRC. What autonomy means is that the ceremonial head of government is a “native”, whereas the real power is invariably held by a Han Chinese CCP member. As for the role of minority languages, they fulfill little less than an ornamental function. As I have pointed out previously, not a single higher institute of higher learning in Xinjiang has bothered to put up a Uighur language version of their homepage. Only an example, but it speaks volumes about the real status of Uighur.

March 15, 2008 @ 9:46 am | Comment

“In mid 13th century, Tibet was formally included into the map of China’s Yuan Dynasty.”

Yes, Tibet is an inseparable part of Mongolia !!!

March 15, 2008 @ 10:07 am | Comment

I think China has established the precedence of invading, occupying and colonizing a territory is OK. This is a great example for the US to do so with Iraq, Iran, Taiwan, etc. No wonder China is mum on Russian occupation of Chinese territory, because it is a legitimate thing to do.

March 15, 2008 @ 10:12 am | Comment

No bill, what we try to do is to learn from U.S. experience of handling native Indian.

March 15, 2008 @ 10:25 am | Comment

“I think China has established the precedence of invading, occupying and colonizing a territory is OK.”

You know just because you are saying it doesn’t make it true.

No one ever doubted that Tibet was part of China UNTIL China turned “communist”.

And THAT was the problem. They suddenly decided it’s “not good” for a “communist country” to hold that much ground.

March 15, 2008 @ 10:29 am | Comment

@Amban
I think it would be fairer to say that most European colonies *became* resource draining burdens. Initially, the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and finally British empires were all created to be wealth generating machines, and were successful in their respective heydays. The French Empire was never as successful as any of these, but had productive parts at various times; the North American Furtrade, West Indian sugar plantations, and their trading factories are the ones that come to mind.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the wealth generating capacities of what remained of the old empires had largely disappeared, save perhaps for the British, but even their finely tuned system was on the way to becoming obsolete. Non-imperial markets like the China, Argentina, and the United States were eclipsing the traditional empire in importance.
I think the insistence on keeping colonial empires well past the point of usefulness, even expanding them, was an attempt to emulate their former glory and Britain’s, and a desire to create a perception of being a world power, as all the powers of the previous four hundred years had colonies. The most ridiculous and revealing examples are probably the Italian and German ’empires’. The French attempt to convince itself and everyone else that Algeria was somehow French soil is also deserve an honourable mention.
What it boils down to is basically a lack imagination. China seems to be trapped in the 19th century as far as Tibet goes. Halfway between wanting to be a colonial power and trying to reunify the Qing state, and thanks to the lack of any debate in the mass media, the occupation of Tibet is almost universally accepted. But that may change in the coming years, just as it has in France, Britain and most other once imperial nations.

March 15, 2008 @ 10:37 am | Comment

I really think the CCP needs to discipline these Tibetan monkeys, and show them (and anyone watching) that the CCP is not a joke, not a vegetarian. The actions should be very simple: ” “You want to test me? Let me show you who the boss is.” It’s almost 20 years since 1989, this is too long, it is time for the CCP to flex some muscles again.

The CCP is not a joke.

March 15, 2008 @ 10:38 am | Comment

“As I have pointed out previously, not a single higher institute of higher learning in Xinjiang has bothered to put up a Uighur language version of their homepage. Only an example, but it speaks volumes about the real status of Uighur.”

even if the schools use a Uighur language homepage, it still does not solve the problem – what about other ethnic groups in the region like the Kazakhs and the Mongolians, the Manchu? I am afraid to these minority ethnic groups, a Uighur language homepage would look a lot like what the Chinese homepage means to the Uighur …

March 15, 2008 @ 10:41 am | Comment

Hey HongXing! You’re the guy who called Steven Spielberg a ‘dirty little kike’ right? So you like the CCP, eh?

March 15, 2008 @ 10:42 am | Comment

The key thing is, we should show world our determination, that is to incite riot before Olympic Games will NOT pay. instead you will lose BIG!

Those Tibetan monkeys are doing this now. Fine. The CCP should make an example out of them and publicize to the world. So that next time, the Urghers, the FLG’s, and the Taiwanese will never even dare consider doing this. It’s called “Killing the chicken to scare off the monkey.”

March 15, 2008 @ 10:42 am | Comment

We should treat Tibetan terrorists same way US treat Native Americans. A good Tibetan Terrorist is a dead Tibet Terrorist

March 15, 2008 @ 10:43 am | Comment

“have you entered some sort of competition to see who can fit the most schoolboy marxist generalisations into one post?”

I used these terms because they meant something specific. See, I try very hard to be “politically correct”, since people here can’t seem to let go of petty details even though they often miss my entire argument.

If you can’t understand the terms, just say so. I’ll try my best to say it in “laymen terms”.

“don’t suppose you could tell us when this televised debate was and who broadcast it?”

Jan 29th(?), 2008. Broadcast on Queen’s campus news website and covered by Queen’s Diatribe.

March 15, 2008 @ 10:45 am | Comment

This Olympic games will be remembered as the biggest liability for china. As many anti-chinese forces will use this opportunity to broadcast their
existence!

Chinese governement should crush tibetan people as hard as possible. If you have to drop a bomb in the crowd, do it.

We should set an example. Now is the Opportunity. Just crush Tibetans. Maim them, burn them, destroy them. And make the world know, it if you want to take the advantage of Olympic games to destabilize china, you shall pay with your life, your family’s life and your country men’s life!

Do not forget the power and strength of the CCP, if you forget, see 1989

March 15, 2008 @ 10:46 am | Comment

“I really think the CCP needs to discipline these Tibetan monkeys, and show them (and anyone watching) that the CCP is not a joke, not a vegetarian.”

You are in way over your head, kid.

March 15, 2008 @ 10:48 am | Comment

Those Tibetan monkeys are doing this now. Fine. The CCP should make an example out of them and publicize to the world. So that next time, the Urghers, the FLG’s, and the Taiwanese will never even dare consider doing this. It’s called “Killing the chicken to scare off the monkey. HongXing

No red star, that would be called “cutting off your own nose to spite your face”. The world is watching and if the government can’t show restraint it can kiss its olympics goodbye.

March 15, 2008 @ 10:58 am | Comment

olympics became an external liability. Maybe we should kiss it goodbye if needed.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:00 am | Comment

Well it’s pretty fucking difficult to argue with that. Let’s let HongXing’s charming presentation conclude tonight’s program. I bid you all lovely evening.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:01 am | Comment

I’ve just posted some new links for updates and information above. We’ll be trying to follow this story today as much as we can. Thanks for the comments.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:12 am | Comment

“And in any modern country, a living God must stay far, far away from affairs of government.”

Yeah, right. Then how do you explain last year’s televised chit chat over milk ‘n cookies between Hu Jintao and the ‘Panchen Lama’?

March 15, 2008 @ 11:21 am | Comment

At least we now know for sure that Hongxing is psychotic. Not that there was ever much doubt about that….

March 15, 2008 @ 11:44 am | Comment

China Daily is reporting a Dalai Lama inspired insurgency:

http://tinyurl.com/29kt2h

A snippet:

“Xinhua reporters in Lhasa saw many rioters were carrying backpacks filled with stones and bottles of inflammable liquids, some holding iron bars, wooden sticks and long knifes, a sign that the crowd came fully prepared and meant harm.

The mobs assaulted passersby, sparing no women or children, witnesses said.”

Sparing no women or children? Witnesses for the prosecution, I assume.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:47 am | Comment

“Sparing no women or children? Witnesses for the prosecution, I assume.”

‘They stopped attacking the boy when I rushed forward’

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3556473.ece

I guess at least this time there is Witnesses.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:55 am | Comment

“At the outset, the violence was also directed at passers-by who appeared to be ethnic Chinese. I saw one boy on a bicycle and people throwing stones towards him. As a foreigner, like other foreigners in Lhasa, I was treated with respect by the demonstrators. When I rushed forward to stop them attacking the boy, they ceased throwing their stones.”

Also from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3556473.ece

A brave reporter.

March 15, 2008 @ 12:02 pm | Comment

@ Fatbrick

Now you see the beauty of impartiality in reporting. Deliver the facts, not the agenda. China Daily take note.

March 15, 2008 @ 1:12 pm | Comment

China Daily would probably report it as something along the lines of “Foreigner Attacks Han, Tibetan- Unveils Evil Foreign Reactionary Plan for Destruction of Sacred Chinese Unity.” Caption: “US leading global human rights violator.”

March 15, 2008 @ 1:20 pm | Comment

@schtickyrice

The world community doesn’t have ball one or a spoonful of morals to boycott the games. Just look at the typical behavior of the Un and the IOCustakebribesandhookersforolympicrights

March 15, 2008 @ 1:34 pm | Comment

Reading some of HongXing’s comments makes me grateful that my blog isn’t popular…

…anyways, I can’t seem to get much of a reaction about this from the Chinese people. I asked my co-workers if they read the news about it and they just kind of nod, give me an uncomfortable look, and look away. Anyone else getting a different response?

March 15, 2008 @ 2:02 pm | Comment

http://tinyurl.com/33onl5

Could this happen again?

March 15, 2008 @ 2:15 pm | Comment

Stuart,

It just shows China Daily said the truth. You are just biased.

March 15, 2008 @ 2:33 pm | Comment

@Chunzhu:

“I asked my co-workers if they read the news about it and they just kind of nod, give me an uncomfortable look, and look away.”

They heard rumors about eightski ninesky and know it is happening again. No one upsets the whims of the peacock throne!

March 15, 2008 @ 2:40 pm | Comment

They know it could happen to them too.

March 15, 2008 @ 3:15 pm | Comment

But, of course, can’t admit that.

March 15, 2008 @ 3:15 pm | Comment

@kevin

I’m not sure about them ‘knowing it can happen to them too’. Why would it happen to them? They’re all engineers in Beijing who just code all the time for a foreign company that has nothing to do with Tibet.

I highly doubt thoughts of the police smashing apart cubicles and throwing laptops from the building are their most pressing concerns…

…though I’m willing to admit that I’m not bulimic and can’t read minds.

March 15, 2008 @ 3:20 pm | Comment

I think that it goes without saying that a fear of saying the wrong thing to the wrong person in the wrong setting has been instilled over the years.
And there are plenty of examples that those who said the wrong things have had problems.
If they are not concerned about saying something “politically incorrect,” then I honestly can’t think of any other explanation, besides being mired in a sens of nationalist pride (“let’s not talk about that”), which of course also ties into the issue of “political correctness,” as it is the ultimate form of political correctness in contemporary China: anything can be justified and covered over from a “prying foreigners'” eyes for the sake of national pride.

