Some security official in Lhasa is going to get taken to the woodshed for a paddling.
As most of you know, the Chinese government has organized its first trip for foreign journalists to Tibet since the riots there March 14. About two dozen American, European, Middle Eastern and Asian reporters are on the trip.
It was supposed to be a stage-managed trip to show that calm had returned after the riots. But something unexpected happened.
When the journalists were taken to the Jokhang Temple this morning, a group of about 30 monks started screaming that there is no religious freedom in Tibet. It lasted for about 15 minutes.
My colleague Charles Hutzler from the Associated Press wrote this in his story:
"Tibet is not free! Tibet is not free!" yelled one young Buddhist monk, who then started crying.
He added this further on:
"They want us to crush the Dalai Lama and that is not right," one monk said during the 15-minute outburst.
"This had nothing to do with the Dalai Lama," said another. The Chinese government says 22 people died, while Tibetan exiles say the violence plus the harsh crackdown afterward have left nearly 140 people dead.
The outburst by the monks came amid a morning of stage-managed events. Reporters had already been taken to a Tibet medical clinic that had been attacked nearby the Jokhang, and shown a the clothing stores where five girls had been trapped and burned to death.
The monks, who first spoke Tibetan and then switched to Mandarin so the reporters could understand them, said they knew they would probably be arrested for their actions but were willing to accept that.
Reuters, the British news agency, was not invited on the trip. But a Reuters reporter spoke to a journalist in Lhasa and wrote this in a dispatch:
The group of monks at the Jokhang Temple, the most sacred temple in Tibet and a top tourist stop in central Lhasa, barged into a briefing by the head of the temple's administrative office.
"About 30 young monks burst into the official briefing, shouting: 'Don't believe them. They are tricking you. They are telling lies'," USA Today reporter Callum MacLeod said by telephone from Lhasa.
Another reporter said some of the monks asserted that they had been unable to leave the Jokhang Temple since March 10.
A third journalist on the trip, Wang Che-nan, a cameraman for Taiwan's ETTV said the incident lasted about 15 minutes, after which unarmed police took the Tibetans to another area of the temple, away from the journalists.
It was unclear what happened to them next, the reporter said. Police and government minders did not confiscate notes or film from reporters but told them to move on. "They said: 'Your time is up, time to go to the next place,' " Wang said.
Okay, so imagine you’re a Chinese official in charge of public relations for this disaster: How do you spin it? Do you say the monks drank funny kool-aid this morning? Do you avoid explanations and just move on? Can you plausibly contend that all these monks are part of the “Dalai clique” and have been infiltrated into one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism?
Or do you just sit and feel that indigestion bubble up in the tummy, another Maalox moment, and prepare to go to the woodshed?
"They want us to crush the Dalai Lama."
No, what he said was, "They want us to curse the Dalai Lama."
Get better interpreters, or interpreters who can pronounce correctly. It's important.
Posted by: Dawa | April 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM
When someone as subtle as a monk goes beserk it will tell you a story of explicit indignation on the part of the invaders who have over the years ravaged the souls and identities of the monks and then proclaim that God is chinese.
Posted by: Menon | April 08, 2008 at 10:01 PM
ASingh sounds like an Indian FG. Is that possible?!
Posted by: bemis | April 07, 2008 at 01:16 AM
I took part in peaceful demonstrations in London, but not to disrupt it. Most others felt the same way.
China promised to improve Human Rights when the Olympic games were awared. However the events in the last few years demonstrate otherwise:
a) China has increased the crackdown on internal dissidents. For example the recent conviction by a Chinese court of long-time HIV/AIDS activist and rights defender Hu Jia.
b) Organ harvesting and related extrajudicial executions in Chinese labour camps. This is to supply transplants to foreign and wealthly Chinese clients as demonstrated in a BBC investigation. Infact executions at prisons were steeped up to meet excess demand in the nearby transplant hospital.
c) Ethic cleansing and cultural genocide of minorities, mainly Tibetans and Uyghurs in rural provinces in the west of China. This has taken place since the 1950s with the loss of 1.5m Tibetean lives.
