The History of Tibet 1960-1976 as reported by the NYTimes


Korean Minjok Leadership Academy
KIH



Table of Contents


Chapter 6
Chapter 5
Chapter 4
Chapter 3
Chapter 2 (acc. to ToC 2nd draft)
Chapter 1
Working Table of Contents, 1st Update
Chapter 2 (acc. to ToC 1st draft)
Chapter 5 (acc. to YoC 1st draft)
Working Table of Contents
Appendix



Chapter 6 (as of December 5th 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

Chapter 6 : Cultural and Political facts referred from the New York Times
            Despite China¡¯s claim that the Dalai Lama is no more than a spiritual leader of Tibet, it can be said that the Dalai Lama actually can lay upon huge influence in the decision making process. When we interviewed the speaker of the Tibetan exiled congress, he told that most of the suggestions of the Dalai Lama has an enormous authority thus the congress tries to respect his holiness¡¯s suggestions in their best. Referred to the New York Times article, such deeds seem to have a long tradition and it can be said that despite the fact that the Dalai Lama is in exile, his traditional role as both the spiritual and the political leader of Tibet remains stable. For an example, an article (#5) writes that the Dalai Lama has decided to sell national treasures to help the neighboring Himalayan countries. The article writes that these Himalayan countries had plead their case in the U.N. and in order to support them, the Dalai Lama has earned the permission of the Congress to sell his own treasures and some national treasures also.
            As it can be seen by the previous examples, the Tibetans grant great authority to their religious leader Dalai Lama. Such unification of the political and religious aspects can be seen in numerous sides of the Tibetan society. Traditionally, most of the noble families made their smartest offspring to be dedicated in religion as a monk. As a result, the most conspicuous and influential leaders and pioneers were often monks. Such aspects of the Tibetan society did not change even after the occupation of the Chinese government. Therefore, after the mass revolt broke out, the Chinese government were meticulously dedicated in dispersing the monks and making sure they would no longer function as the radical leaders that would stir up a mob into another rebellion. During this process, the Chinese government were comparatively having hardship in covering up their oppressions for they were too massive to be covered up.
            Thus, such oppressive policies in religion and religious figures carried by China were often reported in the New York Times. In the article (#81), the refugees are telling that the Jorkhang temple is being severely damaged hindered. The article tells that this is one of the religious oppression the Chinese government is carrying on. Even so, it is not sure whether the hinder itself was done by the Chinese government or if the New York Times is attributing faults by the fact that the Chinese government is not planning to rebuild or protect the ancient temple. In addition, it can be also referred by the article (#117) that the Potala palace had long been closed amongst the citizens. That is, the article writes that unlike the past when the Potala palace was forbidden to the ordinaries, now the Tibetan people are able to go in this palace and enjoy a picnic in its garden.
            Also, in the article (#25), it writes that the religious figures are being killed by the Chinese government and the U.N. must do something to stop such brutality before the Chinese government succeeds in joining the U.N. In this article; however, the accuracy of the facts must be questioned before taking it word by word for the general attitude of this article is clearly against the Chinese government. Thus, it is not sure whether the deaths of the religious figures are really that massive and brutal as the article tells.
            However, in the article (#32) the article tells that most of the Tibetan monks are now being sent to concentration camps and are forced in labor and are being starved to death. Because this article was based on the claims of a monk that escaped from this concentration camp, the claims that he made seems quite creditable going along with the fact that the tone of this article remains objective despite its source. However, it cannot be confirmed whether such camps exited throughout Tibet for such information is written to be a well known rumor that the monk heard.
            In the current situation, it is not clear whether such ¡®oppressions¡¯ by the Chinese government still exists. Most of the books and other sources cover briefly up to the 80s and the early 90s and even they only are telling that the Chinese government has decided to allow tourist to visit Tibet. According to the interview done to the foreigners living in Tibet, concentration camps are known to still exist but no rumors about camps solely for monks were circulated nowadays. The Chinese government no longer allows the Tibetan monks to manage the monasteries and about every two Tibetan monks there must be a Chinese monk and it is also not allowed for the Tibetan monks to only live with other Tibetan monks in the same room of the monastery. However, even these interviews were held a year ago, before another mass rebellion broke out on 2008.
            Also, the Dalai Lama functions as an representative of the Tibetan government and the Tibetan people both living in Dharamsala and in Tibet. The international pleas concerning the Tibetan issues are all signed and done in his holiness¡¯s name and it is the Dalai Lama that constantly holds interviews spreading the news of the brutality of the Chinese government. When reading the New York Times articles, it is clear that the Dalai Lama is the most radical side in condemning the Chinese government and provides the most shocking and horrible news related to the sufferings of the Tibetans. Thus, even though the Dalai Lama claims that his news were all based on people who ran away from China and so on, it is quite difficult to determine until where his asserts are trust worthy. Also, while the Dalai Lama claims that the Chinese government is carrying on cultural genocide in Tibet, (#63) it has been reported that the Chinese government is paying great care and attention to make sure that the Tibetan children and teenagers are able to write and talk Tibetan language. (#73)
            In the article (#109) it clearly shows how the Chinese government is focusing on this language issue. According to this article, which was based on the information given out by the Chinese government, it writes that the Chinese government has distributed about 3 million Tibetan language books in Tibet and the neighboring provinces. It also tells that among these 3 million books, 1.3 million were given to Tibetan areas. By these consecutive articles, it can be seen that as time passes, the Chinese government are paying more attention on the international appeal. That is, articles based on facts publicized by the Chinese government has increased and news of oppressions or big and small revolts are now seizing in its number, corresponding with the general opinion that the Chinese government loosened up from its oppressive policies as time passed and tried to blend in the Tibetan culture as a part of Chinese culture.
            The article (#117) is very clear in showing the changing attitude of the Chinese government. As previously mentioned in this chapter, this article shows that the Chinese government are reconstructing the temples and the palaces and are opening them for the citizens to enjoy and use. Also, the government has distributed all the properties, including the highly expensive ones, taken from the Tibetan nobilities that were accused for participating or leading the revolts in Tibet. This article moreover tells that the Chinese government thinks that such confiscation generated a positive result of redistribution of wealth which was seriously concentrated to the few upper classes.
            However, this does not mean that the efforts to lessen the influence of the Dalai Lama and communization have decreased. In fact, as the Chinese government became more outgoing in introducing their current policies and results, claims that can be partially seen as propagandas of ¡®triumph¡¯ were more often reported. For an example, in the article (#113), the conclusion of this article writes that the Chinese government assures that the worship of the ¡®god king¡¯, the Dalai Lama has now been completely vanished from Tibet.
            Before the Chinese occupation, Tibet had an agriculture system which nobles ran the farms and the serfs worked under their masters. On the contrary, after the Chinese occupation, the commune system was implemented. In understanding how the commune system worked out in Tibet, the New York Times actually gives a very good general view than books about Tibet. Articles (#6 and #9) shows that it was among this period when the redistribution of the farm lands were completed. Both these articles were based on the information given by the official sources of the Chinese government. Thus, it can be inferred that either the distribution has been completed or is almost done or the Chinese government are in haste to show some progress thus announced such news a little bit earlier. Even so, regardless of which guess might be true, it can be clearly inferred that the Commune system was now ready to be carried on around this period.
            After the farm lands were distributed, the Chinese government started to really make a boost in their efforts of communizing Tibet. The article (#11) shows that communization experts were brought into Tibet. This article tells that the communization policies, including the commune system, will soon be fully planned to be carried on. However, unlike what the Chinese government had expected, as article (#46) tells, the food shortage in China caused halt in the communization of Tibet. This halt caused the commune system to be severely bothered for the Chinese government was not willing to sacrifice the food production rate in Tibet.
            Unlike the food shortage that was constant in Tibet, Tibet was actually one of the provinces ruled by the communist China that had overproduction. Carrying on the commune system meant decreased food production and was clear that would worsen the chaos of food shortage in mainland China. Also, because a large number of Chinese troops staying in and near Tibet were all supported by the food from Tibet, the continuance of the commune system was concluded to be impossible. As a result, it is now said that the once halted commune system is now told to be almost abandoned until today.
            Among the New York Times articles that mention religious figures of Tibet, most of them cover about the Dalai Lama or the Panchen Lama. Despite the fact that the Panchen Lama has not much publicity compared to the Dalai Lama, the number of articles that cover these two figures are actually quite even. While the articles writing about the Dalai Lama show consistency in its contents in showing the efforts of the Dalai Lama as a representative of the Tibetan side of the occupation, the Panchen Lama goes through a lot of phase changes. In the article (#67), the New York Times writes that the Panchen Lama did not attend the ¡®National People¡¯s Congress) in Peking. The main issue of this article was whether this dismissal of the meeting was indicating that the Panchen Lama was now regarded as useless by the Chinese government or were in serious political trouble. Soon after; however, the official sources of the Chinese government made an announcement. In the article (#68) that was based on these reports of the Chinese government, it writes that the Panchen Lama has been deposed by the Chinese government because he betrayed Peking.
            After such dethroning by the Chinese government, it becomes clear the Panchen Lama was soon placed in serious trouble. On the article (#70), the Dalai Lama says that few monks had escaped from Panchen Lama¡¯s monastery and reported that the Panchen Lama was in danger. Also, in the article (#77), Ngapo Hgawang Jigme, the new chairman of the newly established Tibet Autonomous Region, tells that the Panchn Lama is not cooperative towards the ¡®liberation¡¯ of Tibet. Despite all these threats and condemnation, it seems that the Panchen Lama did not change his uncooperative attitude towards the Chinese government. This change in his attitude led up him to be sent to a correction camp. The article (#93) writes that the Dalai Lama has received creditable reports that the Panchen Lama was sent to a correction camp in 1964 but managed to escape from it. However, while it may be possible for the Panchen Lamat to be sent to a correction camp, it is not sure whether he really ¡®escaped¡¯ from it. That is, later records of the Panchen Lama were constantly reported and thus it seems to call him getting out of the concentration camp as an ¡®escape¡¯.