March 15, 2008 @ 3:29 pm | Comment

I dunno. I can’t read minds.

But everyone in my cubicle are now reading about the news. Anyone know any Chinese-language links to what’s going on other than the Xinhua stuff? I’d hate for them to use that as their only source of information.

March 15, 2008 @ 3:35 pm | Comment

I don’t claim to read minds either… just guessing based on massive media thought control, the harsh suppression and punishment of alternative opinions, and the cultivation of emotional investments in “national pride” (which basically translates into “the CCP is right” in conversations with “outsiders”).

As for websites, Chinese-language news is very very very heavily censored in china. While I appreciate the idea of suggesting other media outlets besides xinhua, I imagine that such suggestions would be met with accusations of “western bias.” boxun.com, a Chinese-language site run by Chinese both overseas and within China, has decent reporting of events as they happen, but good luck getting there without some serious proxy action (at least according to my own experiences until the beginning of 2007)!

March 15, 2008 @ 3:55 pm | Comment

Opinions (in Chinese) on BBC:

http://tinyurl.com/33wxbu

About half are from overseas Chinese, half are from the mainland itself.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:02 pm | Comment

Frankly, the most sanitized version available right now is the Xinhua version… only 2-3 sentences last time I looked.

All of the Western media are reporting the facts in full: a full-on Tibetan race riot focused on all non-Tibetans, burning mosques, stores, and attacking Han Chinese (women and children included) everywhere they can find them.

Censorship at this point serves one purpose: keeping the calls for revenge down, keeping the flames of Han nationalism down. The vast majority of Han Chinese I know who know the full story right now are very, very angry. The vast majority are saying fuck the Olympics, execute the rioters.

The positive news here for richard, I guess, is that he might not see his rent raised after all.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:10 pm | Comment

… which includes such insights as:
根据911的经验，
老美要建议中国政府把达赖集团视
为基地组织和本拉登，
必须在全球范围给于正义的打击，
凡 提供庇护的国家一
律视为恐怖主义国家进行制裁和封锁。

Based upon the experience of 9/11, the damn Americans should recommend that the Chinese government treat the Dalai clique in the same manner as Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, thus justifying striking them in any country around the world. All nations that provide shelter to this clique will be viewed as terrorist nations and thus subject to sanctions as well as blockades…

yawn….

*rolls eyes emphatically*

March 15, 2008 @ 4:14 pm | Comment

There is plenty to roll one’s eyes at in that comment. The comparison between the Dalai Lama and Al Qaeda is completely irrational. I’m sorry for you and your brain if you don’t see that.
I might also roll my eyes at an individual who is perpetually banned from a site, yet continues to come back to comment. Also sorry if you don’t understand that.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:24 pm | Comment

@Ferin,

That is an unbelievable, unbelievable first hand account from the Guardian. Here’s the link again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2

Enough is enough. The Chinese government has a responsibility to her citizens. Public relations in front of the world, the Olympics aren’t worth this.

Fuck the Olympics, restore order!

March 15, 2008 @ 4:24 pm | Comment

Ferin, there are already people attacking Tibetans, for the most nonsensical reasons. In fact, it has been happening for decades, even beyond that.

That does not justify attacks on Han (besides colonial soldiers). However, I will not allow you and CCT to cast “the Han” as the sudden unfortunate victims of a completely unprovoked “terrorist” action. That is simply dishonest.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:36 pm | Comment

@kevin,

The men, boys, and women being stoned and stabbed on the streets of Lhasa are unfortunate victims, period. Did you also try to justify the 9/11 attacks, by rehashing claims of American imperialism in the Middle East?

Have some decency.

There is a time for discussion of politics and the “evils” of the Communist Party, and then there is a time for all right-thinking men to stand up and criticize unthinking murder. No one with a thread of decency can *justify* crashing airliners into office towers, and no one with a thread of decency can be anything but shocked at the massacre of non-Tibetans in Lhasa.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:43 pm | Comment

http://tinyurl.com/2jqpfo

Later, a European traveler joined the group holed up in the hotel room. He claimed to have seen two dead Tibetans and said that he saw Tibetans attack Muslims and Chinese randomly. “They were aiming to kill Muslims and Chinese for a free Tibet,” he said.

The European traveler said he was hiding out with a Tibetan family but eventually got kicked out when he disagreed with their sentiment that all Chinese and Muslims should be removed from Tibet. A monk who was with the family asked him to leave, to avoid confrontation

March 15, 2008 @ 4:51 pm | Comment

I condemn the killing of innocent civilians, no matter their race. You are attempting to paint this as a case of Han victimization, which I find inaccurate. All of those who have died are victims of the CCP’s failed policy in Tibet.
History, peaceful protests, government suppression, riots… there is much more to the story than a sudden “terrorist massacre against Han promoted by the Dalai clique.” To suggest otherwise is to belittle the intelligence of visitors to this site.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:53 pm | Comment

@kevin,

I take it then that you also said those who died at the World Trade Center are victims of the United States’ failed policy in the Middle East?

You can read my original posts above. I grant that Beijing’s policies have failed, that Beijing shouldn’t have set itself in opposition to the Dalai Lama (if compromise is possible), etc, etc.

But we’re talking about something else, now. There’s no backing down from this. Autonomy for Tibet can be discussed with those *not* responsible for yesterday’s murders.

March 15, 2008 @ 4:59 pm | Comment

I won’t lie and claim that I was ever a supporter of the Dalai Lama, but I respected him. As I said above, I hoped there could be a compromise with him. I’ve always shook my head at the awkward, silly phrasing used in Xinhua editorials… “the Dalai Lama separatist clique”, etc, etc.

But today’s events have convinced me otherwise. There’s no doubt in *my* mind that the Dalai Lama’s exile government orchestrated this entire event with a specific goal in mind.

See today’s press releases from the exile government:

http://tinyurl.com/2vfzev

The exiled government in Dharamshala in northern India, home to Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, also said it had received “unconfirmed reports about 100 people had been killed and martial law imposed in Lhasa.”

“The Tibetan parliament urges the UN to send representatives immediately and intervene and investigate the current urgent human rights violations in Tibet,” the administration said in a statement.

First-hand reports from Western observers are starting to trickle in, and they contradict the basis of what they’ve claimed: a) martial law has not been declared, b) mass force has been used (yet) towards Tibetan rioters.

I think it’s more than a coincidence that the Dalai Lama is calling for UN intervention this quickly. I think that the exile government picked this year as the perfect opportunity to orchestrate a riot, and that they subsequently assumed the Chinese government would respond with overwhelming force immediately.

I, for one, reject everything I had said earlier yesterday. While I still hope that Tibetan culture can be preserved in the context of a multi-cultural China, I personally refuse to accept the Dalai Lama as a partner in that process.

March 15, 2008 @ 6:00 pm | Comment

ferin, what part of richard’s message that you are banned don’t you understand?

If you want to come back here ever, be quiet for about 6 months and ask richard very, very nicely to come back. Otherwise we will delete your comments on sight and will have zero chance to return.

March 15, 2008 @ 6:00 pm | Comment

From the reactions I am getting from news and comments I feel that China is not willing to reach any compromise.

I only see two options.

Either the Olympics games will be derailed, no celebration.
Or a very watered down celebration will take place. Among others Iran, Burma, Sudan, etc will participate

If the games take place, more conflicts will arise before and during the games. Inside and outside China. I can foresee the behavior of Chinese authorities, local people, foreigners and foreign/local media.

In the end if the result is a lost of face of China before the world they will return to use massive doses of victimization and nationalism, fueling in the end future conflicts.
The clock will be turned back several years, maybe even decades.

Backlash against China, mostly in western countries, could be significant. Chinese exports, investments, cooperation can be greatly damaged. Before I get “Dam the western” answer, may I remind that China economy without o open markets in the west and capital investment is going to be severely restrained. You still need to provide jobs to millions of rural immigrants and also guarantee improved living standards to those in already in the cities.
China can, of course, turn the back to the world, at their own cost….

Sensitivities has been raised lately her, not due to this crisis. There has been several significant gaffes lately in US and Europe with China. The sensitivities in governments and public opinion has been raising constantly. An not necessarily related to human rights, product piracy, tainted products, etc.
In many issues China is perceived to be…. a deceptive partner. (cannot find better words)
I am already seeing strong movement to substitute China as a production base, specially in EU, very strong in Germany. Protectionism is raising sharply too

Final thought. Maybe in the end these Olympic games thing was a big mistake. Not only for China to ask for them but also for the IOC to concede them.
China was not ready for them by any means. They had not the will neither the capability to fulfill the contract that they signed when they accepted the games.

Maybe the should have waited another 25 years like CCT proposes.

March 15, 2008 @ 7:03 pm | Comment

This is all down to Beijing’s arrogance and refusal to negotiate fairly with Tibetans. They put in a puppet government and then think the matter is closed just because in theory it represents Tibetans. Although we hear about talks with the Dalai Lama and his officials, it’s clear that up until now China thinks it can simply wait until he dies and then everything will be fine.

We can see this with the usual clap-trap from that piece of garbage, the China Daily Propaganda, which carried reports that the unrest was “caused” by the Dalai Lama. But in truth it’s the other way around. He’s the only person that can possibly hold people back, but because he’s exiled outside Tibet he can’t always keep people in check. Tibetans are angry because China treats them like second-class citizens and most of the new wealth is going to Han immigrants, not because the Dalai Lama tells them to be angry.

If he dies and there has been no resolution of the Tibetan problem what has happened recently/is happening will pale in comparison to what we can expect. Young Tibetans won’t listen to his successor if they’re still oppressed by China.

March 15, 2008 @ 7:05 pm | Comment

@CCT

Nobody wakes up in the morning and suddenly decides to stab women an children after having breakfast.

What you see now is the result of the policies implemented by Chinese government, for long year.

I still think that engaging the Dalai Lama is your best chance. Some sort of compromise should be possible. But maybe the fear of a domino effect is too great. The issue here is not only Tibet.

I do not see it coming. I expect “business as usual” from the CCP

I wish you good luck….

March 15, 2008 @ 7:12 pm | Comment

@Bill

You are absolutely wrong.

China, including Tibet, belong to Mongolia!!!

March 15, 2008 @ 7:33 pm | Comment

China is not ready for the Olympic games, neither is it for a “fair negotiation” with the Tibetans.

If Tibetans can’t accept the reality that Tibet is part of China no matter how much damage they do to local Chinese population and the reputation of China as a whole and take advantage of the discriminative policies designed by the CCP to appease them to live a life at least on a par with Han or any other ethnic Chinese, the least I can say is they must have spent too much time in monasteries chanting prayers, worshiping false god, making day dreams and taking subsidies to reason with a sound brain.