d) Lack of general political freedom. The Communist party bosses have accumulated huge sums of money by using brute state power on the voiceless - land grabs, forced deportation are good example. These methods have also been used for developing the Olympic Village in Beijing.
e) International Relations: China exports its form of repression to other states. North Korea & Burma are immediate satellite states with gross human rights violations. Its role in Africa with support for Sudan despite its repression in Darfur and China's support for Zimababwe's Mugabe speak for themselves.
f) Curbs on journalists who are not free to report in China. The situation is worse for local reporters.
g) Lack of freedom of religion: Religion is still considered as poison by the communist party as it was in times of Chairman Mao. This has resulted to mass purges of Churches, Monastries and Mosque. Not to mention Falung Gong.
These are good reasons for the world to boycott the games, or at the minmum the opening ceremony.
Opponents of this view would say one should not mix sports and politics, while leading secure lives not the receiving end of Chinese repression. Yes they are right in ideal circumstances. However in this case, China has politicised the games by wanting to display to the world its 'harmonious' society. The repression leaves global citizens with no choice but to protest.
This is in no way a stance against the Chinese people, who are as much victims of the communist party propoganda. The recent whipping up of Han chauvinism towards his Holiness the Dalai Lama sounds right of a Communist playbook from the Cultural revolution.
I wish for all global citizens to rise up for Human Rights, common values and morals to stand up against Chinese communist repression.
Posted by: ASingh | April 06, 2008 at 07:07 PM
Keystone: your smugness about things Western, just about equals my smugness about things Chinese. So-o-o, respective "goodness" & "badness" can perhaps be safely left to the the Bar of Public Opinion: I think Muslims (like people the world over) are perfectly capable of judging who their friends & enemies are.
Posted by: bemis | April 03, 2008 at 09:15 PM
Religious freedom is a good thing. But it is dangerous to mix up religions with politics. I believe Dalai has been mixing up the two. It is unfortunate that he was awarded the Nobel prize.
What kind of autonomy will it be if he returns to Tibet? The same kind of slavery system 50 years gao? At the least, modern European people will not allow such a brutal political system to exist in Europe?
The issue, then, is that it would be even ironic that he claims that he wants to have a western-style demoncratic system --- what he represents is the olde slavery system. If Tebit is to have a democratic system, then he is the PAST and there is no position for him in Tibet either.
Posted by: Y | April 01, 2008 at 01:41 AM
Bemis,
As most Americans know it's true. Religious groups in the US are allowed tax exemptions, not to mention the fact that they can receive federal funding for various local programs they run, from poverty relief, various educational courses, and community outreach for social services, to a slew of other things. This is often true in Europe as well.
You can put your hands to your ears, close your eyes, stomp your feet around and such, but it won't change the fact that in the West religious freedom is highly respected, and viewed as an area the government should not try to dictate. Obviously, some people such as you seem to have a big problem with the idea of religious freedom, seemingly favoring heavy regulation of religious content and organization. You simply don't understand the concept.
Posted by: Keystone | March 31, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Keystone: Is that so! Islamic mosques are "subsidized" by Western governments?! That MIGHT be "news" to about 1 billion Muslims, all around the world, who maybe think first of water-boarding, rather than subsidies. And stated SO BALDLY! & BOLDLY -- without even batting an eyelash... The tag "thick-skinned liar" comes to mind.
Posted by: bemis | March 31, 2008 at 06:20 PM
Actually I made a mistake in my last post. All monasteries are restricted to 80 monks/nuns, not 800.
And Bemis, yes, like I stated before, most Western governments do give subsidies to religious groups. In the USA, Islamic groups, like local mosques, can be granted such things as tax credits for example, and in some cases educational funding: so long as there is no discrimination in the allocation of such benefits based on religious affiliation, and non-religious groups are not excluded. And no, unlike China, Western governments do not control who are appointed as leaders, what can be taught, and do not force religious adherents to love the State and denounce their religious leaders.