Chapter 5 (as of October 24th 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

Chapter 5 : The Varying Contents and Attitudes of the Articles
            Among the articles that were based on pure American sources, most of them were reluctant in actively portraying the Tibetan-Chinese occupation issue. Most articles were written in the latter period starting from 1976. These articles are focusing on the cultural aspects of Tibet and show the everyday lives of Tibetans. They provide information varying from rather trivial cultural aspects to social political aspects. For an example, "Festival in Lhasa : Gaiety in the Garden of a ¡®God King¡¯", written in July 12th 1976, tells the readers how the Tibetan people enjoy their tea but also briefly mention about the mass confiscation and redistribution that happened after the revolt in 1959. The articles tells that after the revolt was settled, the Chinese government seized the properties of the nobilities that were suspected to be involved and was later handed out to the commoners. Thus, the expensive goods that the normal people have actually have a high chance of formally being one of the collections of the past nobles of Tibet. In this single article, although covered in a very brief and abrupt manner, the New York Times managed to show the social, political and cultural history and characteristics of Tibet. However, this article, just like the others, do not show opinions but only facts, and fail to show further details and may cause slight trouble to those who do not have the slightest historical background about Tibet.
            The articles that were written based on information provided at China seem to be slightly affected by the Communism verses Commercialism issue. All articles focus on telling new discoveries and policies in Tibet and what changes had been made after the occupation. Cultural aspects of Tibet are hardly shown and most articles are statistical and are reports about new or ongoing policies. At the end of these articles, in a short sentence, the New York Times sometimes explains about the revolt in 1959 or the occupation in 1950. These additional one or two sentences of background knowledge do not appear that frequently but in cases when the readers might wonder why the Dalai Lama is not in Tibet, why the Chinese government has the authority in all the Tibetan issues or why things had to change after 1959.
            For an example, at the end of the article ¡°Panchen Lama is Missing From Roll of China Deputies¡±, published in December 25th 1964, the article says "The Dalai Lama, who fled to India when the Chinese crushed the revolt, was both a spiritual and a temporal ruler." In this short sentence, by using the word 'crushed' instead of other mild terms such as 'dissolved', the article might suggest negative connotation towards the Chinese occupation. On the other hand, in "Peking Bars Foreign Press From Ceremonies in Tibet", an article written in August 29 1965, a short line is drawn indicating that it has no relevance and writes "The Chinese Army entered Tibet in October, 1950. In 1959, the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibet, fled to India". Unlike the first example, this additional paragraph simply focuses on providing a brief view of the history of Tibet for better understanding and does not involve tonal suggestions.
            In the early periods, the New York Times sometimes addresses China as the "Red China" and writes "Red Flag on the Roof of the World" for the headline to describe the Chinese occupation. However, for the term 'Red China', such nickname is hard to conclude that it has negative connotations only and was soon replaced with the term 'Communist China'. The reason the New York Times does not simply say 'China' is because it may cause confusion between Taiwan and the mainland China. Regarding the fact that New York Times seldom wrote as ¡®Red China¡¯ and such usage was quickly abandoned, it can be said that the New York Times were putting quite effort to stick to the official languages. Also, although it was the New York Times who wrote and published the articles that used such terms, it is hard to blame the New York Times for using unofficial languages. That is, while the image of ¡®Red¡¯ may sound negative when portraying ideas such as Communism, the Communist nations proudly promote the usage of red, engaging it positively in its propagandas. Thus, there is also a high chance that the idea of calling the Chinese people and army 'Reds', the government as 'Red China' and victory as 'Red Flag', may have come from the press released that China itself had conducted. In other words, because the Chinese government also uses such terms in its interviews and media, nicknames that use red when calling China should not be an indication of offense towards Communism.
            Articles provided from Nepal are usually indirect and often rely on primary information. They are mostly about what the merchants and tourists had seen or gone through which may portrait certain issues going on in Tibet. These articles are short and do not give detailed information. For an example, on "Ten Chinese Killed in Tibet", an articles published in January 12th 1962, the whole articles consists in one sentence; "At least ten Chinese soldiers have been killed recently in skirmishes with Khampa guerrillas, according to Nepalese Buddhist pilgrims arriving here from Shigatse in Southern Tibet". This article was provided from Katmandu, Nepal and does not further talk about the creditability of the news that the pilgrims have brought. Also, it does not write whether the pilgrims have seen it happen or if they have just heard rumors about it, making it confusing for the readers whether this article is suggests another rumor going on or a real fact.
            On the other hand, these short articles can also suggest that the New York Times is very sure that these news are decisively true for in cases of uncertainty, the New York Times often writes that they are not yet confirmed by the governmental officials. For an example, in "Tibetan-Chinese Clash Said to Cost 240 Lives", written in January 22nd 1962, the last sentence of the articles states that "Indian government officials said they had no confirmation of the fighting". By suggesting the possibility of the information being a false report, the New York Times seem to pay a careful attention in keeping its reliability, putting efforts to not cause confusion with false reports. As for a result, by such histories, it is also expected that the New York Times may have written that the facts written may not be true if what the previous pilgrims said were doubtful. Thus, regardless of the fact that the source is based on what the pilgrims may have heard or seen and that the articles consists of only one sentence, it is hard to discard these short articles to be unworthy.
            Unlike the other articles that were based on information provided from the U.s, China and Nepal, articles that are based on Indian sources consist in many different types and tones. The first type is the claims made by the Tibetan government in exile. This is because this government was established in Dharamsala, India after the mass revolt in 1959. This Tibetan government usually provides information related to the refugees, the oppressions committed by the Chinese government, the Dalai Lama and national appeals they would make to liberate Tibet. Other articles that were based on information provided from India mostly deal with the border fights with China, Chinese oppressions and other Tibetan issues.
            However, because there is a high chance of both the Tibetan government and the Chinese government to exaggerate certain facts for more publicity and supports, the New York Times often writes the opinion of the Indian government about controversial claims. That is, when there are claims that there were fights between the Chinese army and the Tibetan guerrillas, the New York Times in most cases refer to the claims of the Indian government to remain unbiased as possible. Even so, it is still hard to say that the Indian government is totally objective for Tibet and India have been allies for a long time and border fights were often a hot issue between China and India. As for a result, often negative articles about the Chinese government are claimed by the Indian sources. As time passes, the Tibetan government less and less functions as a advocate of oppressions going on in Tibet but rather about other political and religious issues.
            Such shift may be because the New York Times may have considered the information provided by the Indian government more trust worthy and did not want to get in the confusing process of figuring out what will be right between the contradicting propagandas. For an example, in "Tibet Red are Said to Ransack Temple", published in October 9th 1966, the article is divided in to three sections. The first paragraphs are the claims made in the Indian media, the second is ones from the Chinese media and the third is from the western media, leaving the readers to decide what would possibly be closest to the actual truth.