“You are absolutely wrong. China, including Tibet, belong to Mongolia!!!”

This is the most ridiculous comment I have seen for a while. Why not you count Russia India and middle east in as well?

March 15, 2008 @ 7:58 pm | Comment

If Tibetans can’t accept the reality that Tibet is part of China

Bing, you miss the point. They don’t care that much whether they’re “part of China” officially or not. They want to be treated fairly and not be suppressed for being individuals.

There is no heavenly law that requires China to treat Tibetans without respect or justice. The Chinese government treats them as it does because it is arrogant, imperialist and selfish, not because it has to.

——

By the way, about the “deleted pictures”. I found them on the Times website, so I’m guessing they were deleted from whatever storage website because they were copyrighted – flikr et al are for posting one’s own work AFAIK.

March 15, 2008 @ 8:08 pm | Comment

There’s some pretty cool mountain music on the web radio made by a Brit, i can’t remember where but the name was Beijing Basic or Beijing bass or something like that.

March 15, 2008 @ 10:27 pm | Comment

You’re a joke ‘Math’ with your little cut and paste third grader history lesson. Tibet is a separate Nation, a separate culture from the Han and it’s only because of the expansionist, empire driven desires of the Han throughout history that they continue to be where they aren’t wanted. Invading a culture and a country doesn’t make it your country. Putting it on your map doesn’t make it your country. The extreme Jingoism of China is it’s shame and dishonor, it’s behavior toward occupied nations is a national shame and a disgrace. Your arrogance is a shame and disgrace as well. So you go ahead and keep clutching onto your 14th Century Map as proof you aren’t a disgrace to all human culture and humanity but it won’t make it so. Tibet is a separate nation, Tibet is a completely separate culture and only China’s feeling of massive inferiority make it clutch on so tight to something that it doesn’t own, so very sad.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:05 pm | Comment

“you miss the point. They don’t care that much whether they’re “part of China” officially or not. They want to be treated fairly and not be suppressed for being individuals.”

Raj, Tibetans certainly get more fairness than Han Chinese and probably many other Chinese ethnic groups regarding the discriminative policies in favor of them. If they were suppressed more than Han or other Chinese ethnic groups, they only have themselves to blame because the only reason for that to happen is that they DO care very much whether they’re “part of China” officially or not for whatever reasons and they are too naive to get incited by peoples, organizations and governments with various agendas outside of China.

Under current political and economical circumstances in China, they will not get what they demand and will only find their privileges over Han and other ethnic Chinese taken away and their life more restricted just like what happened after the riots in 1989.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:32 pm | Comment

Serb/Kosovo is entirely different. Serbs were far earlier than Albanians living in Kosovo, and they were majority on that piece of land as late as the late 1800s after a few hundred years of Ottoman rule of Kosovo. Some hundreds of thousands of Serbs have been forced to move out Kosovo in the last decade after the NATO intervention. That’s the ethnic cleansing you don’t hear a lot about.

God don’t make more land any more, at least from the perspective a human lifetime. Humans may make some lands out of some coastal cities, but that is a very expensive proposition. So you hold on to what you get. Tibet even if in decades/centuries later doesn’t turn out to be like Alaska, at least it adds a lot of strategic depth in southwest.

Tibet and Taiwan, but not the land lost to Russia in the 1800s and Mongolia, belonging to China, is a part of the post WW2 geopolitical arrangements. They can be changed — but you really need a whole lot more than just a few well orchestrated urban riots.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:36 pm | Comment

Raj,

“The security forces are reported to”

The reporter saw all other things in his article. But he did not witness this and it is just hearsay. If he is the only reporter there, it is pretty clear who made this up.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:42 pm | Comment

“Tibet is a separate nation, Tibet is a completely separate culture and only China’s feeling of massive inferiority make it clutch on so tight to something that it doesn’t own, so very sad.”

Sorry to disappoint you but Tibet is not a separate nation no matter what it was in history, Tibet is not a completely separate culture, the main ingredient of which the Buddhism didn’t originate from there and has been part of many other cultures for centuries.

Finally Chinese may have felt many kinds of inferiorities but please rest assured none of which could be alleviated by clutching to something that is itself far inferior to what we have.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:46 pm | Comment

Backlash against China, mostly in western countries, could be significant. Chinese exports, investments, cooperation can be greatly damaged. Before I get “Dam the western” answer, may I remind that China economy without o open markets in the west and capital investment is going to be severely restrained.

For starter, the latest point of discussion is code of conduct of how SWF may invest in the West. A bunch of Chinese government entities and companies, probably are very happy that backlash thingy — it surely saves CIC a lot of headache not being allowed to buy up some Citigroup shares at $30 and now watching it at below $20, with a rapidly depreciating dollar nonetheless.

Since when China hasn’t had backlash against it?

March 15, 2008 @ 11:49 pm | Comment

“No bill, what we try to do is to learn from U.S. experience of handling native Indian.”

That must be learning with Chinese characteristics. The US killed native Indians in the 18th and 19th Century, and China invaded, conquered, occupied, and colonized Tibet in the Qing Dynasty, way before US was born.

See, Chinese people are really knowledgeable about their own history, even more so about the US.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:55 pm | Comment

Sorry to disappoint you but China is not a separate nation no matter what it was in history, China is not a completely separate culture, the main ingredient of which the Buddhism didn’t originate from there and has been part of many other cultures for centuries. Especially now, just look at all the signs advertising Japanese, US, German, French, Italian goods in China. China is a colony, period, just like Tibet. It is time for Mongolia to exercise its rights over China.

March 15, 2008 @ 11:59 pm | Comment

It seems that Beijing is actually doing a pretty good job spinning this tragic event to its favor.

Bunch of rampaging killing hooligans need to be brought to justice. Who can disagree with that? Soon, the temper will cool off and the protests will lose steam.

Of course, after the Olympics, the real justice begins.

March 16, 2008 @ 12:01 am | Comment

The US killed native Indians in the 18th and 19th Century.

Good to know that you have some history sense.

March 16, 2008 @ 12:03 am | Comment

Here’s an excerpt from the correspondent of the Economist, stationed in Tibet:

Your correspondent, the only foreign journalist with official permission to be in Lhasa when the violence erupted, saw crowds hurling chunks of concrete at the numerous small shops run by ethnic Chinese lining the streets of the city�s old Tibetan quarter. They threw them too at those Chinese caught on the streets�a boy on a bicycle, taxis (whose drivers are often Chinese) and even a bus. Most Chinese fled the area as quickly as they could, leaving their shops shuttered.

The mobs, ranging from small groups of youths (some armed with traditional Tibetan swords) to crowds of many dozens, including women and children, rampaged through the narrow alleys of the Tibetan quarter. They battered the shutters of shops, broke in and seized whatever they could, from hunks of meat to gas canisters and clothing. Some goods they carried away�little children could be seen looting a toyshop�but most they heaped in the streets and set alight.

Raj, kevininpudong, et all. I’d like to get a comment from you guys on the above observation. This is not a rhetorical question, just curious as to what you guys make of the above statements.

March 16, 2008 @ 12:05 am | Comment

“It is time for Mongolia to exercise its rights over China.”

After presenting those absolutely VALID facts how you could draw such a conclusion is really funny.

China is not a separate nation because China plus Taiwan is.
China is not a completely separate culture because tens of millions of Chinese are Muslims and Christians besides Buddhists and we have learned in history and are still learning from Middle east, America, Europe, Japan and many others.

In terms of Mongolia exercising its rights over China, sorry, I’m not used to having day dreams I’m more inclined to talk about facts, the fact is that’s not the case and that’s not gonna happen. And may I take the liberty to inform you, in case you are not aware of, China does and will continue to exercise absolute rights over Xizang (or Tibet if you prefer) no matter you like it or not.

March 16, 2008 @ 12:15 am | Comment

@CCT

The men, boys, and women being stoned and stabbed on the streets of Lhasa are unfortunate victims, period. Did you also try to justify the 9/11 attacks, by rehashing claims of American imperialism in the Middle East?

Have some decency.

OK, let’s calm down, CCT. To compare this with 9/11 is way out of line. You are the guy who called June 4 a tragedy, now you are calling for revenge. Be honest and admit that you were just looking for a pretext to revert your default mode of justifying PRC policy.

Take look at the history of Chinese nationalism, and you will find a history full of violence directed against innocent foreigners and Chinese, men, women and children. Widespread atrocities against women and children was the pretext for the invasion of Eight power alliance invasion of north China in 1900. Does that justify foreign imperialism in China? Not the slightest.

March 16, 2008 @ 12:46 am | Comment

Under current political and economical circumstances in China, they will not get what they demand and will only find their privileges over Han and other ethnic Chinese taken away and their life more restricted just like what happened after the riots in 1989.>/em>

If he is the only reporter there, it is pretty clear who made this up.

Well, fatbrick, do you have any evidence he is the only reporter there? If not then I trust the article more than I do the usual Chinese propaganda written by people who aren’t in Tibet, let alone witnessing what has happened there.

March 16, 2008 @ 12:53 am | Comment

“What “privileges” they have pale in comparison to their second-class status in their own home.”

Raj, please enlighten me on the definition of second-class. What rights do I, as an ordinary Chinese, have and they don’t?

“Tibetans laugh at the “privileges” they get and couldn’t care less.”

Are you sure of that? What about only having one Child and being applied with the same admission standards for Universities just like most of us?

March 16, 2008 @ 1:03 am | Comment

I wake up this morning as angry as I was last night.

@Amban,

You accuse me of wanting to “revert” to PRC policy. No, I still believe PRC policy needs to change in the long term. But on the short term, I absolutely OPPOSE PRC policy.

I oppose the PRC’s policy of trading the lives of Chinese for the Olympics. This is no longer in a philosophical debate of whether people are “losing their homes” for the Aquatic Cube… this is about Chinese citizens being stabbed in the streets by other Chinese citizens, with the military standing idle because they’re afraid of an international “incident”.

I OPPOSE this PRC policy wholeheartedly. The PLA should be in the streets, and anyone holding a weapon should be put down on sight.

There is a lot of speculation out there, much of it fed by the government-in-exile… 100 killed, and then 30. Tanks in the streets, etc, etc.

And then there are a few first-person eyewitness accounts. Journalists from the Economist and Times UK are on the ground in Tibet. Journalists from the Guardian and Christian Science Monitor have gotten enough with Western tourists who stayed around to see the heat of the action.

