After the violent crime in Lhasa on March 14 of last year, all of a sudden the relationship between the Dalai Lama and some overseas “democracy movement” members became very close. The Dalai Lama recently visited many countries. Everywhere he went, he arranged meetings with these members, and either went on stage or had a closed-door discussion with them. There is news recently that the Dalai Lama and these democracy movement members will call a “Global Tibetan-Chinese General Assembly” in Europe, and hold a “2009 Global Congress of the Chinese Pro-Democracy Movement” in Dharamsala, India. It seems like they are completely in accord. Let’s look at the secrets behind this.

The combination of two sides each with their own axes to grind

It has been the Dalai Lama’s favorite trick to provoke the relationship between Tibetans and Chinese, and to undermine the unity between Tibetans and Chinese. He has never denied it. In 1987, he published “Five Proposals for Peace in Tibet,” in which he openly proposed to expel all of the Han Chinese from Tibet. Last April, in a speech at Colgate University in New York, the Dalai Lama exclaimed, “The Han population accounts for the vast majority of this communist country. My home country is currently under the rule of the Han Chinese.” Last October, another leader of the Dalai Lama’s “government in exile,” Sang-dong, talked about the future of Tibet in an interview, “Non-Tibetan people living in the Tibet Autonomous Region should not enjoy the autonomy.”  “All official positions in the ethnic minority autonomous regions should be held by ethnic minorities.” From these words where do we see any hint of “friendship between Tibetans and Han Chinese?” All we see is ethnic hatred.

However the Dalai Lama “woke up” last year. The Dalai clique stirred up the violent crime in Lhasa on March 14, 2008, assaulted overseas Chinese embassies, and disrupted the Beijing Olympics. Their acts angered all the Chinese people including overseas Chinese people and students. Overseas Chinese people and students quickly acted together to expose the Dalai clique’s crimes and lies, protect the passing of the Olympic torch, and express their opinion against the independence of Tibet and their love of the motherland. Their powerful moves shocked the international community and made the Dalai Lama very embarrassed. In June of 2008, he lamented in Australia, “Starting from March 10, no matter where I went, there were protesters following me, Chinese protesters, and Han protesters.” In August he complained again in France, “These young people’s behavior is distressing and incomprehensible.”

At this point, how the Dalai Lama could obtain sympathy from the global Chinese community and reduce resistance to “Tibetan Independence” became an urgent matter. After careful planning and before the Beijing Olympics, he offered the concept of a “Sino-Tibetan Friendship Association,” claiming that Tibetan and Han people must “establish a group and communicate.” In May of this year, he claimed in New York City, “I recently traveled around the world to communicate with Chinese communities and Chinese students in order to eliminate some Chinese people’s misunderstanding.” During a press conference in Denmark the Dalai Lama was more stunning, “One of my goals is to realize ‘Sino-Tibetan unity.’”

However, it is not easy for a separatist leader to turn into a national unity promoter overnight, especially for someone who engaged in separatist activities for decades and still adheres to the separatist stance today. During the several months after the Dalai clique proposed the “Sino-Tibetan Friendship Association,” not many people responded. At this point, some of the self proclaimed “pro-democracy movement” members came on stage. The so-called “democratic movement” members in fact are mostly those who planned and organized the upheaval activities in the eighties of the last century. They later went abroad, cursing, “China will soon collapse,” and claiming, “China is a threat to the world,” in order to beg for support from western anti-China forces so as to survive, dreaming one day they will take control over China. These people have worked about twenty years so far, but the harder they tried, the fewer members they had left. Today there are about a hundred key members in this group, yet they have organized forty to fifty different organizations. Each of them has a title like “president,” “chairman,” and “secretary general.” They became a joke for international society and overseas Chinese communities. A veteran upheaval activist once wrote, “Out of all the bad guys I have met in my life, 80% of them are pro-democracy activists. The bad people on the streets cannot count as bad guys compared with the pro-democracy activists.” Another veteran further said that 95% of “pro-democracy movement members” are bad.

