The South Korean Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister, Yu Myung Hwan encouraged his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi on Friday to seek a peaceful solution to the deadly rioting in Tibet. Yu asked China to allow South Koreans traveling to the country for the Summer Games to enter the nation without visas.
Meanwhile the Chinese Government claims that “the Dalai Lama is scheming to take the Beijing Olympics hostage” — believe it or not. Naturally, they also threw a North Korean-style barb at Nancy Pelosi as being “habitually bad tempered” and, of course, “the Chinese government has sought to portray itself and Chinese businesses as the victims.” As a saner contrast to this Chinese Government media blitz, “A group of prominent Chinese intellectuals has circulated a petition urging the government to stop what it has called a “one-sided” propaganda campaign and initiate direct dialog with the Dalai Lama.” Meanwhile, China’s top police official called for stepped-up ”patriotic campaigns” in Tibet’s monasteries to boost support for Beijing.
Narisa Chakrabongse– an environmentalist and one of Thailand’s six torchbearers — said in an open letter that she decided against taking part in the relay to “send a strong message to China that the world community could not accept its actions.” Narisa wrote, “The slaying of the Tibetans … is an outright violation of human rights.”
Samsung, however, is one of the sponsors for the torch relay and held a news conference for one of the Beijing torchbearers.
North Korea and Cuba have come out in defense of China. Cuba blames — who else — the U.S. for trying to ruin the Olympics.
Finally, China is looking to ban live broadcasting from Tienanmen Square, apparently out of concern that they might experience a black power moment as the US did in the 1968 Olympics. “If the decision stands, it would be a blow to the TV networks whose money to buy the right to broadcast the games accounts for more than half the IOC’s revenues. The biggest spender is NBC. It paid $2.3 billion for the rights for three Olympics from 2004 to 2008 — Athens, Turin and Beijing.” (oh well …)
Oddly enough, as an eerie parallel to the 1968 Olympics, “on October 2, 1968, ten days before the start of the 1968 Summer Olympics the Plaza de las Tres Culturas was the scene of the Tlatelolco massacre, in which more than 300 student protesters were killed by army and police. After the event, the International Olympic Committee held an urgent meeting to consider canceling the games.” Years later, it was determined that innocent bystanders were shot by state forces — but, in 1968, they did not cancel the event because, as everyone knows, in the words of Jacques Rogge, current President of the International Olympic Committee, “such action would only hurt innocent athletes.”
Sphere: Related Content
25 Comments
“One Thai runner for the Olympic torch has quit, citing the events in Tibet as her reason for refusing to carry the torch in Thailand”
There will be more…
Personally, I don’t see why this is getting blown out of proportion. This was not the Saffron Revolution. This was not monks parading peacefully through the streets. This wasn’t Tiananmen Square. The Chinese government put down a race riot.
The Chinese government has absolutely every right to put down a violent civil disturbance by whatever means necessary. Yes, the Tibetan people have legitimate grievances with Beijing, but their pitiful resort to violence last month is in no way deserving of our sympathy or of the Western media’s hype. If you want to boycott the Beijing Olympics, by all means go ahead. There are plenty of bones to pick with the Chinese government ranging from pollution to workers rights to what have you. But, your foolish if the events of last week are your impetus.
so, peaceful=good, violent=bad? No, wait, you do support the use of violence by the Chinese government. Ok, so peaceful citizens=good, violent citizens=bad? And violent government=good. What’s your stance on a peaceful government? Bad?
I’m so glad that you weren’t in the colonies in the 1770s.
#2 Just curious…which of the Chinese bones do you suggest we pick and which others should we ignore ? I do so want to get it right so I don’t offend your “body count morality”.
Nice attempt at a strawman, but no.
I never said the Chinese government was “good.” Nor did I say the Tibetans were “bad.”
I’m saying the Tibetans started a race riot. The Chinese government put down their riot. They retook control of a lawless city. Why is that particular action wrong?
A “race riot”?!
There is a little bit more than just race involved. The polices regarding how the Chinese Communist Party handles legitimate dissent are at fault and Tibet is just one place where these immoral and failed polices have been demonstrated to be a failure. There have been plenty of protests throughout China which have been violently suppressed by the CCP and they certainly were not about race. Calling this a “race riot” is like thinking the “Boston Tea Party” was a tea party; it was much more than that.
From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/world/asia/24tibet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp):
“In the chaotic hours after Lhasa erupted March 14, Tibetans rampaged through the city’s old quarter, waving steel scabbards and burning or looting Chinese shops
….