Posted by: Keystone | March 31, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Keystone: Western Government subsidize Religious Goups? So is Islam subsidized? And if not, why not? Any similarity to Dalai problem?
Posted by: bemis | March 31, 2008 at 08:33 AM
Hehe,
A quick answer would be YES. Western governments indeed allow subsidies for religious groups, without blatantly interfering in their religious activities.
In much of Europe and the USA, large, highly organized religious groups are allowed to be taxed at a lower rate. Many even qualify for various government subsidies. For instance, in the USA, religious bodies can receive subsidies, provided the subsidy is not solely restricted by religion, and other non-religious groups can also receive subsidies. However, these governments stay out of regulating the content of what is taught.
In contrast, Tibetan monasteries are not government subsidized. They by and large operate on donations from their followers. The PRC government has done some work, such as financing the reconstruction of monasteries destroyed in the Cultural Revolution here and there, but usually as tourist attractions. A few years ago the PRC government kicked out thousands of monks and nuns and limited the number allowed to be enrolled at 800. All monasteries are required to teach "patriotic education" which states that the Dalai Lama is evil, anti-revolutionary, an enemy of the Tibetan people, and the Communist Party gave Tibet its freedom.
Many states tolerate religious freedom, people like you it seems, cannot grasp the meaning of the term.
Posted by: Keystone | March 30, 2008 at 06:29 PM
Otto Kerner,
This is the way you need to follow to question my statement:
Name at least one country in this world, democratic or not democratic, that allows government subsidized monks publicly worship a living figure who is not only the supreme religious leader of their religion but also the head of a government-in-exile which has been seeking indepenence of one quarter of the country's territory and grabbing any opportunity that can be used to damage the public image of that nation.
"What about the freedom of religion of monks and other Tibetan people to choose which Panchen Lama they belive in",
The freedom of religion should be granted, but not without condition. When the "religious" figure they worship is also a political figure, this issue is not purely about religious freedom anymore.
No state in this world, past, present or in the future, would tolerate such kind of religious freedom.
That boy is a pawn of a POLITICAL struggle between the DL and the Chinese government.
Whenever people say "his holyness the DL", it makes me laugh. I never knew that there could been a "holy" politican. Now we have one.
Posted by: hehe | March 29, 2008 at 08:47 AM
Hehe: "Certainly no government in this world allows the worship of the head of a government-in-exile which seeks independence of a large part of its territory". Which examples are you thinking of of other countries which do not allow this? I can't think of any. If China is the only country in this situation, it doesn't make sense to cite other countries as an excuse for China's policies.
What about the freedom of religion of monks and other Tibetan people to choose which Panchen Lama they belive in. Are you going to tell me that Gendün Chökyi Nyima, who has been in custody since he was six years old, is some kind of secessionist leader?
Y: So, reporters go to Lhasa, where something dramatic and interesting occurs, and it surprises you to learn that they will report on this interesting event?
You are correct that the monks in old Tibet used to have something like an army. However, it was not the Dalai Lama's army -- it was its own separate power. In the mid 1940s, in fact, there was a bloody battle in which Tibetan government forces stormed Sera Monastery to disperse rebellious armed monks. However, I don't see what that has to do with 2008 -- it was a long time ago, and obviously most of these monks were not even born yet then.
Also, you ask "Are they really tibetants?" So, you suspect them of being what? Taiwanese plants? The Dalai Lama's special corps of expert-Chinese-speaking agents provacateurs? Or maybe they are just monks who happen to live in Lhasa, a city where there are a lot of Chinese people who don't speak Tibetan, and in a country where a lot of education and media occur in Chinese.
wk: "Bring these monks to China's Guantanamo( if there is one), they sure will talk." Is this some kind of sick joke? China doesn't have political detention centers? You don't think some of the Lhasa protestors (along with some of the rioters) are already in Drapchi?
