Tibet: Saturday sitrep

More demonstrations in Gansu, ie in China proper. Reuters reports that Chinese media have finally featured the protests, and are claming ten dead so far, all Han Chinese killed by Tibetan demonstrators. The Tibetan government in exile are saying at least five Tibetans have been killed by security forces. As of Saturday, the claim now stands at 130 deaths.

According to the BBC’s roundup of eyewitness reports, demonstrators have seized control of Lhasa old town, as of Friday night UK time. The only bloggers I can find in Lhasa are Han Chinese, via Global Voices:

When those insane dalais gathered in the street today and surrounded and viciously beat those Han Chinese, while they used lighters to light fire to shop after shop, while they threw molotovs at cars parked on the sides of the road, I really felt afraid, and that this is inconceivable. What you are destroying is the very place that you live in.

Simon Elegant at Time’s China blog sets out the choices for Beijing:

What's clear is that the simmering resentment against Chinese rule that has now been building up for years has burst loose among ethnic Tibetans. Five months before the Olympics this really is a "perfect storm" for Beijing as it appears to be in a no-win situation: if the authorities don't react, the protest will grow larger (remember Tiananmen?); if they do, and there are deaths, as would seem inevitable, they face the possibility of much more serious anti-Olympics/boycott campaigning that will far exceed the limited traction gained by the Darfur activists.

I’m not so sure, at least as of now. Tibetan demonstrations have been suppressed in India and Nepal. And here’s Dave “we support civilian surges” Miliband:

"I think there are probably two important messages to go out. One is the need for restraint on all sides, but secondly that substantive dialogue is the only way forward. We obviously see that there are real strains there but they need to be addressed in a way that balances restraint and dialogue."

Restraint and dialogue. Not bad things to have, of course. But the general aim seems to be to give Beijing maximum latitude.

Hu Jintao and Tibet, incidentally, go way back. he was governor during the last major uprising in 1989, and his hard line at the time is widely thought to have confirmed his suitability for leadership. Account here.

Comments

[ejh]

What things do not need to be addressed in a way that balances restraint and dialogue?

(By the way, I'm echoing David's use of "balanced", but does he really mean that word? Normally one "balances" things that are essentially opposite.)

[Phil]

I'd say incompatible rather than necessarily opposite. I think he means 'balance' in the sense of considering the possibility that two things which don't appear to conflict might have conflicting effects, and hence might need to be treated as incompatible.

[ejh]

I think he meant "combines".