The absence of police officers emboldened the Tibetan crowds, which terrorized Chinese residents, toppled fire trucks and hurled stones into Chinese-owned shops.”
Sounds like a race riot to me.
If you want to justify the beating of innocent Han Chinese with the premise that somehow Tibet is not a part of China and that this uprising is somehow a glorious people’s revolution, well, I guess we’ll never see eye-to-eye on the issue.
“NK”, the issue of Tibet and the oppression of Tibetans by the CCP has been exacerbated by the CCP’s policies of trying to ship in Han Chinese, empower them with money, thus out-breeding the native populace all for the sake of a greater China. The protests have not been about race but about the oppression experienced by native Tibetans, which has manifested its self in the presence of many Han Chinese that have been used in just such a cold, calculated manner by the Party.
As for this issue being “blown out of proportion”, this issue is about the aforementioned failed policies and the reasons behind such. Focusing upon the “race” aspect of this is a red herring at best. Tibet should be an opportunity for everyone to ask questions and seek answers instead of making excuses and allowing a deeper case of moral blindness to grow.
You are being either very naive in failing to make this distinction or are very dishonest in ignoring these failed policies, so as to deflect just criticism of some pretty wicked people. Perhaps you should stick to monitoring North Korea and don’t forget the binoculars.
“R,” nice deployment of the argumentum ad hominem. Not like I’ve never seen that one before.
Do keep in mind that Beijing has brought some good things to Tibet. Beijing provides 90% of Tibet’s expenditures. Tibetans live tax-free. China built schools, roads, and hospitals. By all accounts, China has improved the lives of the Tibetans. The Tibetans should be greatful for China’s Tibet policies.
Regardless of that fact, see my original post where I conceeded: “Yes, the Tibetan people have legitimate grievances with Beijing…”
There are other mechanisms through which the Tibetan people could have addressed those grievences. By resorting to rioting directed at Han Chinese they have diminished their standing and made it all the more unlikely that their claims will be addressed.
Beijing provides money to Han Chinese that are there. Tibetans are still living in poverty.
Standard of living for a Tibetan has not increased. What you are claiming is propaganda. Please take it elsewhere.
I retract this:
“Do keep in mind that Beijing has brought some good things to Tibet. Beijing provides 90% of Tibet’s expenditures. Tibetans live tax-free. China built schools, roads, and hospitals. By all accounts, China has improved the lives of the Tibetans. The Tibetans should be greatful for China’s Tibet policies.”
The remainder or my post stands.
“Good things?”, “should be grateful” . . . well, I do not think I will ever met a society that will not resent oppression, no matter how it is sweetened. That is why Koreans hated the Japanese, despite the fact they brought railroads and other improvements in infrastructure to Korea. Are Koreans grateful for these things? Like the Koreans too, Tibetans are relegated to second-class status while Han immigrants are given financial incentives and support that is not extended to most Tibetans.
Most importantly, there are no “other mechanisms through which the Tibetan people could have addressed those grievances.” There are no other mechanisms to address quite a few other issues for the average person in China. The CCP’s antidote for dissent has been mostly repression, applied with force and intimidation. So then how can one address grievances when no one will willingly listen? This is why a group of Chinese intellectuals have “circulated a petition urging the government to stop what it has called a “one-sided” propaganda campaign and initiate direct dialog with the Dalai Lama.”
The CCP needs to try a honest solution to this problem that might last and it does not need to use force and intimidation.
Agreed, as per my previous post.
Here’s where we stand so far. Correct me if I’m wrong.
This is what we agree on:
-Tibetans’ grievances are legitimate
-Beijing must do a better job of addressing those problems (I’ll agree there)
This is what we don’t agree on:
-Tibetans’ were not justified in their use of violence against Han Chinese.
- By using violence, Tibetans legitimated Beijing’s use of force in retaliation.
Had the Tibetans engaged in peaceful protests, or work stoppages, or boycotts of Chinese goods and services, I would have had a lot more sympathy for their cause. Sorry, but by rampaging through the streets of Lhasa they have not only lost some legitimacy for their cause but given Chinese security forces just the excuse they needed for a crackdown.
I agree with the last two posters. The tibetans did themselves a disservice by have having violent protests. They would have much more public sympathy if they had held peaceful demonstrations and the Chinese had resorted to violence to suppress them.
Violence by either side is just plain wrong! Simple as that, no matter what premise your argument is based on, the fact is that those Tibetan rioters attempted ethnic cleansing by not only killing Hans but Muslims as well.