Chapter 4 (as of October 24th 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

Chapter 4 : Brief Analysis of the NYT Articles
            Among the 68 articles that cover the period from 1960 to 1964, 68% of the articles relied on sources from India, generally New Delhi. The other sources were mostly either from Honk Kong or Katmandu. This is a strong contrast from the latter periods for the latter three periods varied greatly in the nations that the information was first given. That is, while the first period heavily relied on the facts that were publicly spoken by the Indian government or the Chinese government, the latter periods enjoyed a wider variety of sources from various nations. It was actually during the second period when the U.S. became one of the providers of the primary sources. In other words, until the articles written in 1965, it was impossible to find New York Times' articles that referred to sources either than the ones from Nepal, China and India. However, as time passed, the articles relied on information based on wider providers making the articles more reliable and varied in its quantity and contents.
            Even so, these changes related to nations as a primary source provider does not mean that the importance of India as the main source. Throughout the whole period, many articles were still relying on India's comment or opinion. That is, when the articles that were based on facts provided either than China or India, a little less than 20% of these articles did not forget to state out whether the government of India confirmed the reliability of the given or claimed facts. Even about 5% of the articles that were based on China's claims mentioned about the Indian government's opinion about them. In most of these cases, the article stated that the Indian government either has not responded or spoke about those issues or that the Indian government is not yet sure whether such claims are right or wrong. However, these final turn-backs does not continue throughout the whole period but rather concentrated during the first and second period. It is likely that these actions were done because the New York Times were aware about the fact that the information from both the Exiled Tibetan government and the Chinese government had a high risk of being biased and vied the Indian government with appreciation of its creditability.
            Some of the articles were based on the facts provided by Japan, Swiss etc and some were commentaries that covered about the issues related to Tibet. The articles that were from Geneva were due to the International Commission of Jurists that examined the cases in Tibet in January 12, 1965. However, it is not clear why the Japanese government was able to give out information that neither the Chinese government nor the Indian government were not aware of. Even though the issues that were covered were not that sensitive and were rather trivial, the creditability seems not that high for the article never states further more about the provider of the sources either than the fact that it was from Tokyo, Japan. Also, the length was extremely short indicating that the New York Times were willing to further more cover about such issues later on. The other article that was provided from Japan was from the reporter that was staying in Japan, quoting the reports of the Chinese government about the new coal mine that will open in Tibet.
            Also, it can be examined that the proportion of the articles that relied on the announcements of the Chinese government increased as time passed. In the fourth period, the proportion of the Chinese based sources and the Indian based sources were almost the same, reaching both around 40%. As the community of Tibetans in Dharamsala and the border fights between Indian and China were settled compared to the past, the Indian government grew less concerned with the Tibetan issues for the government was always alarmed due to the border fights caused by Communist China. Thus, the sources seems to decrease from the Indian government while the Chinese government became more and more willing to give out news about the Tibetan regions. This is caused because the Communization projects were reported to be comparatively successful than in other areas and the struggles of Tibetans for independence decreased greatly leaving almost no records of notable struggles. The New York Times seems to credit the Communist Chinese government's claim that they have succeeded in stabilizing the Tibetan society as well as improving the welfare and educational systems. Thus, it can be concluded that all of these incidents led up to the increase of dependency of Chinese government announcements of the New York Times, even leading up to the general tonal and content changes of the articles, which will be discussed in the next chapter.
            While the nation that provided the sources were always clearly stated in the articles, the exact institution or the status of the people who gave out such facts were some times blurred out or simply ignored. And such obscurity happened even when the provider was not obvious and seems redundant to mention the source. However, most of these cases seemed to be caused when the information was rather unsure or had to be verified further on. That is, the articles that were written based on an anonymous provider were mostly not related to occasions that the provider might receive threats of his or her safety. The usual phrase that New York Times used were 'reliable source' or 'authoritatively reported today'. However, these two statements do not make it clear whether these sources were from trust worthy media reports, the statements from the governments or facts that were gathered from what certain individuals assert to be true. If the articles were referring to certain individual's claims, the status and the brief information should have been provided for the stance of that person would have mattered which view point the article will mostly focus on. However, it must be also mentioned that these omits were not done frequently and even though at first the article did not clearly state out who or what the authority is, in most cases, the contents of the article made it quite clear which authority the article was previously referring to.
            Either than incidents when the exact source was not stated out, most of the articles were restating or clarifying the official claims of the government or international institutions. Most of the articles that were based on the statements of the Indian and the Chinese government and the Nepal government. However, some of the sources from Nepal were from articles of the local newspaper or from travelers from western countries or the merchants. The Indian government was usually concerned with the military matters which showed its fragile relationship with the Chinese government. Amongst all the issues that the Chinese government bothered to publicize, information related to the struggles of the Tibetans against the occupation of the Chinese government were very few. Instead, the primary concern was about the projects that will be held in Tibet to communize the Tibetans or what sort of facilities will be built and developed in Tibet.
            The articles that were based on the U.S. origined primary sources usually were from the U.S. government or the governmental institutions. However, seldomly, the exile Tibetan citizens or the reporters of New York Times often functioned as the provider of the primary sources. The U.S. first interfered in the Tibetan issue when the U.S. government decided to help the struggles against China by assisting the exiles and providing them military training. But as the international relationship changed, the U.S. based articles was soon gone and did not reappear for a long time. It was during the fourth period when the U.S. based articles came out again. However, the contents went through a huge phase change. As the Chinese government grew confident of its occupation and control in Tibet, the foreigners were admitted seldom and thus enabled the reporters to go to Tibet. Even so, the Chinese government still remained highly restricted towards foreigners thus the reporters mostly wrote about the ordinary lives of the citizens or did not write about the negatives.



Chapter 3 (as of October 24th 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

