For thousands of years, the large-scale agricultural basis of China's civilization has required the ability of a strong central government to mobilize large groups for huge public works projects -- canals, building and maintenance of flood protection works,and public infrastructure of all kinds. When huge floods came or barbarian armies or European interlopers, this was usually a sign of Imperial weakness showing that the Mandate of Heaven had passed, and the dynasty was finished. This is why the allegiance of the people was transferred with such seeming haste and ease.

The current regime bets every day on the proposition that it is the only conceivable government that can keep China from coming apart into the sort of chaos that has characterized so much of its history. This fear of chaos and weakness therefrom is part of every Chinese person's DNA it seems. This is why well educated and sophisticated Mainland Han Chinese are just so far around the bend on this, practically demanding that the government stop at nothing to suppress the revolt. They even think it a good idea to have their own access to information censored and blocked. They just do not want to know. They are writing the Communist Party a blank check to do whatever it takes. This is a frightening prospect.

Posted by Michael | March 17, 2008 5:44 PM

The riots in Lhasa have been mischaracterized; they were essentially a pogrom by the indigenous Tibetan population on Han Chinese-owned businesses, and the police were forced to intervene to prevent further ethnic conflict. The situation in Tibet is complicated, but what happened this past week was not. Tibetans used Han Chinese immigrant as scapegoats for the economic frustrations they have experienced. Whatever we may think of the Chinese presence in Tibet, we must condemn acts of ethnic violence and comend Beijing for supressing them.

Posted by Nik | March 17, 2008 11:30 PM

All govts have a right to respond to civil unrest but that is not enough of a reason in using excessive violent force (guns and tanks) to stop it against an unarmed people no less. When civil unrest occurs, especially when it involves a particular people, it is a loud signal that something is wrong. This was true when blacks in America have rioted or when the disenfranchised French youth of color in Paris did so 2 years ago.

The only difference is that govts like China pretend its just people being disorderly and that outside forces (Daila Llama) are influencing the disturbance. The usual tactic in order to not acknowledge the realities behind such behavior (ex: USA would "blame Communist agitators" as one of the reasons behind riots during the 1950's and '60's). But people do not just get up one morning and decide to riot just because someone tells you to do so or because they are in a bad mood. Thats too simplistic a reason to risk one's own life. Hunger of the mind, body and soul are the basic reasons for a particular people finally erupting (as we see in Tibet and recently Burma) in a violent manner and not just simply propaganda, outside agitation or anything else like it (unless its perpetuated by govt).

Its also a joke when the Chinese govt says that the Olympics is a chance for China to "shine". Why? Is China not good enough, after thousands of years, that it needs a "sporting event" to give its image some luster? China says that the event should not be used for political criticism of it yet they, more than anyone, are using it to present a false image of their country to the world and most of all their own people (similar to the Nazis who exploited the 1936 Olympics in Berlin to promote the so called Aryan race). All public behavior by the Chinese govt is for show and to keep a tight grip on its power. Be it a sporting event, censorship, or use of excessive force.

And as usual the rich will do anything to keep what they have even if it means having blood on their hands in order to keep their wealth and use it to influence power (as in Russia and various Latin American countries throughout history). Particularly the Chinese who have gained more wealth (ex: those who work for the state) or those who have gotten rich post Tiananmen Square. A non-violent demonstration in which the Chinese military used brute force against its own people to end it, was used as a bargaining tool to allow capitalism to flourish in China so that the new opium of the masses is now money hence a devil's contract.

Also when the "workers" began to join up with the college students at Tiananmen Square the leaders within the Chinese govt feared very much that it could result in their losing power, that the govt would be brought down because the workers were the ones who are responsible for putting them in power in the first place. (Even today there is a lot of unrest in China by the real working class, the farmer, the migrant, etc but of course the Chinese govt suppresses all such incidents for the just stated reasons; greed and power).

China wants to have its cake and eat it too. Its wants to be totalitarian, capitalist, and it wants other govts to mind their own business. Well if they continue be a major player on the world stage (ex; The Olympics) then they'll have to give something up and realise that with that role criticism and sometimes scrutiny are part of it. To continue to behave the way it has will not result in the "shine" they claim to want to show off to the world because, for example, after the Olympics are over the stadiums and the various facilities built to host it will just be left over memories of what it was; to use their words "a sporting event". Even if it was "The Olympics".