One can have sympathy of their cause but not violence on such scale and target.
Whether Beijing did a disservice or a service to the Tibetans over the past 50 years is another question. Don’t lump those violence with your sympathy.
See this: http://www.anti-cnn.com
“Ethnic cleansing” is more a state-sponsored effort — much like what the Chinese Government has done in Tibet and elsewhere — to willfully dilute and destroy the social fabric that holds a community together. Tibetans went after the closest symbols of Chinese occupation, namely the Han that had moved in an lived there. Claiming this was “ethnic cleansing” is either a deliberate attempt at misinformation (lie?) or misunderstanding of the concept.
The anti-cnn.com site above, which is bs propaganda as well.
CNN indulges in media bias, which is one reason I do not read their site or watch the American version. Despite the poor quality of some CNN editorial choices, one can not lump all criticism of the despotic Chinese Communist Party into one category as being “anti-Chinese”. If the CCP could rise above their membership that is pure gangster and engage in real leadership and problem-solving, they could have worked this out but, as it is, they act like guilty thieves that stole and are desperately trying to justify the act. (This mink stole and jewelry was and is mine!)
Additionally, though Tibetans could have tried non-violent means, I can still really understand their pent-up anger. To also lump these protesters into one category as being criminals is too easy and should be avoided so as to work out a better solution to this situation.
China lied about pushing back the Olympics because it’s too hot earlier in the Summer so that it could start on a date that will capitalize on Chinese superstition: 8/8/8. That should be enough to boycott the games.
@Nkmonitor
-Tibetans’ were not justified in their use of violence against Han Chinese.
Right. It would have been best if they engaged in peaceful protests, but riots like these are usually not organized nor planned. When oppressed humans tend to lash out violently.
- By using violence, Tibetans legitimated Beijing’s use of force in retaliation.
In some ways, no. Violence is never legitimized. In fact, are not the Tibetans responding to the violence of the Chinese against their culture and populace? If you legitimize Chinese response, I do not see how you can not legitimize the riots as well.
Kinda off topic, but I was a bit curious and R. Elgin added the links to it, so hah. It is kinda relevant…
I understand that the Black Power salute incident in 1968 Olympics was criticized heavily by the contemporary media/people. Does the criticism still stands in hindsight and/or today’s standard? Were they wrong in making a political statement in an Olympic event, or can it be even considered a ‘political statement’ anymore?
Targeting violence at a particular group in a fairly spontaneous riot is not ethnic cleansing, which is a more systematic mass murder or expulsion, usually carried out by government or paramilitary groups.
What happened in Tibet was a race riot in the same vein as the 1943 and 1967 riots in Detroit, Watts in 1965, and Newark in 1967. Those who engaged in violence were properly arrested, but there was national self-reflection in the aftermath to understand the causes in order that similar riots not break out in the future. A group of Chinese academics has wisely and bravely published a petition calling on the Chinese government to hold talks with the Dalai Lama and attempt to address grievances among Tibetans. I applaud these academics for not buying into The Chinese Man’s Burden.
“Bum”, consider the view of some people (Jacques Rogge, current President of the International Olympic Committee) who seem to think that the Olympics are not political in nature when it clearly is — despite the high and lofty verbiage tossed about by the IOC.
Not that it matters but, since you asked, IMHO, Carlos and Smith were right to do what they did, for that time. Dissent is healthy and needed periodically, especially to remind Americans that they live in a democracy whether they like it or not.
“If the Tibetan people had engaged in peaceful protests… they would have had your sympathy.”
I’m sure they appreciate your sympathy. I’m sure that the world’s sympathy meant alot to those who have protested peacefully and been tortured, maimed, murdered and been “disappeared” in the past.
That’s almost word for word what rednecks say back in Australia justifying the cultural genocide white Australians launched against indigenous Australians for upwards of 150 years.
It’s Tibet’s land. Tibet didn’t ask China to come in, take over and build roads. Sure, Tibet has benefited in some ways from China’s occupation but this by no means justifies it.
Sonagi wrote:
No, there is a difference between the two. Detroit and Watts were not occupied by an act of war, though some people might feel it really was a war of race. Caucasian Americans were not attempting to out breed African-Americans or to destroy their culture. If anything, African-Americans have helped to make America what it is today, in the best sense.
Judging by the blatant attempts of the state-controlled media in China, there is no reflection on their mistakes and the Chinese Communist Party will not accept anything but “One World, One Dream” and it is a dream that is a nightmare for others.