Chapter 3 : The Rebellion
            In 1958, the resistance from the Tibetans grew. It was mostly due to the Chinese oppression that were held on the monasteries and the long lasting poverty. Gungthang Lama and Shar Kalden Gyatso, famous Amdo Lamas, were imprisoned. The Tibetans also assert that the Dalai Lama himself was also constantly threatened to be imprisoned if not followed Chinese orders. Feeling pressure by the increasing resistances, the Chinese government started to impose its ideas in a more strong way.
            On November 28th, 1958, the local Tibetans newpapers of Tachienlu, Sining and Katse published Chinese propagandas that denounced religion and the Buddha. Also, Eastern Tibetan people, including those from Khampas and Amdowas were insisted to leave Lhasa with no postponement. It was announced that if resisted or took too much time, they were to be arrested and forcefully would be driven back home.
            This sudden policy was due to the fact that most of the resistances were caused by the Eastern Tibetan People. If they were neglected to stay in Lhasa, there was a high chance that the upraises would spread into Lhasa also. Meanwhile, the leader of the Eastern Tibetan people, Adruk Gompo Tashi, settled in the Southern area of the Drigu district. There he collected thousand men and started to establish contacts with other resistance leaders. The Danglang Tensung Makhar (Voluntary National Defense Army) was soon organized. It is said that some of these guerillas were often hostile and did harm to the local residences.
            However, the Tibetans say that it was actually the Chinese troops disguised as Khampas who hindered the local people. It is said that it was due to prevent local residents from supporting the Khampas. (While the Tibetan sources view the Khampas as an organization made to go against the Chinese occupation, the Western sources focus more on the fact that the Khampas existed before such occupations happened. Thus, they refer to the Khampas as a nomadic warrior tribe that sometimes revolted against the Chinese government.) Moreover, The Tibetan books moreoever say that the local residences did not fall for such Chinese tactics and remained supportive throughout the resistance.
            Unable to suppress the upraises, the Chinese government soon changed its policies. The Tibetan government was asked to send Tibetan troops to dispatch the resistance. Fearing the two situations, one, Tibetans killing Tibetans, and two, Troops joining in the revolt and stirring the Chinese troops to enact brutal oppressions leading up to mass casualties, the Tibetan government came up with an alternative. The idea was to send negotiators to the resisting forces; however, this idea led up to no success.
            Facing such dilemmas, the Tibetans government was counting on the Indian government¡¯s interference. Unfortunately, when India¡¯s Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru asked to visit Tibet, it was denied by the Chinese government. Failing in all efforts to soothe the resistance, it grew and gained control of all the districts in Southern Tibet. The news of the victories of the Tibetan resisting forces spread throughout Tibet and patriotism grew. To prevent this situation from getting worse, the Chinese troops started to gather themselves, preparing and reorganizing the army.
            On February, 1959, During the Monlam Festival, the Chinese authorities invited the Dalai Lama to see a dramatic show. The show was scheduled on March 10th but the Dalai Lama was to bring no body guards. This request rose up suspicion for there were no precedents of the Dalai Lama attending a place without body guards. Fearing the worst situation, 30,000 Tibetans from Lhasa surrounded the norbuloingka on 10th of March. The people who gathered insisted on the safe return of the Dalai Lama and protested the Chinese government for its oppressions. This news was soon spread and the Indian press announced such gatherings and soon the world press was breaking out spreading the news of the Tibetan appraisal.
            Few days later in Lhasa, several officials of the government of Tibet and some additional leaders chosen by the populace gathered. An emergency meeting was held and soon the delegates announced that Tibet would no longer recognize the Chinese authorities and the 17 Article Agreements. After making such announcement, the Tibetan soldiers started to wear Tibetan uniforms instead of the Chinese uniforms. Also, the Voluntary National Defense Army and guerrilla fighters started to cooperate. They cut all Chinese communications in the Southern Tibet. Mean while, the Tibetans in Lhasa tried to contact the Indian government. They especially tried to contact with the Indian Consul General to ask for intervention. Women and children quickly fled to India or Nepal.
            On March 17th 1959, the Dalai Lama fled to India. He received protection of the guerrilla and fled through the southern back of Tsangpo River. When the Dalai Lama reached Tsona, tow emissaries were sent to India. They went to the Indian border check-post at Kanzeymane (near Chuthangma) and requested a political asylum for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees. The Prime Minister Nehru granted such requested and thus more Tibetans started to flee to India
            On March 19th, Chinese shelled Norbulingka, Potala and other strategic places in Lhasa. The Chinese troops used tanks and inflator attacks to restore their control. The Tibetans claim that by this incident, 12,000 were killed and a huge number were imprisoned. On the next day, the Chinese figured out about the Dalai Lama's flight. It was three days after the flight took pace. The Chinese government launched troops and aircrafts to find the Dalai Lama but failed. Soon after, the Chinese government dissolved the Tibetan government. As a result, on March 29th, the Tibetans established a temporary government in Yugyal Lhauntse.



Chapter 2 (as of October 24th 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

Chapter 2 : The Chinese Occupation
            Before the 19th century, obviously before the People's Republic of China occupied Tibet, Tibet was remained autonomous and closed for most of the years. Its reclusive policy was disturbed when the British invaded Tibet in 1904 for a short period but soon, the intrusion was put to the end. (Blue book) After the British left Tibet, the Manchus invaded Tibet in 1910 to restore its influence on Tibet but in 1911, by the 13th Dalai Lama, Tibet was again gained independence. (Blue Book)
            In the mainland of China, after the Manchu dynasty collapsed, a conflict between the Nationalist and Communist parties of China broke out. Eventually, a civil war started and the Nationalist government fell in 1949. The Nationalists withdrew to Taiwan and the Communist party gained control. Soon, the People's Government Council, headed by Mao Zedong, was founded.
            After establishing a firm government, one of the initial policies that the Chinese government implemented was the peaceful liberation of Tibet. In 1950, the People's Republic of China announced that Tibet has always been a part of China, as a ¡®priest and a patron¡¯. Also, China added that to make this status clear, Chinese troops will march into Tibet. To prevent such events, the government appointed Dzasa Sukhang Surpa and the Secretary General of Tibet, Chosphel Thubten as the representatives of Tibet. Soon after, they were sent to India to negotiate with the Chinese ambassador, Yuan Chung-Hsien. The two suggestions from the Chinese side was that first, Tibet should be recognized as a part of China and second, China should handle Tibet's national defense. However, the negotiation did not reach to an end.
            On October 25, 1950, the Chinese government officially announced that the People¡¯s army has now been ordered to liberate the Tibetans from the brutal imperialists. Books that have been written by Tibetans state that this announcement was made after Chinese troops have started to enter and oppress Tibet on October 7, 1950. On the other hand, other history books recognize the invasion that took place on September 9, 1951, which Tibetan chronologist state as the first mass invasion of China.
            Meanwhile, the Indian government and officials of the British government criticized China¡¯s oppression towards Tibet. Even so, such speeches did not help Tibet when the Indian delegation El Salvador brought up the Tibetan issue in the United Nations. The issue was to be postponed and the other nations were suggested to do their best for peaceful solutions.
            On May 23rd, 1951, the 17 articles of the ¡°Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet¡± were signed between Tibet and China. However, the Tibetans claim that this agreement was never signed by the Tibetan side and that the Chinese forged the Tibetan seals in Peking and forced the delegates to seal the documents. The Tibetans more over claim that this document cannot be considered as valid for the delegations were blocked from contacting the Dalai Lama for further instructions.
            On September 9th, 1951, several thousand Chinese Communist troops led by Wang Chi-mei arrived in Lhasa. It was soon after when there became 20,00 Chinese troops in Tibet. All these troops were fed and supported by the Tibetans, becoming one the factors that led up to the destructive and deadly famine that broke out in Tibet. The barter system was thrown out and Chinese currency was adapted and the individual small farms were closed up, reorganized as communes. The inflation rate hit the sky and the general public was soon exhausted by the occupation of China, eventually leading up to a large upraise.
            Regardless of the chaos going on in Tibet, the Dalai Lama had no choice but to obey to the orders of China. Even when the Panchen Lama was forcefully chosen by China, the Dalai Lama had no choice but to cooperate what the Chinese said. The situation was that after the death of the 6th Panchen Lama in 1944. (Chinese count him as the 9th Panchen Lama. The difference comes from whether the first three Lamas are counted as the Panchen Lama or not.)
            After the death of the Panchen Lama, officials from Tashilhunpo and Sining were sent to find the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. Officials from Tashilhunpo found two candidate while officials from Sining found one candidate. Traditionally, these candidates were supposed to be brought to Lhasa and be tested who is the real incarnation. Regardless of these traditions, Sining's officials suddenly started to insist that their candidate must be chosen as the Panchen Lama without being tested. The issues were not settled and even the Chinese government did not interfere in this issue. However, after few years when the Tibetan government asked the Chinese Mission in Lhasa to leave Tibet, the Chinese government sent a representative to Kumbum Monestry where the Sining's candidate of the Panchen Lama was staying. On August 10, 1949, the Sining¡¯s candidate was officially recognized as the Panchen Lama by the Chinese government. This incident was soon followed by the communization of Sining's capital of the Ch¡¯ing-hai province.
            After the arrival of the Panchen Lama to Lhasa on April 28th 1954, both the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama stayed cooperative towards China. In 1954, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama were both invited and thus attended to Peking to attend the Chinese People's National Assembly. There the Dalai Lama met with the Chairman Mao Tse-tung, Vice-Chairman Chu Teh and the Prime Minister Chou En-lai.
            On 1956, the Peking government inaugurated the Preparatory Committee for the Autonomous Region of Tibet. The Kashag ministers and the government officials of Tibet were asked to receive the Chinese representatives in Kidtsel Luding. The Chinese authorities in Lhasa suggested that the Dalai Lama should also attend the greetings and even though there were oppositions from the Tibetan government side, the Dalai Lama and the officials went to Kidtsael Luding to greet the Chinese representatives.
            Thus on April 17th, 1956, Marshal Ch'en I, the Deputy Prime Minister, arrived at Lhasa. A week later, the Preparatory Committee for the Autonomous Region of Tibet was officially inaugurated. The Cairman was the Dalai Lama, the Vice Chairman was the Panchen Lama and Chiang Kno-hua and the Secretary General was Nagawang Jigme Ngabo. The Committee was made up of 51 members. 15 represented Tibet, including the Dalai Lama. However, it was actually the State Council that made decisions which affected Tibet. However, this State Council did not have representations by delegates of Tibet.



