- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
Senate insists China should protect human rights in Tibet
Posted Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:14pm AEDT
Updated Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:05pm AEDT
The Senate has called on China to respect human rights as it deals with protests in Tibet.
Greens Senator Bob Brown moved the motion which urged the Government to pressure China to insist that rights are protected and not to deny the media access to hotspots.
The Government supported his motion and the Special Minister of State, John Faulkner, called on China to do more.
"We do believe ... that an open and transparent approach to human rights issues would greatly assist China strengthen its standing in the international arena," Mr Faulkner said. ... etc
BEIJING, China (CNN) -- James Miles, of The Economist, has just returned from Lhasa, Tibet. The following is a transcript of an interview he gave to CNN.
Q. How easy was it for you to see what you wanted to see?
A. Well remarkably so, given that the authorities are normally extremely sensitive about the presence of foreign journalists when this kind of incident occurs. I was expecting all along that they were going to call me up and tell me to leave Lhasa immediately. I think what restrained them from doing that, one very important factor in this, was the thoughts of the Olympic Games that are going to be staged in Beijing in August. And they have been going out of their way to convince the rest of the world that China is opening up in advance of this. I think they probably didn't want me there but they knew that I was there with official permission, and one thing they've been trying to get across over the last few months is that journalists based in Beijing can now get around the country more freely than they could before. Of course Tibet is a special example. I've been a journalist in China now for 15 years altogether. This is the first time that I've ever got official approval to go to Tibet. And it's remarkable I think that they decided to let me stay there and probably they felt that it was a bit of a gamble. But as the protests went on I think they also probably felt that having me there would help to get across the scale of the ethnically-targeted violence that the Chinese themselves have also been trying to highlight.
Q. What you say you saw corroborates the official version. What exactly did you see?
A. What I saw was calculated targeted violence against an ethnic group, or I should say two ethnic groups, primarily ethnic Han Chinese living in Lhasa, but also members of the Muslim Hui minority in Lhasa. And the Huis in Lhasa control much of the meat industry in the city. Those two groups were singled out by ethnic Tibetans. They marked those businesses that they knew to be Tibetan owned with white traditional scarves. Those businesses were left intact. Almost every single other across a wide swathe of the city, not only in the old Tibetan quarter, but also beyond it in areas dominated by the ethnic Han Chinese. Almost every other business was either burned, looted, destroyed, smashed into, the property therein hauled out into the streets, piled up, burned. It was an extraordinary outpouring of ethnic violence of a most unpleasant nature to watch, which surprised some Tibetans watching it. So they themselves were taken aback at the extent of what they saw. And it was not just targeted against property either. Of course many ethnic Han Chinese and Huis fled as soon as this broke out. But those who were caught in the early stages of it were themselves targeted. Stones thrown at them. At one point, I saw them throwing stones at a boy of maybe around 10 years old perhaps cycling along the street. I in fact walked out in front of them and said stop. It was a remarkable explosion of simmering ethnic grievances in the city.
Q. Did you see other weapons?
A. I saw them carrying traditional Tibetan swords, I didn't actually see them getting them out and intimidating people with them. But clearly the purpose of carrying them was to scare people. And speaking later to ethnic Han Chinese, that was one point that they frequently drew attention to. That these people were armed and very intimidating.
Q. There was an official response to this. In some reporting, info coming from Tibetan exiles, there was keenness to report it as Tiananmen.
A. Well the Chinese response to this was very interesting. Because you would expect at the first sings of any unrest in Lhasa, which is a city on a knife-edge at the best of times. That the response would be immediate and decisive. That they would cordon off whatever section of the city involved, that they would grab the people involved in the unrest. In fact what we saw, and I was watching it at the earliest stages, was complete inaction on the part of the authorities. It seemed as if they were paralyzed by indecision over how to handle this. The rioting rapidly spread from Beijing Road, this main central thoroughfare of Lhasa, into the narrow alleyways of the old Tibetan quarter. But I didn't see any attempt in those early hours by the authorities to intervene. And I suspect again the Olympics were a factor there. That they were very worried that if they did move in decisively at that early stage of the unrest that bloodshed would ensue in their efforts to control it. And what they did instead was let the rioting run its course and it didn't really finish as far as I saw until the middle of the day on the following day on the Saturday, March the 15th. So in effect what they did was sacrifice the livelihoods of many, many ethnic Han Chinese in the city for the sake of letting the rioters vent their anger. And then being able to move in gradually with troops with rifles that they occasionally let off with single shots, apparently warning shots, in order to scare everybody back into their homes and put an end to this.