Having reached such a dead end on their path, these overseas upheaval activists are overjoyed to see the Dalai Lama’s “initiative,” viewing it as a new way for them to survive. A senior upheaval activist immediately said, “I hope the Dalai Lama can understand the ignorance and recklessness these young people express.” Several other upheaval activists shamelessly claimed, “We apologize to the Dalai Lama on behalf of the Han Chinese people.” The Dalai Lama knows that these people have a bad reputation in the Chinese community, yet they have a Chinese face and they are in essence anti-China, so this is a group of people that can be utilized. On many occasions, the Dalai Lama has called these people “the Chinese people’s representatives.” The two parties have formed an alliance. With such a background, several “Sino-Tibetan Friendship Associations” formed. All are supported by the “Tibetan government in exile,” and have joined the upheaval activists. These organizations are in fact a common performance platform for the collusion among a few of the nation’s scum. They are actually the propaganda venue for the Dalai clique. Of course the upheaval activists would not miss an opportunity. They have claimed a bunch of titles like President and Secretary-General for themselves. This has also provided them with a way to claim credit in front of their Western master. 

The scheme behind “democracy” and “freedom”

If the Dalai clique made any improvements after they fled China fifty years ago, it is that they learned a few words, such as “democracy,” “freedom,” and “human rights” from the West. They use these words to cover up their true face of separatism. According to the Dalai Lama, at this time, “We must form a united front. The Chinese Communist Party can form a united front to defend its dictatorial regime; we can also form a united front for justice and truth.” “Only when the Han, Tibetan, Uyghur and other ethnic groups in China work together for unity and establish a unified Democratic Front, can we promote democracy in China.”  The upheaval activists immediately agreed, declaring that they would “immediately establish a China Democratic Grand Alliance,” “the political goal being to overthrow the Chinese Communist regime.” Recently, many overseas upheaval activist leaders met with the Dalai Lama. Some claimed, “Only the Dalai Lama has the charm and authority to integrate Chinese overseas pro-democracy forces.” Some have said that the Dalai Lama is “the spiritual leader of China’s democracy movement,” and that a “party” even wrote an article proposing that the Dalai Lama be the “President of China” in the future. In order to please the Dalai Lama, a few veteran upheaval activists openly claimed, “Tibet will be an independent state sooner or later.”

Praised by the upheaval activists, the Dalai Lama got a bit carried away. It seems that he forgot that, not long ago, he claimed he was “willing to solve the problem within the framework of the Chinese Constitution.” He forgot his statement that he was “willing to improve relations with the Chinese Central Government.” The Dalai Lama recently declared to some upheaval activists in Dharamsala that he had “lost hope for the Chinese government, and we will have a longer and harder struggle together.” In the US he called the upheaval activists "real comrades," and declared, “It is time for the Communist Party to retire after controlling China for 60 years.”

Now that they have the slogan, a “leader” and a “unified” political agenda, of course they need a ceremony to celebrate. The Dalai clique claimed that the upcoming “Tibetan-Chinese Assembly” will discuss, “the future of Tibet, democracy in China, and other major issues." Jointly with the “Dalai Lama’s personal secretariat and “the Foreign Ministry of the Tibetan government in exile,” the upheaval activists announced that after the Assembly they will hold a “2009 Global Congress of the Chinese Pro-Democracy Movement” in Dharamsala, India, “according to his Highness, the Dalai Lama’s schedule.” There they will “formally recognize the Dalai Lama’s spiritual leader status for China’s pro-democracy movement,” “create a unified leadership and collective leadership,” and be “fully prepared to take control over China.”

It became very clear that the only purpose of the so-called “democracy” and “freedom” movement is to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership, subvert the people’s democratic power and split the PRC, so that this small group of people can take control of China.