All of these first-person eyewitness accounts do not report seeing a single shot fired by Chinese security forces. All of these eyewitness accounts report a racial cleansing of the old town district by ethnic Tibetans. It’s not an exaggeration at all to say that if I were in Lhasa last night, I could very well be dead this morning on the basis of my skin alone.

China should compromise on political rule, on philosophical issues, on practical issues. China must not compromise to this brutality. Saving face in front of the “international community” isn’t worth this. The Olympics isn’t worth this.

You don’t like the 9/11 comparison? Fine. I’ll say that instead it’s time China learned from the Israelis. Israel will not be hosting the Olympics at any point in the near future, but at least those who aim to average Israelis have learned to walk in fear.

March 16, 2008 @ 1:16 am | Comment

By the way, Amban and ecodelta and anyone else…

I’m not worked about Tibet just because I woke up yesterday and saw them inconveniencing the Olympics. I for one have tried, for years, to do my part as a Chinese citizen.

As someone who’s spent years living as a minority overseas, I wanted to help the struggling minorities in my own country. Over the past 6 years, I’ve donated over $30000 (USD) to Western charities working exclusively in Tibetan areas… charities working in cultural preservation, education, and health care (and I have the receipts to prove it). It’s far more than the amount I’ve given to Han Chinese areas.

I tell you this just to stress, again, that I have more invested in this than watching the Tibetans “shut up” and stop blocking China’s train to progress. I care… or perhaps I should say I cared, past tense… deeply about China’s ability to create a fair multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country. Just as many white liberals in the United States hope to see the day a black man can be president, I hoped to see China change enough that one day a Tibetan man or woman could be president.

I don’t know how I feel about China’s future, in light of what happened yesterday. I just don’t know.

Xinhua propaganda is doing its best to paper over this divide. One of its leading stories this morning is about ethnic Tibetans trying to save ethnic Han caught up in the rioting. Of course we all know its blatant propaganda… the kind of manipulation all of you hate with a passion, right? For every Tibetan involved in trying to save a Han yesterday, there were likely five trying to beat him to death.

March 16, 2008 @ 1:35 am | Comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSd1mwzZPO4

A video report recorded from CCTV (China Central Television) news on the evening of March 15th. Footage of rioting and burning buildings in Lhasa.

March 16, 2008 @ 2:12 am | Comment

Raj,

Well, reframed to only foreign reporter. He is only using other unnamed source, and there is nothing comfirming his word on that particular issue. Believe China media or not, the footages and coverages on Friday’s event are consistent across the world, including China’s own video.

March 16, 2008 @ 2:34 am | Comment

CCT ,

With all due respect, there are many other problems and darksides in China we should care about. Tibet is not one of them. Our Tibet policy finally made progess. Some people just cannot bear it. Those thugs will rob and kill because they are mobs, not becasue they are Tibetan.

March 16, 2008 @ 2:44 am | Comment

@CCT
“By the way, Amban and ecodelta and anyone else…”

Calm down CCT. You have my greatest regards. 😉

March 16, 2008 @ 5:07 am | Comment

@fatbrick
“The US killed native Indians in the 18th and 19th Century.
Good to know that you have some history sense.”

Not exactly. The Spaniards did most of the killing, although unintentionally. (besides normal killing)
The importation of the old continent diseases had a catastrophic effect on the local population.
The reports of the Spanish explorers which traveled through much of what today is the US, Coronado, Cabeza de Vaca, Ponce de Leon, etc reported densely populated areas and big indian cities.
100 years later, when “other” Europeans started arriving, there was not much or nothing left. Just mounds covered with grass. Asked the local Indians there was no answer, they had no recollection of that pasts, they had moved (historically) recently to that area.

In central and south America the population was also severely affected, but local population there was denser. Still, the consequences can still be felt today.

March 16, 2008 @ 5:19 am | Comment

@CCT, Amban, et al
CCT is right in that it is the PRC’s responsibility to use force to restore law and order. If the government, colonial or otherwise, wants to pretend to be the authority, it has to maintain a monopoly on violence. Isreal is a good comparison, and the British Raj might very well be too.
I don’t think that we can come to any conclusions just yet about what this episode means, and thanks to the control of information, we will probably never be able to.
Maybe these rioters are just a tiny minority of thugs lead by a few revolutionaries (maybe working for the Dalai Lama’s exiled government, or maybe not) who used this as an excuse to committ crime. The timing, like someone pointed out, would point to some kind of planning behind it. If you’re going to start a revolution against the PRC, this year is your year. Maybe the vast majority of Tibetans are happy with being part of the larger PRC state, and would resent my characterisation of Tibet as a colony. It’s undeniable that the PRC has improved the material living conditions of the Tibetans.
But maybe not. Maybe the majority aren’t that excited about being part of the CCP’s fair multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country in spite of their improved living conditions.
How can we possibly know? There will be no referendums or opinion polls. So, CCT, your “For every Tibetan involved in trying to save a Han yesterday, there were likely five trying to beat him to death”, statement is quite possibly true, but is still just pessimistic speculation. I don’t think you should throw out your hope for the fair multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Middle Kingdom that includes Tibet based solely on what we’ve seen here. It isn’t exactly Rawanda yet.
But for the sake argument, let’s say it is true. What do you think this means about the PRC’s rule of Tibet?

I wonder if Bjork is proud of herself?

March 16, 2008 @ 5:29 am | Comment

@Raj
“Good comment, ferin, but you are banned for now. Maybe forever.”

Poor ferin, all in all I really like the guy.

Ok. I may have not been able to read his/her(?) more controversial posts. Still… he sounds quite rational more than not.

I officially declared opened the “Fering support platform”…. 😉

March 16, 2008 @ 5:31 am | Comment

Yeah, Ferin was okay. He beat the ‘white people slaughtered native americans, so they shouldn’t give modern Chinese a hard time’ thing like a long dead nag, but he did have some good points from time to time.

March 16, 2008 @ 5:34 am | Comment

Interesting photo… for the running times.

http://tinyurl.com/2cdxlv

Plus article.

March 16, 2008 @ 6:31 am | Comment

CCT,

Is there anyone — anyone at all — on this thread who has said that attacking Han Chinese civilians because of their ethnicity is okay? Aren’t you just flailing away at a strawman here? I wholeheartedly agree that anyone who is arrested specifically for doing attacking a civilian (Han or Hui or anybody else) and is convicted after a fair trial should be treated like any other violent criminal. What civilised person would disagree with that? I also trust you when you say that you are a well-intentioned person with a genuine interest in the well-being of the Tibetan people. Where I cannot agree with, however, is the emphasis you put on different parts of this story, which strikes me as totally out of whack. The inter-ethnic violence here is a brief and ugly incident — completely understandable but no less criminal — which in all likelihood will be over by next week. Meanwhile, the Tibetans have had no political rights since at least 1959 (the common people never really had any to begin with) and they are going to continue living in a police state for the foreseeable future.

March 16, 2008 @ 6:41 am | Comment

“Tibet is a separate Nation, a separate culture from the Han and it’s only because of the expansionist, empire driven desires of the Han throughout history that they continue to be where they aren’t wanted.” (Posted by: gadlaw at March 15, 2008 11:05 PM)

forgive me for saying this, but maybe you need to re-read some of the history…the Chinese empire is at its most expansionist when it was ruled by the Mongols and the Manchu, both of them are not ethnically Han Chinese.

March 16, 2008 @ 6:44 am | Comment

CCT is right in that it is the PRC’s responsibility to use force to restore law and order. If the government, colonial or otherwise, wants to pretend to be the authority, it has to maintain a monopoly on violence. Isreal is a good comparison, and the British Raj might very well be too.

How should one respond to that? Well, yes, it is the governments responsibility to restore law and order. But how do we deal with the asymmetry of power between government and protesters? We know about the atrocities of Deir Yasin and Amristar because the press was allowed to operate.

CCT: I’m sorry that you feel betrayed by the Tibetans, but if you fail to realize that Tibet is a PRC colony, you won’t be able to deal with this rationally.

Just as many white liberals in the United States hope to see the day a black man can be president, I hoped to see China change enough that one day a Tibetan man or woman could be president.

What if most Tibetans don’t want that, if they just want a Tibetan to lead the government of Tibet?

March 16, 2008 @ 7:01 am | Comment

CCT,

I guess only if you agree with some other posters here he can be treated as a rational people. This is a very powerful arguement. I do not see how you fight this. So give up and brace western power and follow these posters tell you.

Wait, isn’t that brainwash?

March 16, 2008 @ 8:13 am | Comment

CCT,

I guess only if you agree with some other posters here you can be treated as a rational people. This is a very powerful arguement. I do not see how you can fight this. So give up and brace western power and follow what these fellows tell you.

Wait, isn’t that brainwash?

March 16, 2008 @ 8:15 am | Comment

@Otto,

I’m not failing away at anyone on this thread. Nor do I need to, because no one can possibly defend this random violence, aimed at ethnically cleansing Lhasa:

http://tinyurl.com/2cdxlv

From the videographer’s blog:

The original protests from the past few days may have been (peaceful), but all of the eyewitnesses in this room agree the protesters yesterday went from attacking Chinese police to attacking innocent people very, very quickly.

This motorcyclist, who I assume the protesters identified as Han Chinese, was simply riding up Beijing Street when the video took place. He was not army, not police, not doing anything other than riding his motorcycle.

March 16, 2008 @ 8:15 am | Comment

Yes, I agree, CCT, and I think everyone else here does, too. So, you have no one to argue with here.

March 16, 2008 @ 8:29 am | Comment

As I said, I don’t know how my personal feelings and opinions towards Tibet will play out. I can’t stomach the idea that my donation could’ve potentially helped pay for the education of men who’re now burning, stabbing, and beating people because they happen to be Chinese.

One thing is for sure. This will lead to a reconsideration of Chinese policies in Tibet, just as the first set of riots in the late ’80s led to a reconsideration of policies in Tibet. Policies in Tibet will either relax, or it will tighten even more significantly.

A second thing is for sure… either 1) the Dalai Lama isn’t worth negotiating with because he orchestrated this violence for political goals (note again the quick release of fictional casualty figures + a call for UN intervention), or 2) the Dalai Lama isn’t worth negotiating with because his moral authority isn’t worth shit on the streets of Lhasa.

