open Democracy News Analysis - Tibet scholars and China: letter to Hu Jintao, openDemocracy - Comments

oaim50 on "Tibet scholars and China: a letter "

oaim50 — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:15:30 +0000

One more thing. The real original meaning of 'scholar' is someone who goes to school (like in German Schüler). Nowadays it means someone who specializes in a particular field of studies, generally in some field belonging to the humanities. I say this because it seems to have created some confusion. Of course there are a few individual scholars who did not sign (very few), and of course the exception of only one group of professional Tibet-specialists in the world whose names are conspicuously absent from this petition. Those names belong to the Tibet specialists (both Tibetan and Chinese) within the PRC today. I'm not sure if you will believe me, but I'd just like to say that most of them would have signed if they could have done so without facing harsh punishments. And nobody knows better than the Tibet specialists how much their colleagues within the PRC are used for political purposes against their will to say what they themselves do not believe.

oaim50 on "Tibet scholars and China: a letter "

oaim50 — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:40:03 +0000

Earlier comment writers seem to have been confused by the word 'witnessed' as in 'the world has witnessed.' This doesn't in any way imply that the world was present at the events. But practically all the signers of the letter have been to the Peoples Republic and to Tibet, some of them many times. If you are interested to hear more about the longer arguments, I'd especially recommend the one book listed above, which only this year became available in English (the French was published in 2002): Anne-Marie Blondeau & Katia Buffetrille, eds., Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions.

I think you will agree with me that there are fairly frequent demonstrations in PRC, and they are hardly ever peaceful. That's because they are illegal, and demonstrators fully expect to get their heads cracked and much worse. Regardless of that fact, only 2 or 3 of the more than 30 major Tibetan demonstrations turned violent. I think it's important to realize that Tibetans do and will always consider attacks on sangha members, on monks and nuns, a very serious provocation. I don't think this fact is appreciated, just because Tibetans are never allowed to express what they think on these matters. Well, you've seen what can happen.

And one more thing. Do you believe the pictures of dead bodies in Aba (that's Ngaba in Tibetan, but I understand some people can't pronounce it correctly) are just photoshops? If you think so, just say it. Have you see them? I wonder why none of the Tibetan deaths (besides one or two burned to death in Lhasa) are ever mentioned on the China side? Are you really so deluded as to think that Xinhua tells you the truth? Tibetans ought to take a class-action suit against CCTV. It would make so much more sense than that one against CNN.

chen on "Tibet scholars and China: a letter "

chen — Sat, 10 May 2008 12:23:20 +0000

i feel very shameful because i find a signature from Leiden University!

i come to Leiden because i respect their attitude to reserach. I believe they are different from our professors in China. but now.....????

I just want to know how many foreign scholars were in Tibet at that time, because they use the word "witness".

Grant on "Tibet scholars and China: a letter "

Grant — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:41:00 +0000

firstly , i completely support the above comment by that friend, your questions are rather reasonable, well, they refer themselves as scholar, they must enough convincingly evidence to certify truth of the event happning, so ,every scholar ,please look before you leap.do not let your papers including many suspective question to appear on the any page,

Huizi GUO on "Tibet scholars and China: a letter "

Huizi GUO — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:57:53 +0000

While you refer yourselves as scholars, I am only a masters' student. And here are some questions I feel rather confusing. I'd really appreciate it if we can have a discussion over my questions:

1. As quoted from your article "The world has witnessed an outbreak of protests across the Tibetan plateau, followed in most instances by a harsh, violent repression. In the majority of cases these protests have been peaceful. The result has been an unknown number of arrests and the loss of numerous lives, which have been overwhelmingly Tibetan. "

1.1 You mentioned the world had witnessed.., but why did I witness a different scene? I wonder from what source did you and "the world" witnessed what you described? I happen to understand both English and Chinese, and I happen to be very concerned about the issue and have been following tightly to the reports from medias in UK, US, France, Hong Kong and Mainland China, moreover, I spent lots of time searching for footage taken by real witnesses. I may not be the most neutral source but for one thing I am sure, is that the coverage from BBC, CNN, Reuters etc. were biased (so is Chinese media). I could see clearly through several videos, including the one published by Chinese authorities, that the "protest" was full of violence, while I didn't find any convincing pictures showing "harsh and violent repression". Those I found were either pictures of trucks, police or videos with gun sound from nowhere, not to mention the false pictures from BBC and CNN, one using old pictures in Nepal and one interpreting a picture that Chinese nurses carrying people into an ambulance into police arresting the protesters (I have solid evidence;references available upon request). I wonder if you have some clearer evidence which can share with the world to show exactly how the “repression" was held.