The fate of a doomed failure

Though the Dalai Lana and the upheaval activists show their respect to each other on the surface, behind the scenes, they are actually just using each other. A veteran upheaval activist once said the biggest enemy of the “pro-democracy movement” is their own members. They attack and slander each other in order to compete for Western financial support and to protect their own vested interests. These fights not only waste their internal resources, but have also caused the loss of a great deal of outside support. This is the upheaval group’s inadequacy. Of course, they bring it into their cooperation with the Dalai clique. Shortly after some upheaval activists met with the Dalai Lama in November of last year, an article was published on Boxun.com entitled “The Dalai Lama should be invited to directly invest in the Chinese domestic pro-democracy movement.” The article stated that the Dalai Lama is the biggest resource the pro-democracy movement can rely on. As long as they are not selfish, it is not too hard for pro-democracy movement members to beg the Dalai Lama for millions of Australian dollars. After all, the Dalai clique has some financial resources. Another veteran upheaval activist put it in an even more straightforward way, “The Dalai Lama is only a monk who asks for money everywhere. If it were not for the Nobel Prize he won, I am afraid he could only sit in the temple guarding his butter lamps all day. Pro-democracy movement members should learn from the West: cheer him up when needed, but don’t take him too seriously.”

Drifting along in international society for decades, the Dalai Lama knows what the upheaval activists are made of. Of course he will have some reservations when dealing with them. On March 10 of this year, though the Dalai Lama formally met with the delegation of pro-democratic members, afterwards the Dalai clique repeatedly stated the meeting was in response to the other side’s “request,” and the Dalai Lama did not agree to be the spiritual leader of the overseas “pro-democracy movement” as they requested. Some overseas commentators pointed out that, “The Dalai Lama views the pro-democracy movement as a heap of stinking mud. He played along with the pro-democracy activists not because the latter have any force, but to create the illusion that ‘Han people also support Tibet independence.’ On the one hand the Dalai Lama holds the pro-democracy movement in contempt. On the other hand, the Dalai Lama uses it; it was really pitiful and tragic for them.” A former pro-democracy movement member made it clear, “It is a big mistake for the pro-democracy movement to attempt to move closer to the Dalai separatist clique. This will provoke strong opposition from the Chinese people in China and abroad. It will also cause different opinions among themselves, which will lead to a further split of their power. Though the Dalai clique has some resources, they will not easily pay the bill for the pro-democracy movement.”

Obviously, such a “marriage” based on political and financial calculation is simply a self-deceptive show for entertaining and fooling themselves. We do not need to keep watching to know what the end of such a show will be.

Endnote:
[1] From Xinhuanet.com, August 5, 2009
http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2009-08/05/content_11831154.htm

 “The Growing Trend of Mass Incidents both Online and Offline” [1]

Some experts have suggested that special attention should be paid to preventing two types of incidents. One type is an incident related to a direct conflict of interest involving the masses, such as elderly insurance reform in enterprises, which involves the interest of a large group. Improper handling might induce a large-scale group event. Mass events reported on the Internet would be especially prominent.

The other type of incident involves a direct conflict of interest triggering mass indirect interest. An example is the Chizhou City incident in Anhui Province a few years ago. A child scratched a boss’s car and the boss beat the child. This was a common dispute, but because one side was a boss, the incident angered many people not directly related to the incident. It eventually escalated to the point that people protested to the government and a police car was smashed and burned. In recent years many important mass incidents have had this nature, i.e. society’s masses bring the discontent accumulated during daily life into a specific incident, which leads to a greater mass incident.

Some experts who study social contradictions believe that real mass incidents and mass Internet incidents all have some direct trigger, but the escalation of these incidents is usually due to accumulated social anger. At present, to address this issue it is necessary to deal with two mindsets and three moods.

Dr. Zhang Haibo of The Social Risk and Public Management Research Center of Nanjing University said that a mass event has two main psychological characteristics. One is “Big events attract (government) attention,” particularly those related to demolition, land acquisition, village management, corporate restructuring, etc. The second is the psychology of “enthusiasm about exposing to the public,” particularly in relation to the opposition between government officials and people, conflicts between the police and the people, and differences between the rich and poor. This type of mentality will make people strive for publicity on the Internet.