March 16, 2008 @ 8:30 am | Comment

In my country (Canada) HongXing could be, rightfully, be put in jail for inciting hate crimes. Reading what he says, I am tempted to say that HongXing should be arrested for what he says.
On principle, however, I believe people should say what they want (with the exception of those in very high positions of power). I don’t believe in the contemporary German/Canadian/etc. type of suppression of free speech. If my country were to have a referendum on a First Amendment type of law, I would be the first to vote for it. After all, we all can say inflammatory, etc. things at some point in our life in the heat of the moment (particularly when we are driving a car, in traffic, when we are young, etc.).
However, HongXing’s words go way way way overboard.
Unfortunately, there are thousands and thousands like HongXing on the internet everyday, particularly making grotesque, ignorant, stupid, violent, and hateful comments. It never seems to end. It is not just on one side.
Richard can’t really stop either side. His eliminating all such comments won’t make them go away.
Perhaps seeing these comments, and seeing them for what they are, and seeing what the CCP is sometimes capable of evoking is, well, necessary.
I really don’t know.
I just wish it would end. How can any rational human being thing that it is okay to attack Tibet to “teach a lesson to Taiwan” etc.? Taiwan is a country, pure and simple. As Tibet should be, in my opinion.

March 16, 2008 @ 8:32 am | Comment

@fatbrick
“I guess only if you agree with some other posters here he can be treated as a rational people…”
“I guess only if you agree with some other posters here he can be treated as a rational people. …”

Fatbrick you are repeating yourself…..

Rational argumentation has nothing to do with agreement.
It is just the way an argumentation is constructed.

That I agree and disagree does not have anything to do with rationality.

In a discussion, if my counterpart does not fall in any fallacy I can only disagree in the axioms he has used. And that lies beyond logic (as long as the axioms are consistent)

March 16, 2008 @ 9:12 am | Comment

@fatbrick

Let me see…. I consider that ferin is rational more often than not.

According to your statement, the conclusion follows that ferin is brainwashed more often than not.

That is enough for today, I must go to take my washing out of the washing machine.

March 16, 2008 @ 9:20 am | Comment

New updates posted avove.

March 16, 2008 @ 9:40 am | Comment

@Amban
I was thinking more of the Indian Army Mutiny than of the Golden Temple incident. Maybe Isreal’s not such a good comparison when I think about it. This isn’t a terrorist attack carried about by a small organised group. If there is a guiding hand behind it, they’ve incited unorganised mobs into uncontrolled violence, so if anything this is more like the race-based violence in the Belgian Congo and elsewhere in late colonial Africa. The Boxer rebellion, that you alluded too earlier, falls nicely into this category too.

How do we deal with the asymmetry of power between government and protesters? Well the racially inspired violence, I think you’ll agree, has to be stopped, and in that regard the balance of power resting with the PLA is a good thing. Martial law is better than a race war any day. In mean time though we have to consider why this happened. Was it a crowd whipped into a mob by revolutionary provacteurs? Or maybe there was an incident like in Paris where one or two individuals were killed and the police were blamed (with or without justification).
More important, in my mind, than the immediate causal factors are the deeper social and politcal currents within Tibetan society. How representative of the whole society were the rioters attacking ethnic Chinese? Was this an identifiable political or religious minority? How does this group differ, if at all, from other groups within Tibetan society in its perspective on the Tibet-PRC relationship?

Unfortunatley it will be very difficult if not impossible to satisfactorily answer any of these questions because, as you said, the press will not allowed to operate.

March 16, 2008 @ 10:46 am | Comment

ecodelta,

I made some gramma mistake first time and tried to correct them in second one. Apparently you did not read my second one and just copy/paste my first one twice. What can I say, I saw this kind of things happening all the time: you made your conclusion even before you read my post.

I have never read anything ferin wrote. So I won’t comment on that. Cheer.

March 16, 2008 @ 10:56 am | Comment

“forgive me for saying this, but maybe you need to re-read some of the history…the Chinese empire is at its most expansionist when it was ruled by the Mongols and the Manchu, both of them are not ethnically Han Chinese.”

Don’t forget the Han dynasty. It was pretty expansionist too. Tang invaded Korea. Ming invaded to the west too. Ming also tried to invade across the ocean to the south and east, but failed.

But none of these killed as many natives as the PRC did. But PRC also killed Hans too. Millions.

But it is OK. Then was then. Now is now. Back then China was civilized.

March 16, 2008 @ 11:11 am | Comment

Since Chinese government is blocking all outside news, video and photo sources, there must be things the Chinese goverment wants to hide. Whatever information from outside of China must be good and factual and no South China Tiger.

March 16, 2008 @ 11:14 am | Comment

“Dalai Lama isn’t worth negotiating with because he orchestrated this violence…” CCT

“Dalai-backed violence scars Lhasa” CD

You can fool some of the people some of the time…..

March 16, 2008 @ 11:15 am | Comment

Bill, my point is that throughout history territorial expansion and the use of violence is the nature of the state – this is what the state does. It does not have much to do with which racial/ethnic group is ruling the state.

your statement reads like you are saying it is in the NATURE of the Han Chinese that they like to conquer and kill. I found this statement a bit racially biased.
being

March 16, 2008 @ 11:22 am | Comment

“Sorry to disappoint you but Tibet is not a separate nation no matter what it was in history, Tibet is not a completely separate culture, the main ingredient of which the Buddhism didn’t originate from there and has been part of many other cultures for centuries.” Bing

Saying something doesn’t make it so. So you’re disappointing me. It’s an eternal story of a bigger thug beating up on a smaller neighbor, saying it’s manifest destiny, Lebensraum, cultural superiority or whatever excuse you might like. Buddhism began in India, not China so I’m not sure what the argument is for you here. Your argument seems to be that Tibet isn’t it’s own country because Buddhism didn’t originate there. Alright, and Mao tried to kill it in China so — does that mean China isn’t it’s own country either? Sorry, your logic does not follow.

March 16, 2008 @ 11:40 am | Comment

“Tibet is a separate Nation, a separate culture from the Han and it’s only because of the expansionist, empire driven desires of the Han throughout history that they continue to be where they aren’t wanted.” (Posted by: gadlaw at March 15, 2008 11:05 PM)

“forgive me for saying this, but maybe you need to re-read some of the history…the Chinese empire is at its most expansionist when it was ruled by the Mongols and the Manchu, both of them are not ethnically Han Chinese.”

Posted by: ss

Thank you for your reply. My point is that the rabid Jingoists are quick to cut and paste their understanding of the ‘Historical’ record to prove that it’s perfectly justified for China to have invade Tibet in 1959 and continue to subjugate the people of Tibet to this day. Regardless of whether it was the Mongol or Manchurian or Han who extracted tribute or pronounced Tibet a part of China, it’s still wrong and Tibet is still a separate culture and people that deserves to not be subjugated by the Chinese government. Like the artificially joined cultures of Eastern Europe or the invaded and occupied cultures of the Baltic region and elsewhere, Tibet will eventually be free. Right now all China is doing is creating ugly chapters in their history which will bring shame onto them for generations to come.

March 16, 2008 @ 11:53 am | Comment

“Thank you for your reply. My point is that the rabid Jingoists are quick to cut and paste their understanding of …shame onto them for generations to come.” (gadlaw)

Thank you for your reply. but your anger seems to be misplaced – where did u deduce all these by my previous statement??? On the future of Tibet, I agree with the position that history does not really matter that much. I support giving the status like HK to Tibet, and given time, let the Tibetan people vote if they want to stay in China.

this said, I stand by my position that it is racially biased and untrue to single out a racial/ethnic group (ie Han Chinese) as if it is in their nature to colonize and use violence against other racial/ethnic groups.

March 16, 2008 @ 12:14 pm | Comment

“But none of these killed as many natives as the PRC did. But PRC also killed Hans too. Millions.”

PRC has much to learn from White Europeans. What a clean and thorough job they did!

Today you find more Red Skin mascots than real person, and that’s Americans along, not counting what the Spaniards did to the Aztecs, British to the Zulus and African slaves.

March 16, 2008 @ 12:19 pm | Comment

Live updates from Tibet, from a blogger who is in Tibet:

http://kadfly.blogspot.com/

Harder to get photos today as there is a very heavy police/army presencejust outside our hotel.

Before I continue with some updates from today and videos from yesterday, Iwant to make one thing clear because all of the major news outlets areignoring a very important fact. Yes, the Chinese government bears a hugeamount of blame for this situation. But the protests yesterday were NOT peaceful. The original protests from the past few days may have been, but all of the eyewitnesses in this room agree the protesters yesterday went from attacking Chinese police to attacking innocent people very, very quickly. They appeared to target Muslim and Han Chinese individuals and businesses first but many Tibetans were also caught in the crossfire.

This video is an excellent example:
http://rapidshare.de/files/38832674/MVI_0483.AVI.html

Rapidshare is a bit tricky to use. What you have to do after clicking the link is scroll to the very bottom and press the Free button on the bottom
right. Then you have to wait a certain amount of time (there will be a countdown mid-page) and then a password will appear – enter the password in the box and then you can download the video.

This motorcyclist, who I assume the protesters identified as Han Chinese, was simply riding up Beijing Street when the video took place. He was not army, not police, not doing anything other than riding his motorcycle.

March 16, 2008 @ 1:05 pm | Comment

ss: “Bill, my point is that throughout history territorial expansion and the use of violence is the nature of the state – this is what the state does. It does not have much to do with which racial/ethnic group is ruling the state.”

Hmm.. that’s not what you said. What you said was :”forgive me for saying this, but maybe you need to re-read some of the history…the Chinese empire is at its most expansionist when it was ruled by the Mongols and the Manchu, both of them are not ethnically Han Chinese.” And I just remind you of the other dynasties with Han rulers who were also expansionist.

If you didn’t say what you mean, may be you should first apologize for misleading us about what you really mean. Correct what you posted first.

But, since you must be a chinese, historical facts just confuse you, and you prefer history with Chinese characteristics ?

Saying only Mongolians and Manchus are expansionists is what I would call racism.

March 16, 2008 @ 1:42 pm | Comment

“PRC has much to learn from White Europeans. What a clean and thorough job they did!

Today you find more Red Skin mascots than real person, and that’s Americans along, not counting what the Spaniards did to the Aztecs, British to the Zulus and African slaves. ”

PRC killed 40+ million Hans. There were 40 milion American Indians in America when Columbus landed in America. I would say PRC is way more effective.

March 16, 2008 @ 1:45 pm | Comment

Well, it is not about effectiveness. What we need to learn is that you can keep a straight face, grab the moral highhand and critize others after your own actions.

March 16, 2008 @ 2:29 pm | Comment

Ok, shall we rewind a bit:

here is the statement i am taking issue with “Tibet is a separate Nation, a separate culture from the Han and it’s only because of the expansionist, empire driven desires of the Han throughout history that they continue to be where they aren’t wanted. Invading a culture and a country doesn’t make it your country.”

here is my response “forgive me for saying this, but maybe you need to re-read some of the history…the Chinese empire is at its most expansionist when it was ruled by the Mongols and the Manchu, both of them are not ethnically Han Chinese.”

pls read my response carefully and in the context of the statement i am taking issue with. I never say when the Chinese empire was ruled by the Han, it was not expansionist – my response is a reminder that when the Chinese empire was ruled by the Mongols and the Manchu, it was expansionist as well and even more so.

