The student news site of Guilford College

The Guilfordian

The student news site of Guilford College

The Guilfordian

The student news site of Guilford College

The Guilfordian

China and Tibet clash over independence

Stones fly across the sky in the direction of a wall of troops, while monks chant anti-Chinese slogans. Shops burn and shots are fired throughout the region.The Chinese government and Tibetan protesters have been violently clashing on the streets of the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, this past month.

The protests began on March 10, the anniversary of a failed uprising against Chinese occupation in 1959. The protests quickly turned into looting, rioting, and violence.

The death toll is difficult to accurately assess, considering the ban of foreign journalists and China’s control over its media, but estimates range from 10 to the hundreds.

The resurgence of violence in the region is due to a variety of factors, according to Associate Professor of Political Science George Guo. One is pure frustration on the part of the Tibetans, who’ve been negotiating with the Chinese since the 1980s.

Another important factor is the rise in Tibetan radicalism. The radicals are part of a younger generation who have no attachment to China. They disagree with the Dalai Lama’s “middle policy” that calls for a high degree of autonomy, but not for independence.

The Chinese government accuses the Dalai Lama of being behind the violence.

“The government of Tibet Autonomous Region said Friday there had been enough evidence to prove that the recent sabotage was ‘organized, premeditated and masterminded’ by the Dalai clique,” reported the Chinese news agency, Xinhua.

The Dalai Lama has denied these accusations, and has called on the Chinese to stop their repression of the Tibetans.

“The Dalai Lama is looking for reconciliation with the government (to achieve his political ends),” Guo said. “The radicals are wanting to fight.”

Members of the U.S. government have harshly criticized the Chinese for their purported violent and oppressive actions during this crisis.

“If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China’s oppression in Tibet, we have lost our moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a press conference with the Dalai Lama.

The Chinese government immediately fired back at the United States, and particularly at Pelosi.

“Apathetic to those innocent victims in the recent Lhasa riot, Pelosi lost her own ‘moral authority to speak about human rights’ when she acted as a defender of arsonists, looters and killers,” Xinhua said on Sunday.

The uprising came at a crucial time for China on the international stage. Beijing, the Chinese capital, is hosting the 2008 Olympics and Chinese has been desperately trying to clean up its act.

The Chinese claim that the protests are designed to sabotage the Olympics and embarrass China in front of the world.

“The radicals thought that this was their best chance to draw international attention and to apply pressure for reform,” Guo said.

There is speculation that the Tibet protests will lead to some kind of boycott from countries throughout the world, much like the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980 over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Sentiment from many world leaders today, however, seems to be quite different.

“I don’t think we should mix sports and politics,” Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in an interview with Bloomberg Newswire.

Now, with the Olympics rapidly approaching, and negotiations over Tibet indefinitely stalled, the eyes of the world are on both China and Tibet. While much of the world is calling for dialogue, it’s conceivable that the protests are destined to continue.

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

The Guilfordian intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks, or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. Comments are reviewed and must be approved by a moderator to ensure that they meet these standards. The Guilfordian does not allow anonymous comments, and requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All The Guilfordian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *