A Tibetan Riot Or A Chinese Crackdown? A Simple Analysis

On March 15, 2008, there was a violent clash between Tibetan protesters and the police force in Lhasa. Some argue that it was a peaceful demonstration brutally suppressed by the authority. Others insist that it was a violent disturbance from the get-go and the government responded with proper policing measures. Which one is closer to the truth?

Chinese authority released videos a few days after the conflict. However, since no western journalists were allowed in Tibet during the incident, there hasn’t been any first-hand independent coverage. Therefore, the CCTV footage is impermissible.

Without direct evidence, circumstantial evidences and mitigating factors play a stronger role in this case.

Let us assume it was a peaceful protest. The facts are:

1) the demonstration was peaceful
2) no western journalists were in Tibet to report this parade to the outside world
3) the Chinese government, well-known for its censorship, could've easily chosen not to report this incident to anyone

If all of above are true, there seemed to be no motivation for the Chinese government to do anything. The incident can be simply ignored or buried.

In addition, the timing of the conflict is crucial in analysis:

4) on March 24, the Olympic flame was to be lit in Greece
5) Olympic Games were to be held in Beijing 5 months later

For the Chinese government, nothing is more important in 2008 than hosting successful Olympic Games in August. Anything else can wait. It would do anything to avoid any negative publicity at least from now until after the Games. If any negative news leads to actual damage to the Games in August, losing face right at home is unbearable in Asian cultures. Therefore, a priori, cracking down a peaceful and insignificant parade would be the last thing on the to-do list.

On the other hand, 2008 is the best and probably the last time for the Tibetans to stage a successful bid for independence. Besides the Olympics:

6) after the aging Dalai Lama, independence seeking Tibetans will not have a spiritual leader commanding a wide support from the West.

With the Olympics and still outspoken His Holiness, 2008 offers the best opportunity. A violent conflict in Tibet to attract world attention seems to work in great favor of the Tibetans.

When a crime is committed, the first suspect usually is whoever benefits from it the most, and that person usually is the evil doer.

So if you are the jury of this case, how would you decide?