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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@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?

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.

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.

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.

And do not count the Falung Long people out...

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.

@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.

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.

@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 l� 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?

@Si

I think the same too.

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

The latest..

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

@Jinhan
"and I cracked some Liberal skulls."

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

Just kidding. Could not help it ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

@fatbrick,

As far as what Beijing has done in Tibet... I think the truth is, Beijing has focused mostly on economic development, and trying to integrate more Tibetans into China's modern society. But this process will take a long time... probably decades, probably too much time.

I don't think Beijing has done enough to compromise on other issues in Tibet. I think Tibet is very backwards in terms of political reforms, compared to other parts of China.

Tibet and Taiwan are very different, but there are many compromises being suggested with Taiwan that weren't acceptable 10 years ago. Beijing is saying it's okay to think of Taiwan as something *other* than a local government, that Taiwan might even have international presence.

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.

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

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.

@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.

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.

@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."

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.

@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.

http://tinyurl.com/2tho52

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.

@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.

@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'.

@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.

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.

The picture you post is deleted. Wonder why

@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.

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.

Also deleted. Very suspicious.

Here's the image that was deleted:

http://tinyurl.com/3bqyrb

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/382spd

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.

@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.

@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.

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

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.

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.

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?

@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.

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?

More Photos

http://www.spiegel.de/

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

@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.

@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.

Lime,

Two words: geopolitics, chain-impact

@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.

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.

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.

"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.

odd nationistic psychology?

Well, that is another double standard

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.

@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.

"In mid 13th century, Tibet was formally included into the map of China's Yuan Dynasty."

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

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.

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

"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.

@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.

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.

"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 ...

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

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."

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

"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.

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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'?

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

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.

"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.

"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.

@ Fatbrick

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

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."

@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

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?

http://tinyurl.com/33onl5

Could this happen again?

Stuart,

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

@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!

They know it could happen to them too.

But, of course, can't admit that.

@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.

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.

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.

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)!

Opinions (in Chinese) on BBC:

http://tinyurl.com/33wxbu

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

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.

... 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*

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.

@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!

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.

@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.

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

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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....

@Bill

You are absolutely wrong.

China, including Tibet, belong to Mongolia!!!

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

"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 coloniz