Notice that I used a couple countries/govts as examples in order to show that China is not an exception (for this is not an anti-China rant!). And that in fact that basically all govts are more or less the same when it comes to reactions, behavior and or attitudes towards, in this case civil unrest and power.

Posted by FR56; B'klyn | March 18, 2008 2:15 PM

free tibet

Posted by sangay | March 18, 2008 6:48 PM

If I had no idea how our most admired modern nations came into being, I too, would believe these nations are the wonderful outcome of a process free of “frightening” periods of horrific human actions.

I would probably mythologize the social safety nets of Western Europe and not realize their genesis in the horrors and tens of millions of deaths in World War 1 and 2, and the continent-wide suffering immediately following V-Day Europe before the Marshall Plan delivered results 3-5 years later.

I probably would mythologize the economic dynamo of the USA and not realize how the productive sunbelt industries of Texas are on land hijacked from Mexico through a White House-orchestrated plot to populate it with American ex-pats while it was a Mexican territory, supply arms and fund dissent, arrange for a secessionist movement and a request to join America and for American military forces to push back Mexican military efforts to stop secession. .

My point is that ignorance is bliss when it comes to reckoning how our most admired modern nations came into being. But, a few more points.

I probably would mythologize the process to produce the pacifist constitution of present-day Japan if I did not know anything about their militaristic expansion and semi-genocide actions in the 1920s, 30s and 40s.

I probably would mythologize the free local, state, and national elections (except the 2000 one) of America, and actually believe the process came into being as a wonderful idea. I would not know that the original constitution left out half of the population that were female; left out poor, landless white males; and left out captured and enslaved Africans and their enslaved descendents. I would not understand that the process of giving freedom to the latter would require a civil war that killed 5% of the national population, and was followed by the legalization of disenfranchisement of former slaves formerly known as the ‘confederate south’. In my ignorance, I would not know the legal disenfranchisement was to be concurrent with eight decades of terrorism against that population before internal armies (national guard, etc) mustered by the president liberated the population, and constitutional and judicial reforms were enacted to ensure a system that would, five more decades down the road, allow a man who’s half-African (Mr. Obama) and a white woman (Mrs. Clinton) to be the final choices for one of the major political parties for their presidential candidate.

If I knew world history written by both victor and vanquished in Europe, North America and East Asia, I would doubt the likelihood that modern pluralistic political and economic systems could emerge cleanly and nicely out of thin air. In almost all occasions, a rational person would assume if historically, outcome B (freedom and open economy) results from process A (a series of distasteful if not frightening process) and has never resulted from process C (a nice & friendly process); then chances are that C will not produce B given the materials we have at hand to work with (i.e. human kind). C becomes the inane myths produced by ‘hopeful change’ that is divorced from historic realities that it disdains and abhors.

Posted by Greg S. in NorthCarolina | March 19, 2008 1:28 PM

Some have called for economic and sporting sanctions against China - for its role in Tibet, its stance towards Sudan. Fair enough but to be consistent we should also boycott the following:

Russia (Chechnya) Israel (Gaza, West bank) Saudi Arabia (human rights record) USA (for supporting above two, for economic embargo against Cuba etc) Turkey (assault on Kurds) etc

Posted by atreyu | March 21, 2008 6:09 AM

Is sanction and boycott the way to right the wrong in international politics, if indeed wrong is proven beyond doubt. Do we actually think such punitive actions will work, or we are out of better alternative? The arrogance of justice is as bad as justice imposed by the arrogant few. May be the right step to take is to have a better understanding of what really happened and give more consideration to both sides; before we so easily dose out our verdict, and presuming we are the god chosen judge. Look at the support of the American public given to President Bush before Iraq was being INVADED, and how many life are being sacrificed subsequently. One feel so sad when such intelligent and educated population would do something so horrible and stupid, but seems to have no dignity and honour to right its own wrong.

Posted by P H Yu | March 24, 2008 12:36 AM