Simmering resentment boils over

here's what i can't understand: aside from tourism, what can tibet offer mainland china besides sucking up central tax money? news media always report "many local tibetans are resentful of current conditions" -- how many is "many"? vast majority? half? significant minority? tiny fraction? if the riots/looting reflects the majority of local tibetans, i think the chinese government should simply let go of a region that's eating up public funds needed for mainland farmers and other disadvantaged groups, as opposed to tibetan development. just imagine that the chinese central government announces first thing monday morning, "all chinsese government entities and security forces now officially leave tibet", and then gives a 60-day window for anybody willing to become Chinese citizen to move to mainland before letting tibet become its own country, with visa requirements for tibetans to enter china -- what will happen? this would solve the olympics dilemma of free tibet demonstrations, and also improve china's human rights image (even though living standards in tibet will likely go down on the UN human development index).

The current wave of anti-Chinese demonstrations in Lhasa, as violent as it has been, is unlikely to "embarrass" China. I think it is a verity that the Communists cannot be embarrassed: if they could be, matters would have changed a long time ago. Despite the bright spotlight of international attention over the Tianammen square incidents, China seemed unconcerned by any "embarrassment." This wave of voiolence will no doubt be followed by draconian suppression of the Tibetan desire for a country of their own, and apart from adminstering mild raps on the knuckles, neither America or India, or even the United Nations, will do much about it. China has long demonstrated an almost evil mastery of geo-political factors; its control of Tibet has much to do with eventual control of the water resources of the major subcontinental region comprised of India, Pakistan and Bangladersh. China has the patience to wait a hundred years to achieve that purpose. So far, China has been shackled with no sanctions or penalties for its nefarious ways, and that signals the Chinese that it is 'business as usual" as far as the world is concerned. Tibet is a minor pawn in the great game of Chinese Checkers.

I am sorry to hear the fire blazing on Tibets streets again. Tibet, I believe is the most chaste world which has been smirched by violence and irrationality. It is a intractable and controversial problem from China government. If we indulge this sort of behavior, the result could be another Taliban or HAMAS. However, if we against it with the same violence, we become Taliban or HAMAS first. In this time, we can see certain restrain of violence in government. I also believe Chinese people, include Tibetan, who just got rid of chaos in whole country and achieved the most significant progress in economic development in last decades, never want to invovle in any kind of political eddy, but the peaceful environment.

In this article the author suggest that immigration and inflation could be the cause of riot.

Concern the first reason, I believe the immigration of Han ethnic could be a reason. While, if Tibetan feel their culture and civilization was violated by Han ethnic, they can try to perserve their culture in peaceful way. Actually, Tibetan kids learn their history and language in school. Moreover, mergering between multiple cultures is the irresistble currunt of this century. Anyone one who want to lock their door to against the civilization from outside could be naive and impolitic. And I totally agree with Lin Hao, that their former administration treat them as slave, which is acceptable in mordern society. If United States emancipate Iraq people from Saddam's dictation is justice, then nobody could blame China government,s attitude towards Dalai Lama.

Consider the second reason, it is ridiculous to take this one as excuse of riot. The inflation they suffered has spreaded all over the country. Besides, the whole country achieved the most astonishing success in economy, especially in inflation control, it is a miracle in history that a country can maintain almost 10% percent increase in GPD, while suppress the inflation under 3% in last two decades, except in 1989 and 1992.

At last, without the support from central government and the investment from other part of China, the Tibet's economy could be far worse than now. Han ethnic give them not only finacial support, but also experience in economy development. Further, it is common sense that convient public traffic could bring more efficiency in economical development. China government invest more than 180 billion Yuan to build the hardest project in history---Qingzang railway---to promote the economy development. Actually, all these many are taxes mainly from other earas in China. I believe most people could agree with the conculsion that government sacrificed other people's public welfare to support the economy development in Tibet. There are copious areas which can not get get rid of poverty because of lacking efficient traffic, such as northeast Russian�€‚If they can not accept it right now, I believe, they will accept it in future.

Look at those people who support Dalai lama,they're slaveholder before communist enter tibet...of course they want to build a country of their own again,'cause they want to get back what they have lost...i really doubt that if the people of tibet want independence,nobody want to be slave,especially want to be slave again.otherwise,without aid from other part of China,how can they develope tibet.

"10 major rivers, including the Brahmaputra (or Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet), the Sutlej and the Indus. About 90 per cent of the Tibetan rivers�€™ runoff flows downstream to India, Bangladesh Nepal and Pakistan"

copied from this website.

http://www.tibetanliberation.org/articledivertwater.html

It is not the rivers in china that they want to control. it is the entire region. imagine how cool it would be to build a dam and control people of three countries (pakistan, india and bangladesh - incidentlly world's most dense region) in one go.