At the same time, the government should prepare to deal with three kinds of social emotions: first, for the public’s dissatisfaction with corruption, the government should use system building and increased anti-corruption efforts to respond to the public’s new expectations. For instance, a better solution must be sought to deal with government official’s spending, personal use of public cars, abuse of power, etc. Second, for the public’s dissatisfaction with monopolies, the government should reform and monitor monopoly enterprise’s pay distributions and benefits. This is a high priority task. Third, for the public’s discontent with the appointment of officials, the government should improve credibility when appointing officials, using an open, transparent system to select good officials who people trust.

“Dealing with the ‘Rising Issue of Mass Internet Incidents’” [2]

Some experts analyzed over a dozen mass Internet incidents over the past several years and found those incidents have three types. They demonstrate the nature of the mutual linkage of online and offline mass events.

The first type is “mass Internet incidents with both real and virtual perspectives.” An example is the taxi drivers’ strike in Chongqing City, Sanya City, and other areas. At first, it was a small-scale taxi driver protest. At the same time someone posted the related information online, attracting more attention. Afterwards, two larger scale mass incidents occurred. All the taxi drivers in the whole city went on strike in the real world, and there was mass discussion on the Internet about the taxi drivers. Those two incidents affected each other, worsening the confrontation related to the incident.

The second type is “mass Internet incidents triggered by real incidents,” the “Zhou Jiugeng incident” is an example. The direct trigger was a speech given by Zhou Jiugeng, former director of the Jiangning District Real Estate Bureau of Nanjing City. During a meeting, he made a speech opposing real estate developers paying lower housing prices. He also smoked cigarettes with very expensive brand name. His speech triggered continuous discussions on the Internet, focusing on the government officials’ spending. In reality, there was no mass incident, but the Internet users expressed very strong opinions against it.

The third type is “mass Internet incidents triggered by real incidents and further developed to real mass incidents.” An example occurred during the Olympic torch relay overseas. A Qingdao student, who held up a Tibetan independence banner, was condemned on the Internet. A large-scale protest on the Internet gradually escalated to a “human flesh search” [Editor’s Note: it refers to gathering all possible private information about a person and posting them on the Internet]. When people found out the residence of this student’s parents in Qingdao, some Internet users gathered there to protest. Only after various types of persuasion did it gradually subside.

Multiple grass roots officials in Anhui Province who were interviewed believe the consequences of such "mass Internet incidents" could, in a very short time, result in a large number of people fundamentally changing their view of the party committee and the government.

Some grass-roots officials’ analyses, show that some of the recent “mass Internet incidents” reflect that the impact of the financial crisis has been gradually spreading. The entire social frame of mind has been quietly changing. The Internet users’ behavior has changed, too:

“From talk to action,” Internet users have really started to do something about officials’ illegal activities. In the past, Internet users repeatedly exposed some party officials’ illegal activities, but most of them just “talked about it.” Recently, however, the Internet users have demonstrated the attitude that “they will not let it go until those government officials are dealt with.”

Political awareness and participation are growing. For example, when the list of expenses for some officials traveling overseas was disclosed, some people took action. Afterward, some Internet users actively disclosed lists of names, one after another. The process of “exposure investigation-dismissal” has greatly increased the Internet users’ awareness, and initiative.
…

The interviewed grass-roots officials have summarized the lack of means to deal with “mass Internet incidents” as “three no access” (to the Internet users). The grass-roots party organizations have “no access,” the ideological and political workers have “no access,” and the police, armed forces and other national forces have “no access.”

More importantly, some grass-roots officials have found that partial grass-roots party committees and governments still believe that the current “mass Internet incidents” are only people chatting in their spare time. They are not aware of its psychological impact, which could further lead to political impact on people’s opinions about the government.

This has led to the spread of some negative news or even false news that has Internet users fired up. The local party committee and the government can only rely on the public security Internet police and local propaganda departments to deal with the issue.