Chapter 1 (as of October 24th 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

Chapter I : Economy, Social Structure & Culture of Tibet
            Technically, the current political status of Tibet is an autonomous region of China. The Military is controlled by the Central Military Commission. Also, the executive branch of China circulates around two people; the president and the General Secretary of the Communist Party. The Recent constitution (1982) of the People¡¯s Republic of China states that the president of China is to be elected by an election held by the National People's Congress and should serve 5 years term. In such structure, decisions affecting Tibet are usually made by the State Council.
            The legislative branch is the National People's Congress (NPC). They amend the constitution, appoint members of the State Council and serves for 5 years. However, even though it may seem that the checks and balances are well organized among each branches, the reality is not so. It is actually the State Council that makes the important decisions and the Congress is no more than an institution that ratifies the decision of the Council. Thus, even though there are Tibetan delegates in the National People's Congress, not only they have little or no power but actually cannot bring any changes for there are no representatives in the State Council.
            Prior to 1951, the Tibetans relied on self sufficient agriculture. Also, a large portion of the daily food and domestic products relied on yaks. The yaks w ere the Tibetans¡¯ source of meat, milk, butter and fur. Also, they even served as transportations. It was not until 20th century when the first 2 wheeled vehicles were brought by horse backs for the Dalai Lama. However, because there were no sufficient roads for cars to travel, the yaks were more appropriate for traveling through the harsh mountain regions of Tibet.
            Trading was not the area that the Tibetans heavily depended. However, the doors of Tibet did not remain completely closed and trade was constantly done with Nepal and China. Wool, salt, barley was the usual products that the Tibetan exported. Also, manufacturing has always been in a state of infancy throughout Tibet's history. The principal items are mainly based on wool; rugs, blankets and knitwear are the most commonly made and exported item. After the arrival of China, the manufactured goods expanded to processed leather, chemicals, textiles and electrical equipment. However, they are usually made for domestic usage and are hardly consumed either than in Tibet. It is handicrafts that actually bring in marginal earnings. Appliqu?d tents, butter churns and religious artifacts are sold largely to tourists and regarding its high proficiency, those engaged in handicraft wor are entitled to state subsidies.
            It can be said that after the arrival of China, the whole economical structure of Tibet changed. The barter system was banned and Chinese currency was used instead. Winter Wheat became the major crop and Communes were organized. The individual lands owned by the Tibetan farmers were asked to be turned in to the government. However, when the land owners refused to participate in the Commune, the family was condemned as a self centered national enemy. This eventually led up to false accusations and degeneration of the whole family. Thus, the attempt of the Chinese government to manage the agriculture by the Commune was successfully done.
            While in the past, most Tibetans owned only few yaks for food and transportation, the Chinese government started to raise large hers of these animals. This made the land barren and mass crop failure and famine. Also, because of the drastic increase of the population, mostly due to the Chinese army in Tibet, the food problem of Tibet did not improve until recent days. The food problem of Tibet was annihilated when Hu Yaobang, the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, came to Tibet in 1980. After his arrival, communes were disassembled and hers of the animals were broken up and redistributed. Also, the trades with Nepal were reestablished and tourists started to be granted. In other words, during the 1980s, the economical structure of Tibet changed from a state-run economy to a partially free economy. Also, to promote economical growth, in 2000, the Chinese government invested 10 billion yuan (approximately 1.24 billion dollars) for energy, education, transportation and health care.
            Opposite from what people normally expect, Tibet has a comparatively rich and firm supplies of natural resources. Coal and Jade are the most dominant resources produced and Iron, ore, oil, shale, manganese, lead, zine, graphite is found also. Also, after the usage of electricity spread out, timber became no longer a desperately needed resource. Thus, timber is now actively exported to China. Despite the fact that most of Tibet is covered with grasslands, evergreen forests exist in the Southern area and these zones grow tropical oaks and valuable hardwoods. The tung tree, which produces resin like oil, and a lacquer tree that yields varnish are also harvested.
            Even though tourism is severely restricted, tourism is also one of the main sources of financial support. Ever since Tibet reopened itself for tourism in 1981, the numbers of visitors are constantly increasing. Due to promote tourism even more, the Chinese government is now actively dedicating itself to the restoration of some monasteries, holy places and palaces. Also, some luxury hotels and restaurants are being built and the bus services are constantly reorganized for better transportation.
            However, many point out that such improvement do not do much help to the actual life of the ordinary Tibetan citizens. Most of the benefits that come from tourism usually go to the pockets of the Chinese people living in Tibet. That is, the prosperous or well earning facilities are owned by the Chinese and the occupations of Tibetans usually are aimed towards the ordinary. For instance, while most of the taxis are driven by the Chinese, the Tibetans drove cheap rickshaws.
            Also, despite all the efforts to modernize Tibet, the Chinese government has widely failed to acknowledge the importance of preserving the nature and environment of Tibet. As a result, natural landscape and ecology were severely damaged. One of the most notorious example is the introduction of collective farming which was mentioned previously. Another example dis the large deforestation and the desertification that has been continuing in Tibet, caused by the exportation of timbers to China.
            Also, after the occupation, poaching and unlicensed hunting is threatening Tibet¡¯s wild life. Large animals are hunted for its fur, bones, meat, antlers and hides. These goods are mainly illegally transported into China or are sold to the buyers in the underground market. It is also commonly known that some spots are well known among the tourists for recreational hunting. A large portion of these tourists are rich people that seek for unique decorations, trophies and mere pleasure. Indeed there are laws that go against these illegal deeds but the lack of manpower make it highly impossible to effectively enforce these laws.



Working Table of Contents (as of Oct. 7th 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

I. Economy, Social Structure & Culture of Tibet
II. The Chinese Occupation
III. The Revolt of 1959
IV. Brief Analysis of the NYT Articles
V. The Varying Contents and Attitudes of the Articles
VI. Conclusion



Chapter 2 (as of September 24th 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