Q. Did you actually see clashes between security forces and Tibetan protesters?
A. Well what I saw and at this stage, the situation around my hotel which was right in the middle of the old Tibetan quarter, was very tense indeed and quite dangerous so it was difficult for me to freely walk around the streets. But what I saw was small groups of Tibetans, and this was on the second day of the protests, throwing stones towards what I assumed to be, and they were slightly out of vision, members of the security forces. I would hear and indeed smell occasional volleys of Tear gas fired back. There clearly was a small scale clash going on between Tibetans and the security forces. But on the second day things had calmed down generally compared with the huge rioting that was going on...on the Friday. And the authorities were responding to these occasional clashes with Tibetans not by moving forward rapidly with either riot police and truncheons and shields, or indeed troops with rifles. But for a long time, just with occasional, with the very occasional round of tear gas, which would send and I could see this, people scattering back into these very, very, narrow and winding alleyways. What I did not hear was repeated bursts of machine gun fire, I didn't have that same sense of an all out onslaught of massive firepower that I sensed here in Beijing when I was covering the crushing of the Tiananmen Square protests in June, 1989. This was a very different kind of operation, a more calculated one, and I think the effort of the authorities this time was to let people let off steam before establishing a very strong presence with troops, with guns, every few yards, all across the Tibetan quarter. It was only when they felt safe I think that there would not be massive bloodshed, that they actually moved in with that decisive force.
Q. At time you left, were Han Chinese moving freely back?
A. There were some on the Saturday morning. On the second day we came back to the shops and I saw them picking through the wreckage, tears in their eyes. They were astonished, as I was, at the lack of any security presence on the previous day. It was only during the night at the end of the first day that this cordon was established around the old Tibetan quarter. But even within it, for several hours afterwards, people were still free to continue looting and setting fires, and the authorities were still standing back. And it was only as things fizzled out towards the middle of the second day that as I say they moved in in great numbers. Ethnic Chinese in Lhasa are now very worried people. Some who had been there for many, many years expressed to me their utter astonishment that this had happened. They had no sense of great ethnic tension being a part of life in Lhasa. Now numerous Hans that I spoke to say that they are so afraid they may leave the city, which may have very damaging consequences for Lhasa's economy, Tibet's economy. Of course one would expect that ethnic Chinese would think twice now about coming into Lhasa for tourism, and that's been a huge part of their economic growth recently. And leaving Lhasa, I was sitting on a plane next to some Chinese businessmen, they say that they would normally come in and out of Lhasa by train. But their fear now is that Tibetans will blow up the railway line. That it is now actually safer to fly out of Tibet than to go by railway. We have no evidence of Terrorist activity by Tibetans, no accusation of that nature so far. But that is a fear that's haunting some ethnic Han Chinese now.
Q. When you were told to leave, what were you told?
A. Well I had an 8-day permit to be in Lhasa. That permit began two days before the rioting, on March 12, and was due to run out on March 19. My official schedule was basically abandoned after a couple days of this. Many of the places on my official itinerary turned out to be hotspots in the middle of this unrest. They left me to my own devices. I was stopped by the police at one point, taken to a police station. They made a few phone calls and then let me go back out on the streets full of troops and police carrying out the security crackdown. They insisted however that when my permit did expire on the 19th that I had to leave. I asked for an extension and they said decisively no.
Hi 2020hindsight.
Keep in mind if China obviously thinks that a media blackout is less damaging to China's reputation than otherwise. This can be due to 2 reasons:
1. Chinese are using excessive force to quell the protest:
Possible, but there were no eye witness accounts as yet.
2. Chinese thinks that western media was only interested in spinning a story on police brutality. (Which they did anyway without conclusive evidence). After all, China never gets any good press abroad anyway so it is understandable.
Keep in mind if China obviously thinks that a media blackout is less damaging to China's reputation than otherwise. This can be due to 2 reasons:
1. Chinese are using excessive force to quell the protest:
Possible, but there were no eye witness accounts as yet.
2. Chinese thinks that western media was only interested in spinning a story on police brutality. (Which they did anyway without conclusive evidence). After all, China never gets any good press abroad anyway so it is understandable.
First casualty truth you reckon? I guess the Dalai Lama was complaining about the crowds as well - threatening to resign etc - watch this space as they say.
and China has come a long way since Tien An Min Square, true.
Do the Chinese people fully support the current Chinese Govt you reckon?
that is where the government has been really smart by providing a selective free market economy.