I did NOT say ONLY Mongolians and Manchus are expansionists.

No, I will not apologize. and i stand by my position that singling out one racial/ethnic group – the Han – is wrong.

March 16, 2008 @ 2:47 pm | Comment

Suddenly it all dawn on me what the current situation in Tibet reminded me of: The Mongols got driven out of the Huanghe and Yangtze area.

During the end of the Mongol occupation, the Hans rose up, and start killing the occupying Mongols – soldiers, civilians, everybody. The Mongols made a mistake of posting many of their soldiers, not in camps, but in civilian households among the Hans. It made killing Mongols very convenient for the Hans. And the Mongols lost their fight anyway because of the death of Gengis Khan at the time, and called it quits. And since right at that time, the century long drought in the Mongolian plains and deserts just ended. The prairies became productive again and can support livestocks once more, they all left for home, rather raising cattle than keeping an watchful eye on the Hans.

The rest was history.

March 16, 2008 @ 2:49 pm | Comment

From guardian,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2

“I saw three people assaulting a man – I was 50 metres away, but I think he was Chinese. They kicked him and then one man had a knife and used it. He was lying on the floor and the man put the knife in his back, like he wanted to see he was dead. ”

March 16, 2008 @ 2:51 pm | Comment

History? What a sense of history. Mongols in your story are so peaceful…Maybe it is late night and ok to dream. Anyway, it is not about history but reality.

March 16, 2008 @ 2:55 pm | Comment

“Well, it is not about effectiveness. What we need to learn is that you can keep a straight face, grab the moral highhand and critize others after your own actions.”

If “a clean and thorough job” is not effective, what is.

I am so impressed that you think “genocide” is a”moral highhand”. And what criticism are you talking about. Why any statement of facts is a “criticism” to you. Hmm.. The facts fit and striked too close to home ?

March 16, 2008 @ 2:57 pm | Comment

Well it seems that we both accuse each other for double standards. Glad that we finally reach some some agreement.

March 16, 2008 @ 3:08 pm | Comment

Before the thread degrades to total unreadability, I just want to say to CCT: while I may not agree to, but I totally admire your sense of idealism. For whatever reason, I remember Lt. Col. Slade’s quote in the movie “Scent of A Woman”, played by Al Pacino:

“I’m not a judge or jury. But I can tell you this: he won’t sell anybody out to buy his future!! And that, my friends, is called integrity! That’s called courage! Now that’s the stuff leaders should be made of. Now I have come to the crossroads in my life. I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew. But I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard. Now here’s Charlie. He’s come to the crossroads. He has chosen a path. It’s the right path. It’s a path made of principle — that leads to character. Let him continue on his journey.”

March 16, 2008 @ 3:28 pm | Comment

The biggest mistake of CCP on Tibet issue over the last 50 years is focusing too much on history.

When it comes to land and sovereignty who cares about history? The weak and the idealistic.

A real massive migration of Han and other ethnic Chinese to Tibet, not just Lhasa, but everywhere in Tibet, should have started long ago. If we had 90% population in Tibet to be Chinese, we wouldn’t have anything like this now. Does USA care if Kosovo was the centre of Serbs’ culture and history in the past? Does EU care? Does Albania care?

It’s imperative for Chinese government to do so now if it hasn’t been on it’s plan.

March 16, 2008 @ 5:22 pm | Comment

@Bing
“Does USA care if Kosovo was the centre of Serbs’ culture and history in the past? Does EU care? Does Albania care”
The serbs main claim that Kosovo is their historical and cultural center. But what really happened there was a battle among the Serbs and Turks. Although the Serbs were defeated,l that battle was the origin of Serbian sense of identity as a people.

On the other hand. It is most probable that the Kosovans and Albanians descend directly from the former inhabitants of the region (Illyria), before the Serbs, an Slavic people coming from the east, migrated/invaded the area, displacing the original population.

I must also say that I do really appreciate the sincereness of your post and I consider its logic quite sound. Very rational ethnic cleansing argumentation indeed.
And I am absolutely against it!!

March 16, 2008 @ 7:42 pm | Comment

I do really consider it a pity that the olympic games could be put in jeopardy this summer.
Nor for the games themselves but for the effect the games could have on China self confidence, and world image.

Is there still any possibility of an agreement between both sides?

Could China accept greater autonomy for the regions or (at the very least) respect its cultural and ethnic identity and give Tibetans a greater say in the local government?

Could the Tibetans accept to remain inside China if their ethnic and cultural identity is respected by Beijing and are given a greater say in the government of their own region?

Could the Dalai Lama play a significant role ins the negotiations? Could China be able to accept such a partner in the negotiation table?

What do you think?

March 16, 2008 @ 8:00 pm | Comment

“In an interview with the BBC, the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader, said he feared there would be more deaths unless Beijing changed its policies towards Tibet, which it has ruled since invading in 1950.”

It’s so obvious that Dalai Lama is behind all this. Now he’s threatening Chinese government with further violent deaths instead of condemning Tibetan mobs for killing innocent Chinese. His opportunism may buy him more international sympathy and put more pressure on China, but it will never do any good to the Tibetans in China he claims to be striving for (which I never believe is his true motive: an exiled old aristocrat advocating the freedom of this former slaves).

All this makes so hollow his claim of “still supported Beijing’s staging of the Olympic Games this summer, and only wanted true autonomy”.

March 16, 2008 @ 8:25 pm | Comment

It’s so obvious that Dalai Lama is behind all this.

The only thing that is obvious is that Chinese arrogance and complacency led to this situation and, true to form, the government is seeking someone else to blame.

The very idea that the all-knowing, all-seeing CCP could make policy mistakes is out of the question!

This article from the Sunday Times gives a more objective view than the usual Chinese propaganda:

Fears of another Tiananmen as Tibet explodes in hatred

“Yet for all China’s claims of a political conspiracy, there was no evidence of organisation on the streets. Only a handful of rioters produced flags or pictures of the Dalai Lama. A few yelled “Long live Tibet!” For most, it was merely a moment of intoxicating, sweet revenge.”

March 16, 2008 @ 8:41 pm | Comment

Thanks for that link, Raj. Unfortunately, I don’t think the article does much for the image of the gentle Tibetans created by works of fiction like Hilton’s Lost Horizon. Far from it:

VENGEFUL rioters returned to the streets of the old Tibetan quarter of Lhasa yesterday, defying the gunshots and tear gas of Chinese troops surrounding the centre of the city. They broke into the few remaining shops untouched by a rampage of destruction on Friday and tore them apart, wrecking interiors and flinging debris into narrow alleys.

The main Tibetan exile group in India put the death toll in Tibet’s worst outburst of popular violence in two decades at 30 confirmed and more than 100 unconfirmed. China said 10 people, ‘all of them innocent civilians’, had been burnt to death in the mayhem.

It was impossible to verify the contending claims at first hand in Lhasa. While gunfire was heard, no bodies could be seen on the streets within the Chinese troop cordon.

The rioters appeared impervious to increasingly shrill calls for order issued by the Tibet autonomous regional government, which set a deadline of midnight on Monday for them to surrender.

By yesterday afternoon, China still had not regained control of the centre of Lhasa and as world attention focused on its reaction to the uprising, its leaders, gathered for a self-congratulatory meeting in Beijing, faced the ‘Tiananmen dilemma’ – whether to use overwhelming force.

China is conscious that with the 2008 Olympics just five months away it could face a new public relations disaster on a par with the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which hundreds died when the party sent in tanks to crush pro-democracy protests in 1989.

Lhasa awoke yesterday to the hush of dawn, when Tibetans came out to walk around and gaze at the heaps of debris in the streets. The contents of ransacked shops spilled out, smouldering and reeking of fire.

The whole Tibetan quarter of the hallowed mountain capital appeared stunned after what had been an orgy of wrecking and looting.

The violence was undoubtedly racial. Its prime targets were the Chinese merchants who have flocked to Tibet by road and on a prestigious new train across the roof of the world.

The mobs were the losers of Lhasa – the poor who seethe with resentment, outwitted commercially by Chinese traders, out-gunned by the Chinese army and, many fear, ultimately to be outnumbered by Chinese migrants.

The demonstrations had started as peaceful marches by Tibet’s revered Buddhist monks. They came out of their monasteries last week to observe the 49th anniversary of the Dalai Lama’s flight into exile.

A predictable and harsh response by the Chinese set off more protests by monks, then ignited popular rage among the ordinary inhabitants of Lhasa.

Their explosion of hatred, when it came, was sudden and shockingly intense. Fire engines were attacked. Any Chinese army vehicles were stoned. Cars were ambushed, victims dragged off bicycles and beaten.

Yes, China definitely has a problem here. Unfortunately, the brutality of the mob – especially the looting, smashing of shops and beatings of innocents based solely on race – will play into the CCP’s propaganda spiel and win them support, or at least make them not look totally atrocious. “We had no choice. What would you have done? What would Americans have done if Muslims began beating Christians at random and smashing their shops?” I can hear it all now.

March 16, 2008 @ 9:16 pm | Comment

richard, I can’t say as I’ve read that book. And Tibetans are only human – even peaceful people will riot when pushed. And China has been pushing Tibet for decades.

As to propaganda, Chinese have little or no sympathy for Tibetans anyway. They wouldn’t speak out even if the protests had been 100% peaceful. We’d like to imagine that would be different, but we know what the truth is – most think Tibetans have it good and shouldn’t complain!

Foreigners won’t be impressed because they know China has been provoking Tibetans. If you remember China claimed the Tiananmen protestors had been causing trouble, which required “tough action” – did the world buy the pictures of hooded students and burnt out trucks requiring deadly force then?

March 16, 2008 @ 9:32 pm | Comment

“did the world buy the pictures of hooded students and burnt out trucks requiring deadly force then?”

As if the CCP government had ever gained sympathy for anything it had done since the day it was born?

It doesn’t matter. In terms of Tibet, it doesn’t matter what the world does buy or not. No international pressure could make the stupid and appeasing CCP or any Chinese government to concede Tibet (or the so called true autonomy which any person not retarded enough knows will lead to independence). The day Kosovo became independent, there were riots in Serbia. The day Tibet becomes independent, you will see wars, world wars and total destruction.

