Bloomberg Buys China’s Lies?

Wing-Gar Cheng, a Beijing-based reporter for Bloomberg News, filed an article similar to the BBC one we just discussed, but with noticeably more credence given to the Chinese government’s claims. In fact, at times the article reads like a story from China’s state-owned Xinhua News Agency: full of unsubstantiated figures, unbalanced praise for Chinese policies in Tibet, and gratuitous revisions of Tibet’s history. Sadly, one would expect much better from Bloomberg.

July 28 (Bloomberg) — China’s Tibet Autonomous Region vowed to place the protection of its glaciers, wetlands and grasslands ahead of the development of industries such as tourism and manufacturing in its economic planning.

“China’s Tibet” is a standard phrase in Chinese propaganda. It is meant to reinforce China’s claim to Tibet. It only ends up making the Chinese government look silly and insecure. They don’t have to say “China’s Shanghai,” do they?

Tibet will reject investment from industries such as mining, should they result in the erosion of land or pollution of natural reserves, Huang Yutian, head of the Lhasa economic and development zone, told reporters yesterday in the Tibetan capital.

Comrade Huang is yet another Chinese official running Tibet. (Why do there seem to be so many Chinese in positions of power in the “Tibet Autonomous Region”?) It is especially troubling how the article simply reports on what various Chinese officials claim, without including any investigation, any critical analysis, or any differing viewpoints on how unlikely it is that these promises will materialize. Instead, the article reports these statements as fact. Exactly like a Xinhua article.

The development of Tibet is part of the government’s 5.77 trillion yuan ($720 billion) investment in western China to boost the poorest regions, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. The spending also is aimed at reducing dissent among ethnic Tibetans, many of whom resent Beijing’s approach in quashing dissidents, analysts said.

Granted Mr. Cheng writes about general Tibetan opposition. But he reduces it to an “ethnic” issue involving a minority ethnic group (Tibetans) versus a majority ethnic group (Han Chinese). Tibetans’ opposition doesn’t just come from Beijing quashing dissidents. Tibetan opposition fundamentally stems from foreigners invading, occupying, and controlling their country.

And even if Mr. Cheng doesn’t want to get into the political context, it is simply misleading to suggest that Tibetans would be placated with more “investment” when that is the very problem: Tibetans do not want more Beijing-mandated projects over which they have no say. They want to control how their own country is developed.

Tibet, under China’s authority since the 1750s, had varying degrees of autonomy until the Chinese Communist Party arrived in 1950, prompting a failed revolt in 1959, after which the Tibetan ruler, the Dalai Lama, fled to India. The Dalai Lama has since called for Tibetan self-rule.

What does it mean that Tibet was under China’s “authority?” Does it mean the priest-patron relationship of equals that ended with the last emperor? Was Tibet just “autonomous” when the 13th Dalai Lama kicked out invading Manchu troops and reaffirmed Tibet’s independence in 1913? Was Tibet just “autonomous” when it stayed neutral in World War II, even though the Allies (including China) wanted Tibet to open supply routes to war-ravaged China?

And to say the “Chinese Communist Party arrived in 1950″ sounds like the Chinese were invited to a celebration. The BBC puts it more bluntly: “Chinese troops invaded in 1950.”

Of Tibet’s 2.8 million permanent residents, 92 percent are ethnic Tibetans and 8 percent are Han or other minorities, Zhang said. Han Chinese is the largest of China’s 50-plus ethnic groups, comprising more than 90 percent of the nation’s 1.3 billion people.

Mr. Cheng should go to Lhasa, where even the most casual observer can see that Chinese colonists are now in the majority. Maybe he doesn’t realize that “permanent resident” figures purposely don’t include the quarter-million Chinese occupation troops in Tibet, the Chinese security forces, or the “unregistered” Chinese settlers who increasingly dominate Tibetan urban areas. Population numbers are hard to compile for obvious reasons, but the Tibetan government-in-exile estimates that Tibet now has 7.5 million Chinese and only 6 million Tibetans (including Tibetan areas beyond where Beijing redrew Tibet’s borders). Mr. Cheng does his readers a disservice by reporting only the Chinese government’s side as if it were solid, uncontested fact.

That, ultimately, is the problem with Mr. Cheng’s article. It naïvely reports statements from officials in Chinese-occupied Tibet as if the Chinese government were totally credible. Why should any reporter believe Beijing’s assertions when it is clear the Chinese government has every incentive to whitewash its rule in Tibet, when the Chinese government has had no problem with lying about many other subjects, and when the reality on the ground provides a stark contradiction? We assume it is naïveté rather than a political agenda on Mr. Cheng’s part; we therefore urge him to think before he reports Beijing’s claims about Tibet as if they were fact.

Any comments for Wing-Gar Cheng may be directed to: wgcheng@bloomberg.net and/or to Bloomberg’s feedback page.