1.2 You mentioned there was a "loss of numerous lives, which have been overwhelmingly Tibetan". Could I ask for reference? How many is numerous? Why did you say those were overwhelmingly Tibetan? And within those "overwhelmingly Tibetan", what percentage of them were protectors and what percentage were innocent victims who were burned or beat by protesters?

1.3 In your article, it seemed that many "peaceful protests" were held and all repressed ruthlessly. Do you have evidence for that? if not, shall I ask you to put it in a clearer way so that people will not be misled?

2 If the protests were not peaceful, let's just say if, because we obviously haven't reached an agreement on that. And to be neutral, let's assume there is a protest in a place A within a country B, and some protesters beat innocent passengers and burnt both public and private properties. If this happened in any country, what is the right reaction of the government? Under what condition do you not label it "terrorism"?

3 Only my personal opinion. It is not the Chinese government to decide whether Tibet should or should not be "free". It has no choice. Chinese people didn't let go Tibet when the country was nearly broken after invaded by other countries, when millions of people died in protecting their home and afterwards suffered from famine and poverty. It is impossible for them to let go Tibet now when the memory of broken home is still bloody fresh. If Chinese government agreed on a "free Tibet", it simply provoke its people, and the CCP will almost definitely lose its govern, So the solution could be another "conversation" between Chinese authorities and Dalai Lama, but surely not a "free Tibet".

Again, I'm not an expert on Tibet issues. But I am a student who believe in evidence and will be convinced if solid evidence is provided before you reaching a conclusion.

Thank you for your concern about my country.
Looking forward to your answers.

Tibet scholars and China: letter to Hu Jintao, openDemocracy

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:51:30 +0000

Dear Mr President,

The world has witnessed an outbreak of protests across the Tibetan plateau, followed in most instances by a harsh, violent repression. In the majority of cases these protests have been peaceful. The result has been an unknown number of arrests and the loss of numerous lives, which have been overwhelmingly Tibetan. This has understandably triggered widespread concern and anguish across the globe. As scholars engaged in Tibetan studies, we are especially disturbed by what has been happening. The civilisation we study is not simply a subject of academic enquiry: it is the heritage and fabric of a living people and one of the world's great cultural legacies.

This article contains a statement by seventy-five concerned Tibetan-studies scholars on the crisis in Tibet, addressed to China's president, Hu Jintao, and the government of the People's Republic of China.
The document, released on 27 March 2008, has since been signed by hundreds more scholars

We express our deep sorrow at the horrible deaths of the innocent, including Chinese as well as Tibetans. Life has been altered for the worse in places with which we are well acquainted; tragedy has entered the lives of a people we know well. At the time this statement is being written, continued arrests and shootings are being reported even of those involved in peaceful protest, the accused are being subjected to summary justice without due process and basic rights, and countless others are being forced to repeat political slogans and denunciations of their religious leader.

Silence in the face of what is happening in Tibet is no longer an option. At this moment the suppression of political dissent appears to be the primary goal of authorities across all the Tibetan areas within China, which have been isolated from the rest of China and the outside world. But such actions will not eliminate the underlying sense of grievance to which Tibetans are giving voice. As scholars we have a vested interest in freedom of expression. The violation of that basic freedom and the criminalisation of those sentiments that the Chinese government finds difficult to hear are counterproductive. They will contribute to instability and tension, not lessen them.

It cannot be that the problem lies in the refusal of Tibetans to live within restrictions on speech and expression that none of us would accept in our own lives. It is not a question of what Tibetans are saying: it is a question of how they are being heard and answered. The attribution of the current unrest to the Dalai Lama represents a reluctance on the part of the Chinese government to acknowledge and engage with policy failures that are surely the true cause of popular discontent. The government's continuing demonisation of the Dalai Lama, which falls far below any standard of discourse accepted by the international community, serves only to fuel Tibetan anger and alienation.

A situation has been created which can only meet with the strongest protest from those of us who have dedicated our professional lives to understanding Tibet's past and its present; its culture and its society. Indeed, the situation has generated widespread shock among peoples inside and outside China as well, and we write in full sympathy with the twelve-point petition submitted by a group of Chinese writers and intellectuals on 22 March (see "Chinese intellectuals and Tibet: a letter" [15 April 2008]).