However, the above two mentioned departments are very constrained when dealing with mass Internet incidents. The forces of the public security Internet police are limited by existing institutional and technical restrictions. A network police supervisor in Anhui Province said there is no territorial division of the network; yet in reality, the management of public security in each territory follows the principle of territoriality. When mass Internet incidents occur, it is often Internet users throughout the country gathering on the Internet for an event at one location. So far there is no good solution on how to integrate our limited Internet means so that during an emergency we can rapidly give a joint response and effectively deal with the event.

As for the local propaganda department, it lacks the legal means. At present, every day 3,000 new websites are added, of which 90% are commercial web sites outside the state-owned-enterprise system. If they reprint or disseminate false information, they should be managed in accordance with the law. However, at present, we lack the appropriate laws and regulations. In addition, a large number of foreign capitalists have invested in key Internet enterprises in China; since many key Internet sites are funded by foreign investments, they are clearly influenced by the foreign investors.

…

During the research on the Internet, experts have pointed out that there exist two media markets controlling the power of Internet public opinion. One is the top-down “governmental Internet media market,” from the party and government at all levels to release information via authorities’ releases and interpretations, etc.; newspapers, television, radio and other traditional media are the main source of information. Networking and other new media are just spreading vehicles. Another market is the “civil Internet media market,” formed from the bottom-up by Internet users’ postings, comments, and refining information. The grass-roots users and forum owners are the major source of this information transmission.

Experts believe that, currently, the focus and writing styles of these two markets have an obvious difference. In practice, the “governmental Internet media market” plays a dominant role on topics related to important national policies, etc. Internet users, meanwhile, more easily accept the “civil internet media market” on the topics that people are concerned about, such as corruption, the gap between rich and poor, social security, and the gap between urban and rural areas. Another important task during the Internet age is to manage the two media markets so that the party and the government’s voice can be transmitted in a way that everyday people can more easily understand and accept.

“Preventing Internet Public Opinion from Triggering a Media Trial” [3]

With respect to this, the dominant voices of public opinion are full of doubts, criticism, and accusations. When a case is under investigation (or supplementary investigation), the court has not yet opened a case, but the "media trial" seems have already pronounced the verdict. Some media reports and online user comments echo each other freely using qualitative terms, and using strong emotional language to describe the case or the parties, thus imposing a kind of invisible pressure on the judges and the jury. Thus those that should not become the media norm have now become the norm. For example, Liang Li is innocent. Hu Bin should be severely punished. Deng Yujiao acted in self-defense, and Luo Caixia’s educational rights should be protected. Some critics have even used “everyone is the judge” to describe this near mania as a media “feast.”

Looking at the reported comments of some of these cases, its main characteristics are:

Reporting the case sensationally, intentionally highlighting certain facts, only listening to and believing one side, only providing an opportunity for one party to give a statement of the facts and to express their point of view from a legal perspective; selectively choosing the interview material to support their own viewpoint; taking things out of context, and even distorting the original intent of those who were interviewed; speculating on the outcome of the trial; and, without trial, putting a qualitative statement on the case, or convicting the defendant.

Those reports and comments are contrary to the spirit of law, yet they seem to represent a growing trend. They have generated consequences that cannot be ignored, and they have brought a certain threat to justice.

It is a special form of democratic supervision in our country to have the media carry out media supervision of the judicial department. Now supervision by those not in a position of responsibility for some event or phenomenon has become a prominent problem in practicing media supervision. We need to respect the judiciary system, and safeguard the seriousness for media to perform its supervision. It is important to have complete media coverage on all aspects and avoid a “media trial.”

Endnotes:
[1] Outlook Weekly, June 1, 2009
http://news.sohu.com/20090601/n264260209.shtml
[2] Outlook Weekly, June 1, 2009
http://news.sohu.com/20090601/n264260014.shtml
[3] Outlook Weekly, June 1, 2009
http://news.sohu.com/20090601/n264263510.shtml