Let’s Be Clear About the Lhasa Protests

Following Human Rights Watch’s thourough 73-page report on the 2008 Uprising in Tibet, I Saw It with My Own Eyes , The March 14th protests in Lhasa have once again been the subject of international scrutiny. This week the Economist published an incitful piece “Through the eyes of witnesses,” written by James Miles the only foreign reporter present in Lhasa during the March 14th protests.

As conflicting stories by Tibetans, Chinese, and foreigners who were present in Lhasa have emerged, it is important that we are clear about what actually happened and the language we use to describe the protests.

To be clear, between March 10th and March 13th several peaceful protests occurred in Lhasa. These protests involved monks, nuns, and lay people. No acts of violence occurred and no property was destroyed. These peaceful protests involved sit-ins, mass gatherings, and other tactics that were repeatably used in the over 150 (almost entirely peaceful) protests across Tibet in 2008. It is incorrect to refer to the unrest in Lhasa as a single violent riot.

On March 14th, acts of violence took place in Lhasa. The violence on both the part of Tibetans and Chinese soldiers is real. While the world was only shown images of Tibetans burning Chinese products in the streets, turning over cars, and attacking Chinese civilians by China’s state media; another side of the story has emerged by eyewitnesses and participants in the unrest.

Contrary to Miles’s article, images have emerged “hinting at security forces’ use of lethal force.”The below mobile photos sent to Woeser by a Tibetan in Lhasa show Tibetans carrying the dead body of Tibetan protester.

Photos from uprising archive via Woeser’s blog

Not mentioned in Miles’s article is that the vast majority of property destruction in Lhasa was aimed at symbols of China’s occupation. We should not remember the unrest in Lhasa as random acts of violence but as the expression of Tibet’s simmering resentment to China’s occupation and 50 years of oppression.