Also in openDemocracy on Tibetan protests and China's response:
Ugen, "Tibet's postal protest" (4 November 2005)

Jamyang Norbu, "Tibetan tales: old myths, new realities" (13 June 2005)

openDemocracy / Tenzin Tzundue, "Tibet vs China: a human-rights showdown" (15 August 2006)

Gabriel Lafitte, "Tibet: revolt with memories" (18 March 2008)

Jeffrey N Wasserstrom, "The perils of forced modernity: China-Tibet, America-Iraq" (27 March 2008)

Donald S Lopez, "How to think about Tibet" (28 March 2008)

George Fitzherbert, "Tibet's history, China's power" (28 March 2008)

Dibyesh Anand, "Tibet, China, and the west: empires of the mind" (1 April 2008)

Robert Barnett, "Tibet: questions of revolt" (4 April 2008)

Wenran Jiang, "Tibetan unrest, Chinese lens" (7 April 2008)

Ivy Wang, "China's netizens and Tibet: a Guangzhou report" (8 April 2008)

Wang Lixiong, "China and Tibet: the true path" (15 April 2008)

openDemocracy, "Chinese intellectuals and Tibet: a letter" (15 April 2008)

James A Millward, "China's story: putting the PR into the PRC" (18 April 2008Therefore, we call for an immediate end to the use of force against Tibetans within China. We call for an end to the suppression of Tibetan opinion, whatever form that suppression takes. And we call for the clear recognition that Tibetans, together with all citizens of China, are entitled to the full rights to free speech and expression guaranteed by international agreements and accepted human-rights norms.

Signatures:

Jean-Luc Achard (Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique, Paris)

Agata Bareja-Starzyńska (Warsaw University)

Robert Barnett (Columbia University)

Christopher Beckwith (Indiana University)

Yael Bentor (Hebrew University, Jerusalem)

Henk Blezer (Leiden University)

Anne-Marie Blondeau (École pratique des Hautes Études, Paris)

Benjamin Bogin (Georgetown University)

Jens Braarvig (University of Oslo)

Katia Buffetrille (École pratique des Hautes Études, Paris)

José Ignacio Cabezón (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Cathy Cantwell (University of Oxford)

Bryan J Cuevas (Florida State University)

Jacob Dalton (Yale University)

Ronald Davidson (Fairfield University)

Karl Debreczeny (independent scholar)

Andreas Doctor (Kathmandu University)

Thierry Dodin (Bonn University)

Brandon Dotson (School of Oriental and African Studies, London)

Georges Dreyfus (Williams College)

Douglas S Duckworth (University of North Carolina)

John Dunne (Emory University)

Johan Elverskog (Southern Methodist University)

Elena De Rossi Filibeck (University of Rome)

Carla Gianotti (independent scholar)

Maria Gruber (University of Applied Arts, Vienna)

Janet Gyatso (Harvard University)

Paul Harrison (Stanford University)

Lauran Hartley (Columbia University)

Mireille Helffer (Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique, Paris)

Isabelle Henrion-Dourcy (Université Laval, Québec)

Toni Huber (Humboldt University , Berlin)

Ishihama Yumiko (Waseda University)

David Jackson (Rubin Museum of Art, New York)

Sarah Jacoby (Columbia University)

Marc des Jardins (Concordia University)

Matthew T. Kapstein (University of Chicago; École pratique des Hautes Études, Paris)

György Kara (Indiana University)

Samten Karmay (Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique, Paris)

P Christiaan Klieger (Oakland Museum, California)

Deborah Klimburg-Salter (University of Vienna)

Leonard van der Kuijp (Harvard University)

Per Kvaerne (University of Oslo)

Erberto Lo Bue (University of Bologna)

Donald S Lopez (University of Michigan)

Christian Luczanits (University of Vienna)

Sara McClintock (Emory University)

Carole McGranahan (University of Colorado)

Ariane Macdonald-Spanien (École pratique des Hautes Études, Paris)

William Magee (Dharma Drum Buddhist College, Taiwan)

Lara Maconi (Institut Nationale des Langues et Civilizations Orientales, Paris)

Dan Martin (Hebrew University, Jerusalem)

Rob Mayer (University of Oxford)

Fernand Meyer (École pratique des Hautes Études, Paris)

Eric D Mortensen (Guilford College)

Paul Nietupski (John Carroll University)

Giacomella Orofino (Università degli Studi di Napoli, L'Orientale)

Ulrich Pagel (School of Oriental and African Studies, London)

Andrew Quintman (Princeton University)

Françoise Robin (Institut Nationale des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris)

Ulrike Roesler (University of Freiburg)

Geoffrey Samuel (Cardiff University)

Kurtis Schaeffer (University of Virginia)

Cristina Scherrer-Schaub (University of Lausanne)

Peter Schwieger (Bonn University)

Tsering Shakya (University of British Columbia)

Nicolas Sihle (University of Virginia)

Elliot Sperling (Indiana University)

Heather Stoddard (Institut Nationale des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris)

Robert Thurman (Columbia University)

Takeuchi Tsuguhito (Kobe City University of Foreign Studies)

Gray Tuttle (Columbia University)

Emily Yeh (University of Colorado)

Ronit Yoeli-Tlalim (University College, London)

Michael Zimmermann (University of Hamburg)

Average rating

(4 votes)