Wow you are getting warmer there. That is the reason for violence all over asia, not just Tibet. Wealth inequality and inflation. See? You dont burn and loot your own capital city if what you want is freedom. But you might if you are poor and all you see are rich people and tourists roll into town.
GOtta be some truth in that.Wow you are getting warmer there. That is the reason for violence all over asia, not just Tibet. Wealth inequality and inflation. See? You dont burn and loot your own capital city if what you want is freedom. But you might if you are poor and all you see are rich people and tourists roll into town.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/18/tibet.independence/
Young Tibetans reject Dalai Lama's lead
March 18, 2008
While the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibet, many younger Tibetans do not follow him on a crucial question -- whether Tibet should have genuine autonomy or independence from China.
The young activists who have organized "Free Tibet" marches around the world demand independence for a homeland most of them have never seen. Born in exile, they reject the Dalai Lama's "middle way" of seeking "meaningful autonomy" -- not independence -- from China.
The youth activists also call for an international boycott of the Beijing Olympics, something the Dalai Lama does not do.
The Chinese government considers Tibet an autonomous province, but many Tibetans say it is autonomous in name only. The Dalai Lama says the Chinese often treat Tibetans as second-class citizens in their own land. He argues that Tibetans need full and genuine autonomy to protect their cultural heritage.
The Chinese government rejects international calls that it talk with the Dalai Lama, insisting he is a "separatist" and that his "clique" masterminded protests that convulsed Tibet last week and have spread to three neighboring Chinese provinces.
Tenzin Tsundue, a 32-year-old Tibetan activist and writer, said the Dalai Lama's demand for authentic autonomy from China was "wishful thinking."
Wow you are getting warmer there. That is the reason for violence all over asia, not just Tibet. Wealth inequality and inflation. See? You dont burn and loot your own capital city if what you want is freedom. But you might if you are poor and all you see are rich people and tourists roll into town.
Juw... ur an Chinese embassy staffer right ?
Aussie2Aussie said:Lets not forget another nation taking over your economy, housing and jobs.
Agree that many suffered under Mao in the cultural revolution. See how the media never got rid of that stigma.
regarding the one child policy. I thought that the policy just says the second child gets no benefits from the government but you are still allowed to have another if you are financially capable.
The one-child policy promotes couples having one child in rural and urban areas. The limit has been strongly enforced in urban areas, but the actual implementation varies from location to location.[5] In most rural areas, families are allowed to have two children if the first child is female or disabled.[6] Second children are subject to birth spacing (usually 3 or 4 years). Additional children will result in large fines: families violating the policy are required to pay monetary penalties
....
population policies and campaigns have been ongoing in China since the 1950s. During the 1970s, a campaign of 'One is good, two is okay and three is too many' was heavily promoted.
Recently, the policy has changed because the long period of sub-replacement fertility caused population aging and negative population growth in some areas,[11] and improvements in education and the economy have caused more couples to want to have fewer children.
In April 2007 a study by the University of California Irvine, which claimed to be the first systematic study of the policy, found that it had proved "remarkably effective".[12]
http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/onechild.htm
China has proclaimed that it will continue its one child policy, which limits couples to having one child, through the 2006-2010 five year planning period...
(but)
Now that millions of sibling-less people in China are now young adults in or nearing their child-bearing years, a special provision allows millions of couples to have two children legally. If a couple is composed of two people without siblings, then they may have two children of their own, thus preventing too dramatic of a population decrease.
it is common knowledge among the internet community that the chinese government has hoardes of people cruising internet forums and chat sites defending party policy.
What I do know is that the Chinese are well aware that their government is corrupt and censors etc, and are very critical of their government. Despite what you might hear, they actually take politics very seriously and discuss it openly.
However, you wont find any of them supporting Tibet independence because this is more they believe that other countries have no right to intervene with their politics. eg, I have met people from Iraq and Iran and it is no surprise how they feel about the US "freeing" them from their "evil dictator". Oh and Tibet is also a part of China.
Common knowledge? Can you back this up
go and find just one repressed Chinese person?
If you insult and generalise people of any country in this ignorant way, you will get the same response.
Think about it, it makes no sense for the Chinese government to hire people to post on forums that no Chinese reads (it's censored right?).
And if you read my posts, it is not hard to work out that I am in fact not typing in Chin-glish.
In case you missed it I will repost what I posted earlier: Oh and Tibet is also a part of China.
mmm, nothing I guess the embassy forgot to pay its broadband bill.
Very good points disarray, juw doesnt go so good when solid arguments are put in front of him/her.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?