IN AN extraordinary demonstration of how modern communications empower such movements, Tibetan protesters have demanded greater freedom from the Chinese rulers of their country over the last week, creating a worldwide awareness of and sympathy for their struggle. This protest has rapidly become the most serious challenge to Chinese rule for a generation and has been answered with a characteristic dismissal of its claims and customary repressive action.
It is a sensitive time for Chinese leaders, ahead of the August Olympics in Beijing. They should not assume the international sympathy for these protests is necessarily directed against China. A demonstrable willingness to show restraint and explore autonomy for Tibet without compromising Chinese sovereignty would gain them great goodwill. There is in fact little support for Tibetan independence among the many governments and peoples who have expressed solidarity with the demands for religious, cultural and political freedoms. Nor is it an express demand of the Dalai Lama, who yesterday said he would step down as Tibet's spiritual leader if the violence continues. He remains a deeply revered and influential symbol of Tibetan identity and would surely be willing to explore such a compromise.
For all that this is desirable and possible it cuts right across the centralist thrust of Chinese rule over Tibet and western regions, which Beijing believes could be influenced by any hesitation on its part. It evokes fears of secessionist movements fanned by neighbouring states among the Muslim populations of Xinjiang and Gansu who have not benefited from the material transformation of eastern China. Tibet is regarded as an inferior backward culture in Beijing, best dealt with by increased contact with modernising Chinese rule, backed up by resettlements, migrant workers and the remarkable Tibet-Qinghai railway completed in 2006.
These protests are proof positive that the strategy has failed. A younger generation of Tibetans resents the crude Chinese intrusion and demands a fair recognition of their ancient religion and distinctive culture and a proper say in their political affairs. They have learned how to communicate their demands, probably inspired by the similar Buddhist movement in Burma. It is all too easy for international sympathy and media interest to peak rapidly and then recede as repression takes its toll on such protest movements, making access to them far more difficult.
Unlike the Burmese junta, however, China's rulers rely much more on worldwide engagement and goodwill. They badly need a good run at the Olympics to showcase their modernity and progress. Firm expressions of international concern over human rights in Tibet should have a receptive hearing if that objective is to be realised. So far official protests, including Ireland's, have been more exercises in dulcet diplomacy than justifiable anger. China should be told plainly that its behaviour in Tibet is a matter of international concern and that a failure to take account of this fact will inevitably affect its global standing.