Get rid of the special treatment to Tibetans, get rid of the subsides and get rid of anyone who murders and robs Chinese in Tibet. Be my guest to boycott Chinese products, boycott Olympic games, boycott anything Chinese. We survived the last hundred years of wars and isolation, we will do the same with, or without the help of others.

Tibetans are not second-class citizens in China, unless they want to be. Tibet is part of China no matter what it was in history. This is the reality believe it or not.

March 16, 2008 @ 10:04 pm | Comment

As if the CCP government had ever gained sympathy for anything it had done since the day it was born?

What has the CCP done that should have gained it sympathy? I don’t think shooting unarmed civilians or beating up blind activists counts – maybe you could offer some decent examples of where the CCP should have got sympathy.

The day Tibet becomes independent, you will see wars, world wars and total destruction.

Only if China caused them – not because it had to happen.

get rid of anyone who murders and robs Chinese in Tibet

What about outside of Tibet? What about Chinese who are beaten up by hired thugs and the security forces for doing nothing wrong other than trying to use the legal system to resolve problems?

Oh wait, it’s the State that does that so it’s ok. It’s only bad when ethnic minorities attack Chinese. And of course there’s nothing wrong with Tibetans being beaten up for having a picture of the Dalai Lama either, or monks being assaulted for not praying to a puppet religious appointee by a secular political party in Beijing thousands of miles away.

Tibetans are not second-class citizens in China, unless they want to be.

Hahaha, you really are a laugh!

So Tibetans WANT to have a puppet government. Tibetans WANT to be assaulted by the security forces for complaining about lack of jobs, their land being stolen, harrassment by officials, etc. Tibetans WANT to see a flood of Han immigrants taking the lion’s share of economic growth, etc.

Yeah, Tibetans are oppressed because they WANT to be. Sort of a mass S & M culture……

This is the reality believe it or not.

Sorry, I don’t believe nationalist propaganda.

March 16, 2008 @ 10:15 pm | Comment

When China will not let most foreign reporters into Tibet, shuts down the phone and cell phone lines from Tibet, blocks foreign websites that are reporting about Tibet, and periodically blocks western cable tv reports about Tibet, it makes it a little difficult to take anything China says about Tibet seriously.

March 16, 2008 @ 10:38 pm | Comment

PRC killed 40+ million Hans. There were 40 milion American Indians in America when Columbus landed in America. I would say PRC is way more effective.

First, you are comparing 2 wrong numbers. 40 million Native Americans were the estimated population of day 1. Overtime, across multiple generations, many more could’ve have been killed.

Second, most of the death estimates in wars, famines, etc. are based on demographic projections to figure out the missing population. However, people are less likely to procreate in wars or when hungry, hence these numbers are often way too high to only serve some propaganda purposes. Examples are:

* 30 million people starved to death in the Great Leap Forward.
* 10 million Americans died in the Great Depression.
* 1 million Iraqis died in less than 5 years of US/UK occupation.
* 100 to 200 million Native Americans died after the Europeans settled in the continental America.

Third, it’s the percentage that matters. Otherwise the Holocaust wouldn’t even remotely be at the top of the horrific events in the modern human history.

Last but not least, you have to look at the end results. The American Continent once was occupied by various Native American tribes, but for all intents and purposes, they are all gone.

March 16, 2008 @ 11:23 pm | Comment

@Raj

CCP has done many atrocities which is in no doubt.

But don’t miss my point. What you described doesn’t just happen to Tibetans, it could happen to every Chinese in China.

There are as many and probably more Chinese who suffer under CCP government as there are Tibetans.

There are also much more Chinese who live a much better life than before.

There are more people who don’t have a job in other parts of China. There are not really any governments in China that are accountable to the people. There are more people in other parts of China who are being harassed and have their land stolen by corrupt officials.

A flood of immigrants does not just happen in Tibet. It happens everywhere in China, and in the world. Man, do you understand globalization?

If Tibetans suffer more, they have themselves to blame, at least partly. The laws and policies are already in favor of them. But they want more, which is nothing short of independence (or the dubious “true democracy”).

Of course you would argue, they are Tibetans, they were once independent, they have their own culture and so on. So they should be treated differently than other Chinese.

Then, you are absolutely right, though again missing my point.

It’s unfortunate that Tibetans, being a superior social class to Han Chinese in Yuan and Qing dynasties, can’t even have an independent state now, but that’s the reality, just like many other land or sovereignty disputes around the world even nowadays.

Tibet is part of China so Tibetans shouldn’t get more rights than other Chinese citizens. Tibetans should not get democracy when other Chinese don’t. Tibetans shouldn’t have more religious freedom when other Chinese don’t.

I stay with my argument that if Tibetans had been targeted more than other ethnic groups in China, they would have themselves to blame.

China doesn’t forbid the use of Tibetan language, Tibetan culture, Tibetan names and Tibetan this and that. Tibetans can live their Tibetan ways as they like unless they don’t violate the laws and rules which no matter how obscene have to be obeyed by all Chinese.

Tibetans should be really grateful considering their life under the rule of those old aristocrats and how the millions of ethnic Chinese have been treated in Indonesia where they have no rights to Chinese education, no rights to Chinese language, no rights to Chinese names, and above all no rights to the normal citizenship even though most of the Chinese population have been there for hundreds of years. Do you often hear the atrocities committed on them? No. Why? Because Indonesia has the big boss of the USA.

Let’s bring in more and more Chinese migrants to Tibet so in 10 or 15 years there will be enough people to form a Chinese version of Democratic Unionist Party if democracy has been widespread in other parts of China.

March 16, 2008 @ 11:26 pm | Comment

Typo…
China doesn’t forbid the use of Tibetan language, Tibetan culture, Tibetan names and Tibetan this and that. Tibetans can live their Tibetan ways as they like unless they don’t violate the laws and rules which no matter how obscene have to be obeyed by all Chinese.

China doesn’t forbid the use of Tibetan language, Tibetan culture, Tibetan names and Tibetan this and that. Tibetans can live their Tibetan ways as they like unless they violate the laws and rules which no matter how obscene have to be obeyed by all Chinese.

March 16, 2008 @ 11:43 pm | Comment

There are as many and probably more Chinese who suffer under CCP government as there are Tibetans.

Because there are more Chinese than Tibetans. But Tibetans are the ones that suffer more in their own home than the Chinese.

There are also much more Chinese who live a much better life than before.

Exactly. It is the Chinese who have benefitted in Tibet, not the Tibetans.

Tibetans can live their Tibetan ways as they like unless they violate the laws and rules which no matter how obscene have to be obeyed by all Chinese.

How many Chinese respect and care about the Dalai Lama or real Tibetan culture (not the tourist crap)? Very few. How many Tibetans respect and care about the Dalai Lama and real Tibetan culture? Very many.

Most of the rules/laws in Tibet are discriminatory against Tibetans because Chinese couldn’t care less about them. Chinese go to Tibet to make money and aren’t concerned that the place is controlled by a puppet government, as it’s run from Beijing – i.e. their own government. On the other hand Tibetans have to deal with the fact that their “government” is the play-thing of Chinese outsiders.

How would Chinese feel if Japan had won the Sino-Japanese war and the Beijing government was Tokyo’s puppet? Would they accept that, even if Japanese were as oppressed politically – hell no! Tibetans feel the same way.

Tibetans should be really grateful considering their life under the rule of those old aristocrats

Sounds like the usual justification for imperialism. Such arguments weren’t acceptable for other countries in the past, and they’re not acceptable for China now.

March 17, 2008 @ 12:02 am | Comment

Because there are more Chinese than Tibetans. But Tibetans are the ones that suffer more in their own home than the Chinese.

Chinese suffer in their own home – China too.

Exactly. It is the Chinese who have benefitted in Tibet, not the Tibetans.

If people, with laws and policies designed to favor them, still can’t compete with others, who’s here to blame?

“Most of the rules/laws in Tibet are discriminatory against Tibetans because Chinese couldn’t care less about them”

Can I say the same for Chinese? Any law that is in favor of Tibetans is one that is discriminatory against Han Chinese.

in terms of caring about the Dalai Lama, is there any country that allows its citizens to care about a criminal (Dalai Lama is a criminal to some people just like Bin Laden a hero to others)? And what’s the real Tibetan culture that is made outlaw by Chinese except worshipping Dalai Lama?

“How would Chinese feel if Japan had won the Sino-Japanese war and the Beijing government was Tokyo’s puppet? Would they accept that, even if Japanese were as oppressed politically – hell no! Tibetans feel the same way.”

Yes we would fight if we could and were capable. But we might just submit like what the Taiwanese did in early 1900s and accept a better governance to try to live a better and more civilized life than we would be under an indigenous backward corrupt government. And after 50 years when everybody is not so oppressed in the Pan-Asia-Japanese empire, and we as Chinese descendants have equal rights as other Japanese citizens, we would try to negotiate a greater autonomy just like what is happening in NI, Spain, Canada and may other parts of the developed west.

Tibetans have no more rights than Chinese in Tibet. The independent Tibet is long gone just like many other independent countries that once existed no matter for how long in history.

March 17, 2008 @ 12:47 am | Comment

richard, I can’t say as I’ve read that book. And Tibetans are only human – even peaceful people will riot when pushed. And China has been pushing Tibet for decades.

Raj, so you would not condemn the looting, burning of shops and the targeting of the specifically Han residents and businessmen in Tibet? You would not condemn them? You think they are justified, just the resistance of an oppressed people?

Chinese go to Tibet to make money and aren’t concerned that the place is controlled by a puppet government, as it’s run from Beijing – i.e. their own government. On the other hand Tibetans have to deal with the fact that their “government” is the play-thing of Chinese outsiders.

If a Han Chinese person whose family owned a business in Tibet was burned down and their life savings wiped out, their house smashed to pieces. You would NOT condemn them, you would they say deserved it. ? Did I get that right?

March 17, 2008 @ 12:55 am | Comment

Chinese suffer in their own home – China too.

If Chinese want to take the abuse from the CCP, that’s their choice. If they want to make a choice they shouldn’t force it on Tibetans.

Can I say the same for Chinese? Any law that is in favor of Tibetans is one that is discriminatory against Han Chinese.

It was the Chinese who first imposed rules like the one-China policy. It’s like someone tying you up then offering to losen the chains on your arms and saying you should be grateful because some people don’t get even that.

Let Tibetans decide what laws and rules they want rather than taking power away from them and offering some token gestures as if that made up for it!

is there any country that allows its citizens to care about a criminal (Dalai Lama is a criminal to some people just like Bin Laden a hero to others)?