Chapter II : Brief History of Tibet from 1960 to 1976

Chapter II.1 : Political History
Chapter II.2 : Economic History
            Before the 19th century, obviously before the People¡¯s Republic of China occupied Tibet, Tibet remained autonomous and closed for most of the years. Its reclusive policy was disturbed when the British invaded Tibet in 1904 for a short period but soon, the intrusion was put to the end. (Blue book) After the British left Tibet, the Manchus invaded Tibet in 1910 to restore their influence on Tibet but in 1911, by the 13th Dalai Lama, Tibet was again gained independence. (Blue Book)
            In 1950, the People's Republic of China announced that Tibet has always been a part of China, as a 'priest and a patron'. Also, China added that to make this status clear, Chinese troops will march into Tibet. To prevent such events, the government appointed Dzasa Sukhang Surpa and the Secretary General of Tibet, Chosphel Thubten as the representatives of Tibet. Soon after, they were sent to India to negotiate with the Chinese ambassador, Yuan Chung-Hsien. The two suggestions from the Chinese side was that first, Tibet should be recognized as a part of China and second, China should handle Tibet¡¯s national defense. However, the negotiation did not reach to an end.
            On October 25, 1950, the Chinese government officially announced that the People's army has now been ordered to liberate the Tibetans from the brutal imperialists. Books that have been written by Tibetans state that this announcement was made after Chinese troops have started to enter and oppress Tibet on October 7, 1950. On the other hand, other history books recognize the invasion that took place on September 9, 1951, which Tibetan chronologist state as the first mass invasion of China.
            Meanwhile, the Indian government and officials of the British government criticized China's oppression towards Tibet. Even so, such speeches did not help Tibet when the Indian delegation El Salvador brought up the Tibetan issue in the United Nations. The issue was to be postponed and the other nations were suggested to do their best for peaceful solutions
            On May 23rd, 1951, the 17 articles of the ¡°Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet¡± were signed between Tibet and China. However, the Tibetans claim that this agreement was never signed by the Tibetan side and that the Chinese forged the Tibetan seals in Peking and forced the delegates to seal the documents. The Tibetans more over claim that this document cannot be considered as valid for the delegations were blocked from contacting the Dalai Lama for further instructions.
            On September 9th, 1951, several thousand Chinese Communist troops led by Wang Chi-mei arrived in Lhasa. It was soon after when there became 20,00 Chinese troops in Tibet. All these troops were fed and supported by the Tibetans, becoming one the factors that led up to the destructive and deadly famine that broke out in Tibet. The barter system was thrown out and Chinese currency was adapted and the individual small farms were closed up, reorganized as communes. The inflation rate hit the sky and the general public was soon exhausted by the occupation of China, eventually leading up to a large upraise.
            Regardless of the chaos going on in Tibet, the Dalai Lama had no choice but to obey to the orders of China. Even when the Panchen Lama was forcefully chosen by China, the Dalai Lama had no choice but to cooperate what the Chinese said. The situation was that after the death of the 6th Panchen Lama in 1944. (Chinese count him as the 9th Panchen Lama. The difference comes from whether the first three Lamas are counted as the Panchen Lama or not.)
            After the death of the Panchen Lama, officials from Tashilhunpo and Sining were sent to find the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. Officials from Tashilhunpo found two candidate while officials from Sining found one candidate. Traditionally, these candidates were supposed to be brought to Lhasa and be tested who is the real incarnation. Regardless of these traditions, Sining¡¯s officials suddenly started to insist that their candidate must be chosen as the Panchen Lama without being tested. The issues were not settled and even the Chinese government did not interfere in this issue. However, after few years when the Tibetan government asked the Chinese Mission in Lhasa to leave Tibet, the Chinese government sent a representative to Kumbum Monestry where the Sining's candidate of the Panchen Lama was staying. On August 10, 1949, the Sining's candidate was officially recognized as the Panchen Lama by the Chinese government. This incident was soon followed by the communization of Sining's capital of the Ch'ing-hai province.
            After the arrival of the Panchen Lama to Lhasa on April 28th 1954, both the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama stayed cooperative towards China. In 1954, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama were both invited and thus attended to Peking to attend the Chinese People's National Assembly. There the Dalai Lama met with the Chairman Mao Tse-tung, Vice-Chairman Chu Teh and the Prime Minister Chou En-lai.
            On 1956, the Peking government inaugurated the Preparatory Committee for the Autonomous Region of Tibet. The Kashag ministers and the government officials of Tibet were asked to receive the Chinese representatives in Kidtsel Luding. The Chinese authorities in Lhasa suggested that the Dalai Lama should also attend the greetings and even though there were oppositions from the Tibetan government side, the Dalai Lama and the officials went to Kidtsael Luding to greet the Chinese representatives.
            Thus on April 17th, 1956, Marshal Ch¡¯en I, the Deputy Prime Minister, arrived at Lhasa. A week later, the Preparatory Committee for the Autonomous Region of Tibet was officially inaugurated. The Cairman was the Dalai Lama, the Vice Chairman was the Panchen Lama and Chiang Kno-hua and the Secretary General was Nagawang Jigme Ngabo. The Committee was made up of 51 members. 15 represented Tibet, including the Dalai Lama. However, it was actually the State Council that made decisions which affected Tibet. However, this State Council did not have representations by delegates of Tibet.
            In 1958, the resistance from the Tibetans grew. It was mostly due to the Chinese oppression that were held on the monasteries and the long lasting poverty. Gungthang Lama and Shar Kalden Gyatso, famous Amdo Lamas, were imprisoned. The Tibetans also assert that the Dalai Lama himself was also constantly threatened to be imprisoned if not followed Chinese orders. Feeling pressure by the increasing resistances, the Chinese government started to impose its ideas in a more strong way.
            On November 28th, 1958, the local Tibetans newpapers of Tachienlu, Sining and Katse published Chinese propagandas that denounced religion and the Buddha. Also, Eastern Tibetan people, including those from Khampas and Amdowas were insisted to leave Lhasa with no postponement. It was announced that if resisted or took too much time, they were to be arrested and forcefully would be driven back home.
            This sudden policy was due to the fact that most of the resistances were caused by the Eastern Tibetan People. If they were neglected to stay in Lhasa, there was a high chance that the upraises would spread into Lhasa also. Meanwhile, the leader of the Eastern Tibetan people, Adruk Gompo Tashi, settled in the Southern area of the Drigu district. There he collected thousand men and started to establish contacts with other resistance leaders. The Danglang Tensung Makhar (Voluntary National Defense Army) was soon organized. It is said that some of these guerillas were often hostile and did harm to the local residences.
            However, the Tibetans say that it was actually the Chinese troops disguised as Khampas who hindered the local people. It is said that it was due to prevent local residents from supporting the Khampas. (While the Tibetan sources view the Khampas as an organization made to go against the Chinese occupation, the Western sources focus more on the fact that the Khampas existed before such occupations happened. Thus, they refer to the Khampas as a nomadic warrior tribe that sometimes revolted against the Chinese government.) Moreover, The Tibetan books moreoever say that the local residences did not fall for such Chinese tactics and remained supportive throughout the resistance.
            Unable to suppress the upraises, the Chinese government soon changed its policies. The Tibetan government was asked to send Tibetan troops to dispatch the resistance. Fearing the two situations, one, Tibetans killing Tibetans, and two, Troops joining in the revolt and stirring the Chinese troops to enact brutal oppressions leading up to mass casualties, the Tibetan government came up with an alternative. The idea was to send negotiators to the resisting forces; however, this idea led up to no success.
            Facing such dilemmas, the Tibetans government was counting on the Indian government¡¯s interference. Unfortunately, when India¡¯s Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru asked to visit Tibet, it was denied by the Chinese government. Failing in all efforts to soothe the resistance, it grew and gained control of all the districts in Southern Tibet. The news of the victories of the Tibetan resisting forces spread throughout Tibet and patriotism grew. To prevent this situation from getting worse, the Chinese troops started to gather themselves, preparing and reorganizing the army.
            On February, 1959, During the Monlam Festival, the Chinese authorities invited the Dalai Lama to see a dramatic show. The show was scheduled on March 10th but the Dalai Lama was to bring no body guards. This request rose up suspicion for there were no precedents of the Dalai Lama attending a place without body guards. Fearing the worst situation, 30,000 Tibetans from Lhasa surrounded the norbuloingka on 10th of March. The people who gathered insisted on the safe return of the Dalai Lama and protested the Chinese government for its oppressions. This news was soon spread and the Indian press announced such gatherings and soon the world press was breaking out spreading the news of the Tibetan appraisal.
            Few days later in Lhasa, several officials of the government of Tibet and some additional leaders chosen by the populace gathered. An emergency meeting was held and soon the delegates announced that Tibet would no longer recognize the Chinese authorities and the 17 Article Agreements. After making such announcement, the Tibetan soldiers started to wear Tibetan uniforms instead of the Chinese uniforms. Also, the Voluntary National Defense Army and guerrilla fighters started to cooperate. They cut all Chinese communications in the Southern Tibet. Mean while, the Tibetans in Lhasa tried to contact the Indian government. They especially tried to contact with the Indian Consul General to ask for intervention. Women and children quickly fled to India or Nepal.
            On March 17th 1959, the Dalai Lama fled to India. He received protection of the guerrilla and fled through the southern back of Tsangpo River. When the Dalai Lama reached Tsona, two emissaries were sent to India. They went to the Indian border check-post at Kanzeymane (near Chuthangma) and requested a political asylum for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees. The Prime Minister Nehru granted such requested and thus more Tibetans started to flee to India
            On March 19th, Chinese shelled Norbulingka, Potala and other strategic places in Lhasa. The Chinese troops used tanks and inflator attacks to restore their control. The Tibetans claim that by this incident, 12,000 were killed and a huge number were imprisoned. On the next day, the Chinese figured out about the Dalai Lama's flight. It was three days after the flight took pace. The Chinese government launched troops and aircrafts to find the Dalai Lama but failed. Soon after, the Chinese government dissolved the Tibetan government. As a result, on March 29th, the Tibetans established a temporary government in Yugyal Lhauntse.
            During the Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards destroyed Tibetan cultural relics. The oppression even grew after the mass rebellion and Dalai Lama's flight. Because most Tibetan families used to send their brightest child to the monastery, the Chinese government considered it as one of the most dangerous threat and source of rebellion. Thus, the monks were almost bound not to leave the monastery and monks that were close to the Chinese sides were assigned to every little group of Tibetan monks.
            However, after Mao Zedong passed away in 1976, the central government of Communist China started to approach the Tibetan issue in a slightly more liberal way. New Chinese delegations were sent to Tibet in order to halt the levitation of harsh taxes. Also, some religious freedom was allowed. Starting from 1980, the Chinese government trained Tibetan artistes to create new religious images. In 1981, foreign tourists were permitted to travel Tibet. Despite these changes, still small but violent demonstrations were held in 1987 and 1993. (blue book)