The land is not arable, yes. However, it is amenable to industries. They already have an express highway all the way to indian border.

Most importantly, tibet is of strategic importance. it is the buffer land where so many boudaries touch.

Make no mistake, China is doing a favor to tibet as much as USA to Iraq. It's all about acquiring resources you don't have.

China doesn't have ethnic or religious similarities to Tibetians. there is no tibet in 'one china'. they are powerful right now, and that's what matters.

tibetans hate chinese and chinese occupation. how do i know? i have talked to tibetans personally (hundreds of them) who are refugee in India.

India, because of threats from China wouldn't give them any legal status. China doesn't give a damn about human rights anyway. It's not a life that you or I would like to live.

if we look around in the region and imagine what tibet would be like if china weren't making an effort to integrate it to the world economy (in which china is now an indispensable part), i could potentially see tibet being similar to nepal, bhutan, india, bangladesh, and burma (2007/08 UN Human Development Index ranking at 142, 133, 128, 140, and 132, respectively). and if i were a tibetan who wants to improve my living conditions, i'd rather have China (ranked 81) taking care of my needs. and of course, if i were a tibetan who:(1) used to a slave owner and wants to get my slavery plantations back, or (2) does not care about "human development" and wants to be living in my "natural" state,I would not want the Chinese government to govern me. (1) is simply backward and recognized by pretty much all peoples as unjust; (2) does have its rationality behind it, but how many tibetans belong to this category is a good question.

to those who think The Economist is biased,

I actually have new respect for The Economist for their report. Yes, it does owe us an answer why its correspondent is the only permitted one. But I am particularly disappointed by the report of some newspapers and websites.

For example, the CNN and The Guardian simply states in their title that more than a hundred were killed, then in their articles it turns out that this is based on unconfirmed figures from the exile Tibetan government. Also they report it as if there were indeed gunfires for sure, whereas The Economist report makes weaker claims such as:

"The occasional bang was heard, but it was difficult to tell whether it was shooting or explosions in the fires."
"A handful of riot police with shields and helmets (but no guns visible)"

The CNN and other media seems to be somewhat selective in their reports as well: they report less than The Economist about the sword carrying Tibetans and never quoted the Chinese government's claim that ten innocent Han Chinese people are burned to death and two bodies are seized by the mobs. Also the Chinese government's claim that they planned to display the dead bodies.

Some of the reports are even exaggerated such as the deployment of tanks: I doubt if the Chinese paramilitary armed police have tanks and also from the pictures we can only see APCs but not tanks.

Just because what The Economist reports does not fit into your preconceptions about Tibet and China does not make it biased. The Tibetan's cause does not justify the mobs burning and beating and even killing. The Communists are discredited does not mean the exile Tibetan government is telling the truth. We should wait for more evidence to come.

DalaiLaMa is called the living Buddha, weird what's he been doing is much like a annoying politician,lobbying all around the world to regain power in Tibet as the King~~if the Buddha is meant to bring happiness and peace to his people, seems he should make his peace with fact and let it go. His people are fine, Tibet's economy is booming and as far as i know, some of its people are bullying around the rest of China,violent and aggressive, quite the opposite to their "suppressed" claims.
DalaiLama aims to turnback history ,there's a lot to know about past as well as nowadays ,if you try to stand by supporting him

By your logic, guru, any forced occupation that happened in the world is illegal: US occupying native indian's land is illegal as the latest. Many coutries would have not existed at all if any forced occupation were illegal. We should all have a referendum in every part of the world to decide if all the ethnic groups should be seperate into different nations based on their dominant ethnicity.

By the way, like it or not, Tibet has been an administrative constituent of China since Ming and Qing, is now, and will still be. That's what China and Chinese will realize soon and forever.

I am extremely disappointed with this reportage. There are reports all over saying no media is allowed into Tibet and you are describing yourself as the only officially allowed media reporter. Why would China allow that? I just hope Economist is not becoming like the Hindu newspaper in India, completely left leaning paper and who receives special treatment from the Beijing authorities for its bias reporting. Beijing says this ongoing unrest was carried by few outlaws. If this is the truth then why would Beijing not allow the people in China watch other cable news channels. Why the black out. Chinese people should see the few outlaws rampaging the streets. But the reality tells something else. Tibetans have suffered so much for so long. Tibetans are completely marginalized. Chinese are un-welcomed guest, after all they marched into Tibet through the use of brutal force. There were no chinese in Lhasa 50 years back. Tibetans were living on their own whether in a feudal system or not. But that was none of Chinese business. Lastly, Tibet is currently like a body without heart and soul. The very spark of Tibet's cultural and religious identity has lived in exile for the last 50 years. The Tibetans will continue to struggle and defy the heavy handed rule by the Chinese authorities no matter the loss of lives.