LBSH: You're really saying that this shows some kind good intentions from the government? What was the government going to do, start clubbing the monks with batons inside of Jokhang in front of a roomful of foreign reporters? Don't you suppose it would take around 15 minutes to organise an appropriate police response anyway?
Posted by: Otto Kerner | March 28, 2008 at 08:39 PM
Great comment and my favorit Blog. Thanks and Best Regards
Posted by: Autoversicherung | March 28, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Can some one explain this troubling fact here:
If China is indeed persecuting religions, then where do these 30 YOUNG 'monks' come from? Surely they became 'monks' in the past decades or so, or were they born a 'monk'?
I am confused.
Posted by: lala land | March 28, 2008 at 12:56 PM
@Both-side-now:
PROTIP: Not all posters are from the US.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 28, 2008 at 11:34 AM
The media is using the term "Buddhist monks" very loosely to describe the rioters who wear the red robes. Buddhist monks and nuns are supposed to find freedom through cultivation of self-restraint, mental calmness and insight about human nature. They are training themselves to get rid of cravings, aversions and delusions. Such is how Buddhists find true freedom. None of those angry red-robed young men shown on TV resembles a true Buddhist monk. The ways they behave would get themselves rejected from the Sangha of monks. A true monk would conduct himself in a serene, peaceful and dignified manner. The western journalists have much to learn about the Buddhist faith.
Posted by: Monkish | March 28, 2008 at 02:55 AM
To all the self-righteous cheer-leaders of the Tibetan rioters, read this passage from the bible: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Here are the beams: Gitmo, death sentence of the innocent, large prison populations of the poor and colored skin, Abu Ghraib, renditions, water-boarding, illegal wire-tapping, ...
So much for indignation about Human Right abuses.
Posted by: Both-Side-Now | March 28, 2008 at 02:24 AM
After reading the analysis from the reporter of Financial Times, whose visited Tibet, it seems to me that the chinese government's claim is correct:
The riot is a well-planned action with the purpose to stir up ethnic hatred among Tibetants, Muslisms, and Hans. Who planned this? This is a good question to dig further.
I remembered the news said that the visit of the U.S. House speaker to Dalai Lama right after the riot was also planned. How accurate is the calculation.
So, no need to search for further truth for now. It is already there.
Posted by: Y | March 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM
I am trying to answer these questions:
Why the monks aren't happy?
Why are they so restless?
Here is my thoughts:
It probably has to do with their eroding social status in an increasingly commercial and secular society. They feel threatened by the encroaching commercialism that's happening around them.
therefore I would characterize this riot as the clash between the traditionally theocratic culture and the new commercial culture ,adding a little racial element.
Similar process had happened in inland China before.
Looking at 20th century China, a particular group of people was also very agitated. They were expected to occupy the highest positions of social hierarchy (government bureaucracy )eventually. Their social status was also threatened by the emerging commercial class. They looked down upon any form of business activities. They repeatedly rebelled. They joined the revolutions. They launched all kinds of "movements". They were violently put down in an attempt to overthrow the status quo 19 years ago and finally they no longer considered government bureaucracy as their only career path. They plunged into the "see of business" and we have the "China Miracle"
They were the students.
Posted by: bandw | March 27, 2008 at 09:52 PM
One of famous Taiwanese political figure and talk show host Sisy Chen (陳文茜) said today that the Taiwan military was one of the sponsor for Tibet riot groups. One of the high rank military officer (Taiwan CIA)was resigned about one week ago because Tibet situation. http://www.sisychen.com
Posted by: LaoLiao | March 27, 2008 at 08:39 PM
The American connection:
"Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JC26Ad02.html
Posted by: Pffefer | March 27, 2008 at 08:00 PM
As a U.S. citizen, I would be rather upset that the CIA is wasting money in Tibet by dressing up as monks to embarass the Chinese government... You think they didn't notice that anti-satellite demonstration by the Chinese government some time ago? The monk patrol was probably recalled and sent to Iraq long ago.