Chapter 5 (as of August 29th 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

Chapter V : The change (comparison, contrast) of proportion of the sources (Change of accuracy, nation and person)

            Among the 68 articles that cover the period from 1960 to 1964, 68% of the articles relied on sources from India, generally New Delhi. The other sources were mostly either from Hong Kong or Katmandu. This is a strong contrast from the latter periods for the latter three periods varied greatly in the nations that the information was first given. That is, while the first period heavily relied on the facts that were publicly spoken by the Indian government or the Chinese government, the latter periods enjoyed a wider variety of sources from various nations. It was actually during the second period when the U.S. became one of the providers of the primary sources. In other words, until the articles written in 1965, it was impossible to find New York Times' articles that referred to sources either than the ones from Nepal, China and India. However, as time passed, the articles relied on information based on wider providers making the articles more reliable and varied in its quantity and contents.
            Even so, these changes related to nations as a primary source provider does not mean that the importance of India as the main source. Throughout the whole period, many articles were still relying on India's comment or opinion. That is, when the articles that were based on facts provided either than China or India, a little less than 20% of these articles did not forget to state out whether the government of India confirmed the reliability of the given or claimed facts. Even about 5% of the articles that were based on China's claims mentioned about the Indian government's opinion about them. In most of these cases, the article stated that the Indian government either has not responded or spoke about those issues or that the Indian government is not yet sure whether such claims are right or wrong. However, these final turn-backs does not continue throughout the whole period but rather concentrated during the first and second period. It is likely that these actions were done because the New York Times were aware about the fact that the information from both the Exiled Tibetan government and the Chinese government had a high risk of being biased and vied the Indian government with appreciation of its creditability.
            Some of the articles were based on the facts provided by Japan, Swiss etc and some were commentaries that covered about the issues related to Tibet. The articles that were from Geneva were due to the International Commission of Jurists that examined the cases in Tibet in January 12, 1965. However, it is not clear why the Japanese government was able to give out information that neither the Chinese government nor the Indian government were not aware of. Even though the issues that were covered were not that sensitive and were rather trivial, the creditability seems not that high for the article never states further more about the provider of the sources either than the fact that it was from Tokyo, Japan. Also, the length was extremely short indicating that the New York Times were willing to further more cover about such issues later on. The other article that was provided from Japan was from the reporter that was staying in Japan, quoting the reports of the Chinese government about the new coal mine that will open in Tibet.
            Also, it can be examined that the proportion of the articles that relied on the announcements of the Chinese government increased as time passed. In the fourth period, the proportion of the Chinese based sources and the Indian based sources were almost the same, reaching both around 40%. As the community of Tibetans in Dharamsala and the border fights between Indian and China were settled compared to the past, the Indian government grew less concerned with the Tibetan issues for the government was always alarmed due to the border fights caused by Communist China. Thus, the sources seems to decrease from the Indian government while the Chinese government became more and more willing to give out news about the Tibetan regions. This is caused because the Communization projects were reported to be comparatively successful than in other areas and the struggles of Tibetans for independence decreased greatly leaving almost no records of notable struggles. The New York Times seems to credit the Communist Chinese government's claim that they have succeeded in stabilizing the Tibetan society as well as improving the welfare and educational systems. Thus, it can be concluded that all of these incidents led up to the increase of dependency of Chinese government announcements of the New York Times, even leading up to the general tonal and content changes of the articles, which will be discussed in the next chapter.
            While the nation that provided the sources were always clearly stated in the articles, the exact institution or the status of the people who gave out such facts were some times blurred out or simply ignored. And such obscurity happened even when the provider was not obvious and seems redundant to mention the source. However, most of these cases seemed to be caused when the information was rather unsure or had to be verified further on. That is, the articles that were written based on an anonymous provider were mostly not related to occasions that the provider might receive threats of his or her safety. The usual phrase that New York Times used were 'reliable source' or 'authoritatively reported today'. However, these two statements do not make it clear whether these sources were from trust worthy media reports, the statements from the governments or facts that were gathered from what certain individuals assert to be true. If the articles were referring to certain individual's claims, the status and the brief information should have been provided for the stance of that person would have mattered which view point the article will mostly focus on. However, it must be also mentioned that these omits were not done frequently and even though at first the article did not clearly state out who or what the authority is, in most cases, the contents of the article made it quite clear which authority the article was previously referring to.
            Either than incidents when the exact source was not stated out, most of the articles were restating or clarifying the official claims of the government or international institutions. Most of the articles that were based on the statements of the Indian and the Chinese government and the Nepal government. However, some of the sources from Nepal were from articles of the local newspaper or from travelers from western countries or the merchants. The Indian government was usually concerned with the military matters which showed its fragile relationship with the Chinese government. Amongst all the issues that the Chinese government bothered to publicize, information related to the struggles of the Tibetans against the occupation of the Chinese government were very few. Instead, the primary concern was about the projects that will be held in Tibet to communize the Tibetans or what sort of facilities will be built and developed in Tibet.
            The articles that were based on the U.S. origined primary sources usually were from the U.S. government or the governmental institutions. However, seldomly, the exile Tibetan citizens or the reporters of New York Times often functioned as the provider of the primary sources. The U.S. first interfered in the Tibetan issue when the U.S. government decided to help the struggles against China by assisting the exiles and providing them military training. But as the international relationship changed, the U.S. based articles was soon gone and did not reappear for a long time. It was during the fourth period when the U.S. based articles came out again. However, the contents went through a huge phase change. As the Chinese government grew confident of its occupation and control in Tibet, the foreigners were admitted seldomly and thus enabled the reporters to go to Tibet. Even so, the Chinese government still remained highly restricted towards foreigners thus the reporters mostly wrote about the ordinary lives of the citizens or did not write about the negatives.



