
Great image (AFP/Getty via
The Guardian)- China is going to have its work cut out to stop this kind of thing defining the Olympic feel, at least until the flame arrives in China (and Tibet). Hard to see what even
a crack mercenary Western PR team can effectively do against such a brilliant twist to the Olympic icon.
Having recently spent a year in Israel/Palestine, it's impossible for me not to compare the conflict there with the current Tibet blowup, which claimed 18 civilian lives, including some Tibetans, according to the Chinese media, and in which around 150 Tibetans were killed by Chinese security forces, according to Tibetan sources quoted by Western media. Western bigwigs are up in arms and demanding an Olympic boycott.
One key difference between Tibet and Palestine is the former's geographical isolation, which the Chinese authorities are actually able to enforce, as the Guardian's Jonathan Watts found out. He
travelled more than 6,000 mils to try to get the story, even considering taking a donkey at one point, but was blocked at every turn. An Aussie cameraman who was there told me that big agency journalists were only able to get into Tibet by hiking around the checkpoints and rejoining their drivers on the other side. Palestine on the other hand is crawling with journalists and, aside from the occasional "closed military zone", Israel lets them do what they want.
But Tibet is the kind of cause the West is able to fall in love with - a remote mountain kingdom of enlightened peace-loving people led by a romantic figure of an exiled leader, popular destination for travellers and nothing to do with Islam at all (very important). Not being able to get hard reports may simply make it more tempting to believe the most lurid accounts, since why else would the Chinese behave as if they were covering something up?
Israeli activist Uri Avnery is quite good on all this. Contrast to the attention given - zero - to the situation in neighbouring Xinjiang, a vast area, populated this time by Muslims, some of whom also have a separatist agenda for an independent "East Turkestan" and where the Chinese authorities also
reportedly behave harshly.
So the Chinese
are angry about what they see as Western media bias against China, particularly given some Western media - particularly in Germany - appear to have used images of Nepalese police beating demonstrators in Kathmandu believing them to have been Chinese police in Lhasa. If true, and he pictures look convincing, it's breathtakingly incompetent and suggestive of a desire to believe the worst of China.
There are some slight echoes of Palestine in Tibet - both some Han Chinese and some Jewish Israelis claim historical legitimacy for occupying and settling territory. The Chinese say Tibet has been an integral part of China for longer than the combined histories of the USA/Canada/Australia/New Zealand, while some Jewish people say God gave all the land between the river (Jordan) and the sea to the Jewish people and they were there first anyway.
But one of the key differences is that China is very big and there are only 2.6 million Tibetans, while in Israel the picture is almost the reverse if you take into account the mass of Arabs around Israel. Even if you don't, there are roughly the same number of Palestinians and Jewish Israelis.
Resources also come into the picture - Israel gets a lot of its water from the aquifer running under the West Bank. Israelis live a Western lifestyle and use far more water than the Palestinians. Israel has proposed selling Palestinians desalinated water from the Med. Presumably if Palestine were to become a sovereign state it would have to have access to what would be its water.
Jonathan Cook suggests this as one reason why there is no peace deal as yet and why there will not be one, despite the fact that everyone knows what a workable deal more or less looks like.
In Tibet, China reportedly has its eyes on natural resources, as it also does in Xinjiang. If Tibet were to split off, then the Tibetans in Sichuan, the Uighurs in Xinjiang and the Mongolians in Inner Mongolia might fancy their chances too. That's more or less a quarter of China's total area. It ain't gonna happen.
But the most interesting thing I've read about Tibet is in Foreign Policy magazine, where a Tibet expert interviewed says that China is aware that
"nationalism is no longer a tameable force". Robert Barnett says that what happened in Tibet was really, really big.
The most significant of the 50 protests are the rural peasants taking over the countryside. These are people who get on horseback or march down to the local government office or police post, burn it to the ground, and raise the Tibetan flag. You can be shot on sight for having a Tibetan flag in Tibet in a non-Olympics year. Nothing like this has been seen in Tibet for decades, and it has untold political significance for China.
This must have significance for everyone - Tibetans, Palestinians, Kurds, Basques etc. Perhaps in a post-national world it won't matter anyway. The Catalans no longer need independence - it would cost them too much money and in a borderless Europe what would it be worth anyway? They have control over their taxes, education, all their .cat domain names, Catalan language promotion anyway. In peaceful times perhaps it's natural for big blocs to break down into smaller Luxemburg-style fiefdoms. But the background of a worldwide scramble for limited resources doesn't bode well for peace...
再见!