The Dalai Lama does not release videos urging people to murder non-Buddists/non-Tibetans. And he is much more widely respected across the world than Bin-Laden. The Chinese are pretty much the only people that hate the Dalai Lama – much as you won’t find many non-Muslims that praise Bin-Laden (and even a lot of Muslims will condemn him).

But we might just submit like what the Taiwanese did

Really? If you said that in public in China loud enough and for long enough you’d probably have the shit kicked out of you. Chinese frequently make a lot of how they would “never surrender” to any occupation, yet they insist Tibetans and other groups sit down and shut up.

On a different note, I wonder how long Chinese would wait in your scenario if the Japanese ruling autocracy said China already had autonomy (even though it was a sham) and could never expect more? After a population boom in Japan and a much reduced Chinese population due to a longer war Japanese immigrants flood the Chinese East coast, take over all the best land and make most of the money. Chinese watch as the Japanese keep coming over and get rich, whilst they stay poor because they can’t get capital and have no connections with the officials.

Would the Chinese wait forever? Or would things get violent one day after Chinese priests were attacked one too many times by the Japanese security forces and young Chinese started throwing stones?

Tibetans have no more rights than Chinese in Tibet.

Tibet is their home! If Chinese are content in having few rights because they can make money that’s their choice. They don’t have the right to oppress Tibetans because they prefer freedom to money.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:05 am | Comment

Raj, so you would not condemn the looting, burning of shops and the targeting of the specifically Han residents and businessmen in Tibet?

Hong, don’t play dumb. Of course I condemn it, just as I would anywhere. People often get caught in the middle in such conflicts, and it’s very sad when they do.

I was commenting on the fact that China won’t be able to justify itself towards the international community just because of the violence. Protests were peaceful until China launched the usual crackdown and started beating up priests/civilians. The violent confrontation was first caused by the Chinese security forces, not the Tibetans.

—

lime, “markus” is a prolific sockpuppet user who has used multiple aliases on the blog. He is a banned user – ignore him.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:10 am | Comment

China is now evacuating all non-local reporters from Tibet, as a prelude to the upcoming massacre.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:21 am | Comment

China is now evacuating all non-local reporters from Tibet, as a prelude to the upcoming massacre.

Yeah, massacre, what else? Ethnic cleansing? Genocide?

If everybody just assumes by guessing or rumors or whatever Chinese government is gonna kill tens, or hundreds of Tibetans no matter what it really does, why doesn’t Chinese government just do it? You have been convicted, so do something to deserve the crime.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:34 am | Comment

Tibetans: Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:38 am | Comment

http://tinyurl.com/24zhy5

Newsweek has this comment:

In Xiahe, 750 miles from Lhasa, Tibetan monks apparently expected �an uprising� several days before violence broke out, said a foreign visitor who said he�d felt �unwelcome� because of the jittery vibes and left the city , which is in Gansu province, quickly thereafter.

It’s hard to imagine that these protests were not organized.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:41 am | Comment

Hurting innocent people is, of course, not acceptable in civilized world. China is different.

I think that says much about you, Bill. Looks like Otto was too optimistic above.

March 17, 2008 @ 1:59 am | Comment

It’s hard to imagine that these protests were not organized.

CCT, I know it’s more comforting to think that it’s all the fault of a few people, but the reality is that it hasn’t been organised.

If it had been organised this would have happened across Tibetan areas (outside of Tibet too) at the same time. We haven’t seen that at all. If it does spread it will be due to the original protests in Lhasa encouraging others to speak up.

Also I have asked everyone here not to post URLs not in a tinyurl format. I put up a whole blog entry on it. This isn’t optional, it’s compulsory – ok?

March 17, 2008 @ 2:49 am | Comment

As all of this unfolds, what I am really wondering is what the reaction on the streets of Eastern China is. Down to a soul, every Chinese person that I know likes Tibet and Tibetans – the culture, the way they respect the environment and of course the people themselves. So what does the average Wang on the street think about all of this? We all know that many (not most, many) Chinese can track these events through the internet, so the old propaganda block becomes less effective all the time. Remember, we’re talking about a country that has over 70,000 protests a year – including some pretty violent riots and reactions to riots. The automatic weapons are certainly unusual as a response, but otherwise, the pattern is very similar – PRC citizen group has a very big and justified beef, gets nowhere through official channels, can only resort to organized protest, is attacked, riots. One of these protests will eventually spill over, tip the kettle, however you wish to say it, and really bring “social instability”. I have no idea if this is the one that does it, but sooner or later it will happen. That’s what the CCP is afraid of (not the Olympics) – they’re afraid that the average Chinese will sympathize and then they have trouble. So what I’m saying is this is a part of the larger trend towards, well, no other way to say it, revolution.

March 17, 2008 @ 2:58 am | Comment

Hong

1. I do not live on the blog. If you have a problem that needs dealing with E-MAIL RICHARD – I’ve said it enough times.

2. Do not feed the trolls – ignore them.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:25 am | Comment

News flash:

BBC is broadcasting a documentary series titled “A year in Tibet”. From the program description on BBC Web site, this documentary shows the real life today in Tibet and does not play to the general tone of “Tibetans being oppressed by the Big Evil CCP”. The first segment was shown on Mar. 6. Not surprisingly, there is a Youtube video of this first show. Surprisingly, if you attempt to access this video in US, Youtube says “This video is not available in your country.” Interestingly, people in UK have confirmed that this video is accessible in UK.

Obviously, this block of access could not have been requested by BBC on the basis of copyright violation. Or how could you explain the availability of the video on Youtube for UK visitors?

Original BBC program:
http://tinyurl.com/28862t

News source:
http://tinyurl.com/yuf8oy

March 17, 2008 @ 4:33 am | Comment

It’s ridiculous to claim that the main crime being committed in Tibet at the moment is the looting of Han stores.
The main crime being committed in Tibet now is against the local people.
http://tinyurl.com/38whwj
(obviously unavailable in China, where determination to spread lies and blame protesters has reached a level reminiscent of ’89- don’t fall for it).

March 17, 2008 @ 4:51 am | Comment

@JadeBJ,

Chinese authorities are cracking down on all online discussion… but only because the overwhelming reaction of the vast majority of netizens: bring in a heavy hand, execute everyone involved in the riot, erase what limited autonomy currently exists in Tibet.

The only material mainlanders have seen so far are the images of rioters banging on store fronts, on CCTV. Very few have seen the images the rest of us have seen globally… civilians being beaten on the streets, the national flag being burnt. Threads on this topic are being erased as quickly as they come up, but I’ve seen a couple before they were hexie’ed.

If Beijing allows wide open publication of this material, Tibetans throughout China will probably die. By way of example, one rumor spreading is that Han civilians in Tibet have picked up knives and sticks, and have surrounded activists “on a mountain”. Frankly, this sounds like wishful thinking to me.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:52 am | Comment

Hong, don’t troll – this isn’t the tin-foil hat brigade forum.

The BBC has blocks in place that stop people accessing their videos overseas – I had the same thing when I was in Japan and trying to access videos on the BBC website.

If you look closely at the youtube video you will see that the author IS the BBC. Clearly they have the same restrictions in place as they do on the main BBC website. youtube want people to visit and access such videos, so that means keeping the BBC sweet.

March 17, 2008 @ 4:53 am | Comment

Really Raj? It’s really that simple, then how about this:

The Free Tibet campaign’s director, Anne Holmes, has written to BBC4 controller Janice Hadlow to express “deep disappointment” with the first episode of One Year in Tibet, which will be screened tomorrow night on the digital channel.

http://tinyurl.com/3968ef

March 17, 2008 @ 4:55 am | Comment

then how about this

That would be someone expressing their right to complain about a programme which (I guess) she argued did not show the whole truth. Free speech allows people to complain even if they’re objecting to something – that’s legal here.

The fact the show was still broadcast rather suggests the criticism was noted but no more.

No more conspiracy theories and other off-topic comments. Stay on topic.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:03 am | Comment

@CCT

{By way of example, one rumor spreading is that Han civilians in Tibet have picked up knives and sticks, and have surrounded activists “on a mountain”. Frankly, this sounds like wishful thinking to me.}

I really hope you’re kidding?! “wishful thinking”???? Are you suggesting that Han civilians should surround activists and murder them? I’ll let you clarify first, but if you are serious… well, I wouldn’t let you on this blog again if it was up to me, which of course it isn’t.

Also, I guarantee you that the reason threads are being taken down is NOT because Han Chinese are calling for blood or to protect Tibetan citizens – it’s to keep the protest from spreading, pure and simple.

JadeBJ

March 17, 2008 @ 5:07 am | Comment

@JadeBJ,

I didn’t mean to suggest it was *my* wish. It’s wishful thinking on the part of those spreading the rumor. I for one am confident now that the PLA can stabilize the situation in Lhasa, and bring those responsible for the violence to justice.

I don’t know how you’re in any position to make any “guarantees”. You profess to not even know what Chinese on the street are writing or thinking… but you can make “guarantees” about why the Beijing government is blocking these posts?

Read the posts in overseas forums. Read the posts in popular online forums (like Tianya), in the 3-5 minutes before they’re erased.

Short term opinion is very, very heated: arrest and harshly punish those involved in the violence.

Long-term opinion is making a statement that all of this proves the PRC’s policy towards ethnic minority is a total failure. Keep in mind that 92% of China consists of a single homongeneous ethnicity. Many Chinese are asking today… why is there a racial distinction in legal and government treatment? Why is there *any* autonomy in Xinjiang, Jiaangxi, and Tibet? Why isn’t Chinese law good enough for all Chinese citizens?

Why do Tibetans get advantages in family planning? Why do Tibetans get more favorable treatment in University admissions? Why are Chinese taxpayers paying subsidies to Tibetan monasteries?

March 17, 2008 @ 5:22 am | Comment

Sorry, laptop keyboard/mouse hiccup. I meant to say, “why is there any autonomy in Xinjiang, Guangxi, Ningxia, and Tibet”?

March 17, 2008 @ 5:24 am | Comment

CCT

Why do Tibetans get advantages in family planning?

Here’s a better question. Why do Chinese (i.e. the Beijing government) have a right to tell Tibetans what to do?

As I said earlier, if Chinese want to oppress their sisters and brothers/keep their heads down that is in part their own choice, even if it is wrong. But that doesn’t mean Chinese can complain if Tibetans get it a touch better. If Chinese refuse to stand up for themselves then they have no right to criticise Tibetans for complaining that they’re under any controls and can’t choose their own way of living.

—-

I think I’ll disable the comment function for the moment. Everyone’s had a lot of fun discussing this, but I think it might be good to take a breather. Then there might be some more news to discuss rather than go on and on about Tibet itself.

March 17, 2008 @ 5:54 am | Comment