Thank you. We are fortunate to have your eyes and ears on the ground in Lhasa when few others can be found.

Are those rebels terrorists? Because their looting store and burning down the houses reminds me of terrorists.

"china needs land and water."Land: the tibetan plateau, as we all know, is the "roof" of the world -- not sure how much land can be used in china's development (farming? real estate development? industries? i don't think so)water: yes water is precious and crucial for china, but the nobody can "own" a river -- a river keeps flowing whichever government is on the land. the chinese government doesn't need to be the governing body of tibet in order for hilamayan rivers to flow to mainland china. i don't deny tibet has great natural heritage, but for a government such as china's that's focused almost exclusively econ development, i'm afraid the land and water resources you brought up aren't the most crucial. and yes, mainland chinese are running all the projects/tourism/infrastructure, but they could simply leave and let whoever wants to stay do the work. all i'm saying is that, the chinese government could throw their hands up and say, "it's all yours"; and i'm not sure who will be hurt more under that scenario. from the chinese gov't perspective, it's the classic nationalist approach, and the "one-china" idea, but from a pragmatic perspective, there really isn't much reason for them to stay...

VladK02, to say that Tibet has "been a part of china on and off for millenia [sic]" may be misleading. While Tibetans and the Han Chinese have fought for millennia, China did not capture Tibet until 1950. Prior to the 20th century, Tibet and China were both states of the Mongol Empire; however at that time so was most of Eurasia stretching from the Mediterranean to the Pacific.

You must remember the one important consideration for the land. Yes, it is not arable, but it can be used for important sites. The opinion of the Chinese I have spoken to (over the years) is that, if Tibet were to become its own nation, it would become a US puppet who would install military and missile sites. The thought of US sites within striking distance of pretty much all of China is enough to stir fear in the mind of any nationalist Chinese. They hold Tibet, then, so that other countries may not.

It's not the fire on the roof of the world, it's on china's belly. Atleast we had one foreign reporter so that we can hear these type of information it had happened, else this reports never got published. Kudos to the team!!

But really worrying is, some mighty countries illegally occupying other countries and try to persuade with the people wont stay more longer. In these occasions, i dont understand why UN never opened its mouth? If it can liberate Kosovo from civil war, then i dont understand why they can do...

Now i think if you have power, then you can do anything. There is no concern for human rights, human values, blood. Why i am telling is, now a days its quite common in in Iraq(issues within communities), Pakistan(religious extremisim), Srilanka(no equal oppurtunity), Palestine or with china(illegal occupation) etc.

A successful government will serve and hear from the people and their feelings, instead they shouldn't set deadline for surrender or threaten with brutal force.

@bostnalejandro,

are you ignorant or outright stupid? what can tibet offer?

tibet is at the himalayan plataue. there originates all the big rivers of south-east asian region. why do you think china is interested in such a 'lame' land?

china needs land and water. tibet has both. by controlling river, china is going to control the most useful resource in coming 50 years.

moreover, mainland is helping tibetian only for their own profit? who do you think runs 'development projects', 'infrasturcutre' and tourist agencies?

how about looking up more geography and history?

This article unlikely live up to the quality of other stories on economist. I feel sorry for your unique china correspondent, I have to say her/his report full of bias. This sort of stories only undermine the reputation of the newsroom which operates more in the quality news coverage.

I agree with Mr. Massoud, the fact that the Economist journalist was the only one with official permission is context relevant to the the story.

I am not defending Chinese government. Expecially when its policy is biased to protect minority groups like Tibetan and we Han are seeing less respects as a result. Talking about Humanity, everybody's life is sacred. I hope no more bloodshed, neither from Tibetan or Han or Hui living is Lhasa.
And it seems you suggests police killed some TI protestors. Could you please share some inside stories? So far, what I heard from chinese sources (unofficial) and English sources (by tourists at site) indicating violent protestor and rioters looted stores, burnt houses and muslim temples and stoned our Han people and Hui. The killing is toward us. There is no government in the picture.
I heard Hui muslims were planing revenge 'cause their burnt temple is the center of their religion. There is 2 seconds in the film clip water001 provide that polices were patrolling the area where Hui live together and searched for suspected action. That's for Tibetan's own good.
Talking about human right, the parents of the Tibetan took on street these days were most serf slaves before Dalai Lama fled to India. What kind of human right did they have? That's what I learned. Correct me if you know more.