Posted by: kt | March 27, 2008 at 06:58 PM
How are Tibetan people servid by this media frenzy? Major news outlets repeting "news," with background they know to be false? Unbelievably I have to come to "blogs" to find an opportunity to post a comment, and a reality check.
I did a survey today, of some US Congressional offices, none of whom knew that the Dalai Lama was paid $180,000 by the CIA to willingly leave Tibet in 1959, and lie about China.
None of them knew that the Dalai Lama had owned thousands of slaves, and that China, and not the dalai Lama had freed them.
Neither the person in Kannedy's office, nor Pelosi's knew that China, and not the Dalai Lama built schools so Tibetan families could have their children educated.
None knew that China, not the Dalai Lama had built hospitals.
The best reality check, however, is to ask yourselves this question? Does the US allow Tibetan students to sit for eaxms, and if they do well, attend College in the US? yes? Is that cultural genoci\de, and destroying thier language? Then, when you hear that manty Tibetan students in Universities around China have gone out to demonstrate, does it not occur to you that these Tibetan students probably studied for exams and passed them, in Chinese.
It has always been my underatanding that being accepted to Universary is an opportunity, not oppression.
Why do not Chinese and Americans study Tibetan? Why would they? What Universaries require one to take exam in Tibetan?
BTW: When did the US end the yearly payments to the Dalai Lama and the yearly millions to his supporters in Dharmasala?
Posted by: Kathy Podgers | March 27, 2008 at 06:51 PM
Just watched the video clips, and found out that it is amazing that the those monks' mandarin (the official chinese language) is so fluent. Are they really tibetants?
Posted by: Y | March 27, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Bring these monks to China's Guantanamo( if there is one), they sure will talk.
Posted by: wk | March 27, 2008 at 02:54 PM
The officials allowed the monks to carry on 15 minutes, which is the point the government wants to make but the press decisively choose to ignore.
Posted by: LBSH | March 27, 2008 at 01:22 PM
I have been waiting for two days for the western reporters to tell me something new as they "finally" set their feet there (this is not quiter accurate though --- there were western witnesses there already).
But I am disappointed that the only thing they sent back is a group of 30 monks' angry act. There are several millions of tibetants who are not monks! I believe monks used to be like Dala's army --- correct me if I am wrong about this.
What is the status of those innocent people whose life have been dramatically affected, physically hurt and life-effort businees destroyed. Those group people are the ones that need human right help since they mostly likely will not get much help from Beijing either, thanks to our human-right pressure to Beijing.
Posted by: Y | March 27, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Those monks are here:
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/weblog.htm
Posted by: hehe | March 27, 2008 at 12:38 PM
"Can you plausibly contend that all these monks are part of the “Dalai clique” and have been infiltrated into one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism?" would be my choice. Adding to that: "This is a small group incited by CIA operatives long operating in Tibet. China has built a railway into Tibet to improve its economy. China has spent a lot of money in Tibet to improve the livelihood of Tibetans. Long live Chairman Mao."
Posted by: Bill | March 27, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Was Rasputin one of the monks?
Posted by: A B | March 27, 2008 at 10:33 AM
What truth? No religious freedom? To some extent depending on your measure. Certainly no government in this world allows the worship of the head of a government-in-exile which seeks independence of a large part of its territory. When politics and religion are mixed, religious freedom does not exist in its original interpretation anymore.
Posted by: hehe | March 27, 2008 at 08:22 AM
What truth? No religious freedom? To some extent depending on your measure. Certainly no government in this world allows the worship of the head of a government-in-exile which seeks independence of a large part of its territory. When politics and religion are mixed, religious freedom does not exist in its original interpretation anymore.
Posted by: hehe | March 27, 2008 at 08:21 AM
So this story seem to affirm that even on the most stage managed thing, some slivers of truth comes through.
Posted by: A B | March 27, 2008 at 08:14 AM
Has anyone read this book? By Conboy & Morrison. ISBN 700611592. University of Kansas Press. Title? The CIA's Secret War in Tibet". Makes one wonder...
Posted by: bemis | March 27, 2008 at 07:58 AM