Tibet and the Media

The recent Tibet uprisings have been quite horrible. But it is the ensuing debate across the international media and posting of individual commentators that has been most revealing. Sloppy reporting by the Western press and Chinese government propaganda have ensured that it is unlikely that the question over Tibet's sovereignty will ever be resolved satisfactorily.

On one hand. Western media has been very sloppy in its reporting of the uprisings.



This has led to the Chinese feeling that they are being persecuted by the Western media in a deliberate campaign against Chinese. This is not an uncommon feeling to Chinese friends of mine, who have discussed issues as wide -reaching as separatist movements and CD piracy with me in terms of the United States "attacking us." The reason that they feel that this is a deliberate campaign is most likely due to a familiarity with campaigns from government-controlled Chinese media and perhaps perceptions of the Western media as being a professional and perhaps infallible source of information.

The official line that China is part of Tibet is perhaps best summed up by this video.



The producers of this video present some facts of Tibetan/Chinese history whilst conveniently forgetting other parts. For instance, Tibet was an independent state from the late 600s through to the early 1200s. As there are with the Turkic nomads to the North and West of Han China, there are noted instances of marriages between the imperial/royal dynasties of China and Tibet. This indicates that even if Tibet was not treated as an equal by the Chinese of the time, it was at least accorded the respect of being an independent state and, perhaps, a threat. Furthermore, it was not until the Yuan dynasty that Tibet was brought into the Chinese Empire. The Yuan, of course, were Mongols. So I would ask the purveyors of the second video shown above whether they would perhaps like to return Tibet, or even greater China over to the control of Ulan Bator.
Of course, such an argument is a facetious one, akin to having Texas and California granted independence or returned to Mexico, or perhaps even returning Normandy to Norway or Acquitaine to the British throne. It is not my purpose to provide a solution to this problem, but rather to show the foolishness of relying on such historical arguments in a situation such as such.

In any debate, there are opinions that differ from that which might otherwise be expected. To illustrate, I leave you with this interesting article from China Digital Times. Read it, it does appear to be a voice of reason amongst a cacophony of posturing.