University community reacts to Tibet-China controversy
“I don’t feel that the Olympics should be used as leverage for politics,” Lily Shen ’11 said, explaining that the Olympic Games are “awarded to the country and its people but not to its government ... it’s not the flame of any specific ideology.”
Mark Jia ’10, president of the Chinese Student Association (CSA), echoed Shen’s concerns.
“I think it’s unfair that the Olympics and its many esteemed athletes around the world have to suffer from this,” he said in an e-mail. “The Tibetan people have legitimate cause to protest against the Chinese government, but I truly wish from the bottom of my heart that they would have chosen a different forum for communicating their discontent.”
Many Tibetans worry that the influx of Chinese from outside the region is threatening their culture and way of life. The Chinese response to recent Tibetan protests has drawn criticism from Western countries, several of which have threatened to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics if the conflict is not resolved peacefully. The Chinese government, however, maintains that it is simply trying to preserve the peace within the nation’s borders.
Tsering Wangyal Shawa, who is works in the Geosciences and Map Library and is Tibetan, called the violence in his homeland “unfortunate.”
He added, though, that he believes the Tibetans have no other way to express their anger over their current relationship with China and that the attention placed on China by the Olympics makes this the best time for action.
“This is the only chance they [have to] say something,” Shawa explained.
Shen condemned Western influence in her country’s affairs, saying that the issue should be resolved internally in China. “[The] U.S. should just let it go,” she said.
Shawa disagreed, saying that stability in Tibet is in the interest of the entire world and therefore “all the foreign governments should really encourage the Chinese government to solve the Tibetan issue.”
Media coverage of the conflict
An Yi ’10, a Chinese student, said she thinks the protests against China are based on misinformation spread by a biased Western media.
“There were some reports by the Western media that were distorted or somehow false,” she explained, adding that the uprising of the Tibetans is “definitely not a peaceful protest” and added that Chinese officials must sometimes take severe measures to preserve the peace.
“As long as there’s violence ... it’s kind of the duty of the police to stop the crimes,” Yi said.
Western news outlets have not reported on this side of the story perhaps due to a fear of China’s growing leadership in Asia, Yi said. She did note that since news reports from Tibet have been hindered by media restrictions imposed by the Chinese government, coverage may be less than perfect.
Shen said she wants the Tibet conflict to be resolved according to the will of the Tibetan people, but that it is difficult to know exactly what they want.
Media coverage focuses on “privileged few Tibetans but not the majority,” Shen said, adding that the majority of Tibetans may not in fact want greater autonomy.
Shawa also expressed concerns relating to the media, but he faults the Chinese media for misrepresenting the situation to its own people.
“The coverage that they get in China is the coverage [the government officials] want them to get,” he said, citing footage shown of “Tibetans beating Chinese.”
Debate over autonomyShawa also expressed concerns that the violence in the region is problematic in its framing of Tibetans as being “anti-China.” Though he said he believes it is necessary to call on China to address “policy failures” with regard to Tibet, this does not mean that he is against the Chinese people.
If the Chinese government would respect “the Tibetans’ unique situation within China and respect their culture, their language, and their way of life, then I’m sure the Tibetans will be happy to live there,” he said.
Likewise, Jia said that he supports Tibetan autonomy without full independence. He noted that his views closely align with those of the Dalai Lama.
“I condemn the instances of brutality and suppression in the region and I support greater autonomy in governance and religious freedom for the Tibetan people,” he said, explaining that “full Tibetan independence is impossible by all practical considerations.”
Jia emphasized that regardless of his personal opinion, the CSA as an organization will remain politically neutral.
Human rights in ChinaYi said that the “human rights record ... is improving a lot in China since 10 years ago,” adding that the Chinese government has given Tibetans special privileges not afforded to China’s Han majority, including exemption from the One Child Policy and affirmative action in university admissions.
“The basic definition of human rights var[ies] from country to country,” Xiaohang Quan ’09, a Chinese student, said. “In terms of progress, there aren’t that many countries in this world that have done better than China.”
Jia noted the divisive nature of discussion about Tibet on campus, citing the split in the CSA.
Nevertheless, he remains, hopeful for a peaceful resolution.
“I think there’s much common ground here that has yet to be fully explored,” he said.
Digg it!
Share on Facebook
Post to Del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Reader Comments
View all 45 comments on "University community reacts to Tibet-China controversy".
Considering China's human rights record, saying that it has improved dramitically in the last ten years isn't saying much.
To Thetruth: you need to read ppl's points closely. 1. I never said the Chinese gov't is perfect. They have lots of improvement ahead and sure they've done lots of wrongs. But they have improved from what it was like 30 years ago. In fact, huge improvements. If you or the public don't know, that's because no Western media would say anything about it. Also, you neglect that fact that it's still a poor country (don't look at Beijing, Shanghai, or any of those spotlights. look at the majority of the country--peasants) and stability for economic developments perhaps values more to the public than the freedom of shouting some anti-government slogans. That's why the government is still not overthrown by the people. If indeed the government is so bad, perhaps the people will replace it rather than having some hypocritical Western gov'ts coming to spread "democracy and freedom". Isn't it what the US is doing now to other countries like Iraq and potentially Iran and North Korea? The "white men's burden"? Or just a means of justifying its global strategy for its own interests? 2. I never said China doesn't have a hand in the Darfur issue. I said it's more complicated than the simplied "China's trading weapons with Sudan for oil". If you don't know the history and details behind it, don't pretend that you know the truth. The over-simplied "China's trading weapons for oils" is precisely what causes the public to hold bias against China. 3. Olympics does not only belong to the government, but belongs to all the Chinese. A violent disruption of the event is not an effective way of getting the protestors' message crossed. It has never been. Look at the Chinese ppl's reaction to this, you can tell how people feel about it. And again, don't say "they are brainwashed". When Chinese don't speak, you say they don't have "freedom of speech"; when they do, you say they are "brainwashed". If you know any Chinese at all and go to the internet/blogs, you can see all kinds of speech, for or against Chinese government. So assuming China now is the same as 30 years agao only demonstrates your ignorance of current situation. Sure there're people who are arrested for dissent, but they've gone farther than just expressing their dissents. The truth about these cases will probably never be known, but they are certainly not what you claim...