Working Table of Contents (as of May 22nd 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

I. Brief History of China from 1960 to 1976
     1.) International Relationship
     2.) Domestic Politics
     3.) Economics
II. Brief History of Tibet from 1960 to 1976
     1.) Politics
     2.) Economics
III. The international atmosphere, situation from 1960-1976 (The Cold War etc.)
     1.) International Relationship
     2.) Economics
     3.) Social Issues, Cultural Atmosphere
IV. Brief Cultural explanation about Tibet (What they usually eat, wear, believe, make their livings and so on.)
V. The Change (compare, contrast) of proportion of the sources. (Change of accuracy, nation and person)
     1.) 1960-1964
     2.) 1965-1969
     3.) 1970-1974
     4.) 1975-1976
VI. The differing contents given due to their source (For instanace, India mainly about border fights, Dalai Lama about suffers and uprisings, China about their policy and so on)
VII. The change of attitude (shown by diction and tone and maybe content) and the portrayal of culture
     1.) towards China
     2.) towards Tibet and the exile government in Dharamsala
VIII. The Change of Chinese policy implemented in Tibet (That are reported in the NY Times)
     1.) Rural
     2.) Other Industries
     3.) Political
     4.) Cultural, Educational
IX. Examination of the Accuracy and how detailed the informations are.
X. Notes
XI. Bibliography



Appendix (as of April 2nd 2008) . . . go to Teacher's comment

List of Relevant NYT Articles

1960-1964
India Said to Shun Mountain Fighting January. 1. 1960
Settling Nomads is a Peiping Goal January. 20. 1960
Red Flag on the Roof of the World January. 31. 1960
2,611 More Flee Tibet February. 10. 1960
Dalai Lama Selling Treasure February. 27. 1960
Tibet Distributes Land February. 29. 1960
Tibetan Self-Rule Supported by U.S. March. 1. 1960
Nepal Premier off to Visit Red China March. 7. 1960
Tibet Reform Reported April. 3. 1960
India Parley to Ask Freedom for Tibet April. 4. 1960
Tibet Undergoes Upheaval April. 10. 1960
Peiping is Accused of Tibet Genocide April. 11. 1960
Reds Said to Defect May. 12. 1960
Heavy Fighting Reported in Tibet June. 3. 1960
Indians See Exaggeration June. 3. 1960
35,000 in Tibet Reported Forced By Red Chinese to Build Railway June. 4. 1960
China's Shadow June. 5. 1960
Mutiny by Red Chinese In Tibet Is Reported June. 8. 1960
Chinese Linking Nepal Passes June. 10. 1960
Tibetans Reported Locked in 2 Battles With Red Chinese June. 11. 1960
Peiping Meets Resistance June. 12. 1960
Nepalese Traders Reported Waylaid by Chinese June. 15. 1960
Tibet Fighting Fierce June. 16. 1960
Genocide in Tibet Laid to Red China by World Jurists June. 20. 1960
Genocide in Tibet June. 21. 1960
Tibet Pressing Sikkim June. 21. 1960
Tibetan Fight Persists June. 23. 1960
Fight With Chinese in Tibet Spreads Westward June. 24. 1960
Lamas From Tibet Find Refuge At Old British Fortress in India June. 26. 1960
Communist China's Novel Imperial Plan ? June. 27. 1960
Tibetans Revolt Again, Communist China Says June. 29. 1960
Chinese Said to Kill 1,000 Tibetan Lamas July. 23. 1960
Slaying of 3,000 in Tibet Reported July. 26. 1960
Indians Gloomy on Peiping Issue July. 31. 1960
Many Tibetans Quit India Road Project August. 4. 1960
Evidence Provided on Tibet Atrocities August. 8. 1960
Red China Hinders Nepal-Tibet Trade October. 2. 1960
Tibet Opens Steel Plant October. 4. 1960
Oppression of Tibet November. 8. 1960
New Tibet Road Leads to India November. 24. 1960
Red China Tells of Farm Disaster December. 30. 1960
Panchen Lama Leaves China February. 15. 1961
New Rebel Effort in Tibet Foreseen March. 12. 1961
Tibet Rebels Killed April. 3. 1961
Quake in Tibet Recorded June. 5. 1961
Slowdown in Tibet June. 10. 1961
Dalai Lama Says Tibetans Starve August. 19. 1961
Clashes Reported in Tibet November. 7. 1961
Guerilla Warfare Is Reported in Tibet November. 17. 1961
Chinese Officer Flees to India November. 21. 1961
Ten Chinese Killed in Tibet January. 12. 1962
Tibetan-Chinese Clash Said to Cost 240 Lives January. 22. 1962
Tibet Radio Link to India Cut July. 1. 1962
Bus Links Tibet and Peiping September. 13. 1962
Peking Says 4 Die in Clash near Tibet September. 25. 1962
Radio Links Tibet and Nepal September. 30. 1962
Deaths April. 30. 1963
Voice From Tibet May. 19. 1963
Cooper's Report of Tibet Doubted June. 8. 1963
Oil Deposits in Tibet Seen In Space-Flight Pictures October. 4. 1963
Tibetan Charges Sterilization January. 17. 1964
Red Chief in Tibet Reported Ousted June. 17. 1964
Tibet Is Shrouded In Forced Silence Under Reds' Rule July. 19. 1964
Chinese Reds Said to Quell A Tibetan Student Uprising August. 28. 1964
Jersey Buddhists Plan Rebuilding of Temple October. 6. 1964
Tibetans Continue to Resist Chinese December. 14. 1964
Panchen Lama Is Missing From Roll of China Deputies December. 25. 1964
Panchen Lama of Tibet Is Unseated by Peking December. 31. 1964


1965-1969
Jurists Say Chinese still Repress Tibet January. 13. 1965
Monk from Tibet Says Chinese Threaten Panchen Lama's Life January. 24. 1965
Terror in Tibet Charged February. 19. 1965
Subjugation of Tibet April. 8. 1965
China Tightening Minority Control April. 11. 1965
Peking Rule in Tibet Held Undiminished August. 25. 1965
Peking Bars Foreign Press From Ceremonies in Tibet August. 29. 1965
'Socialist Transformation,' Will Be Pressed in Tibet September. 9. 1965
Tibet Gets New Leader Sponsored by Peking September. 10. 1965
Tibet Sowing Said to Improve May. 8. 1966
Chinese Tighten Control Over Tibet July. 5. 1966
Tibetans Said to Volunteer July. 26. 1966
Tibet Reds Are Said to Ransack Temple October. 9. 1966
Fighting in Tibet Reported December. 12. 1966
Anti-Mao Backing in Provinces Seen January. 25. 1967
Maoists Report Opposition Rules in Tibet Capital February. 15. 1967
Take-Over of Canton by the Chinese Army Ends Rivalries Between Factions March. 21. 1967
500 Tibetans Flee from Red Guards August. 28. 1967
Tibet ; New Wave of Refugees September. 10. 1967
Drive by Maoists for Control Seen May. 28. 1968
New Groups Rule All China Areas September. 7. 1968
Victory Claimed by Pro-Mao Unit September. 8. 1968
Hedin's Data on Tibet Revised by Satellite Photos February. 13. 1969
New Chinese Road to Kashmir Arouses Deep Concern in India June. 30. 1969
Escape From China Of Panchen Lama Is Reported in India September. 12. 1969
China Said to Be Moving Nuclear Plant to Tibet September. 13. 1969
Renewed Unrest Reported in Tibet November. 19. 1969
Tibetans Doubt Leader Is Alive December. 21. 1969


1970-1974
Coal Mine Opened in Tibet July. 19. 1970
My Cook's Name Was Mrs. Tsambawangdu Dawachodon January. 17. 1971
Tibetans in City Guard Tradition February. 26. 1971
China Easing Severe Restrictions on Foreign Newsmen June. 25. 1971
Chinese Reds Complete Rebuilding of Party at Provincial Level August. 26. 1971
China Still Finds Trouble in Tibet September. 5. 1971
Tibet Uprising Reported January. 22. 1972
Chang ICuo-hua Is Dead at 58 February. 26. 1972
China Strives to Integrate Her Minorities July. 31. 1972
Soviet Charges China Suppresses Minority Uprisings November. 8. 1973
Soviet Says Tibet Is Base for China September. 29. 1974


1975-1976
China Marking a Tibetan Anniversary, With Area Still Closed to Foreigners September. 8. 1975
Chinese Report Population Of Tibetans Is at 3 Million November. 2. 1975
King of Nepal Visits Tibet June. 6. 1976
Rare Visitor to Tibet Finds a New Lhasa July. 8. 1976
Tibet Visit Followed Long Effort to Get In July. 8. 1976
Tibet at a Glance July. 8. 1976
Tibetan God-Kings' Ancient Castle Is at Once Magnificent and Dead July. 9. 1976
Workers' Groups Change Life of Tibetans July. 10. 1976
Tibetan Schools Stressing Politics and Manual Labor July. 11. 1976
Festival in Lhasa July. 12. 1976
Big Monasteries in Lhasa Area Are Dying August. 19. 1976
Winter Wheat, an Innovation, Helps Tibet Raise Output September. 3. 1976
Tibet and Self-Determination September. 6. 1976
Chinese Dominating Higher Tibet Offices September. 13. 1976