As noted in other posts here the British Broadcast Corporation (BBC) along with mainstream media in general, simply cannot be relied upon to report on the subject of Tibet in a truly objective and independent manner. It features increasingly China’s official thinking on the subject, and publishing as fact what are propaganda assertions from China’s Ministry of Disinformation. When not peddling such bias the BBC calls upon the supposedly neutral insights of informed observers on China and Tibet to furnish its audience with what’s considered authoritative analysis.
Take for example a recent contribution from a Robert Barnett, who offered his opinions on China’s response to the recent self-immolations in Tibet, he seems to invest considerable effort in explaining and justifying the motives and actions of China’s Regime. Unfortunately his writing appears to travel far beyond impartial academic examination and reflects a reasoning and language that bears a worrying similarity to that promoted by Xinhua, China’s official mouthpiece. A master of extenuation and sly circumspection note the following misrepresentations:
“This is sometimes overstated – it is not at all correct, for example, that all areas of Tibetan culture are being targeted for annihilation by China, as some exiles claim – but it is true that some sectors of the culture and community are singled out for harassment by the state, often in ways that most Chinese would be shocked by.” (Emphasis added)
Well the oppressed people of Tibet will be thankful to hear from Mr Barnett that they are able to enjoy their culture in relatively unrestricted fashion, and that their experiences of China’s tyranny and vicious repression are seemingly overstated. Apart from this artful promotion of China’s deception, that Tibet’s cultural traditions and freedoms are respected and protected the author peddles another cynical fabrication that is regularly featured on the pages of China’s propaganda sheets.
“For 30 years, money has been poured into minority areas to build their economies and staunch unrest..” (Emphasis added)
This assertion may well have been drawn from the poisoned pages of China Daily which often trumpets such disinformation along with staged images of seemingly grateful Tibetans, it is puzzling why Robert Barnett chooses not to apply critical examination on such claims. Disappointing too that he declines to mention that investment in occupied Tibet is targeted, not for the betterment of Tibetans, but to consolidate and expand China’s colonization of Tibet and advance its policy of assimilation. Not content with such falsification the author exposes as questionable any position of neutrality by repeating China’s bogus claim that Tibet’s a minority area of China! Having presented such distortions Robert Barnett concludes his article with a touching demonstration of faith in the supposed goodness of Chen Quanguo, China’s recently appointed Tibet Czar.
“In August, a new Chinese leader was appointed in Tibet who has a background in economics rather than in “handling” minorities, and he has been well received for making sure that all of this year’s university graduates in Tibet were given jobs. this week he announced that “pension, medical insurance and the minimum living allowances” will be covered for monks at every monastery.” (Emphasis added)
Well received by the oppressed and tortured Tibetans? Did they throng the streets of Lhasa chanting the name of Chen Quanguo? It will of course be known to the author that such claims are propagandist in nature and that, far from being a generous form of welfare, are yet another lever of control to suppress protests. Through engineering an economic dependency and threat of withdrawing such funding, to either individuals and or monasteries engaged in political dissent. Reaching that conclusion however would require a willingness to recognize China’s occupation of Tibet for what it truly is, a fact Robert Barnett seems dedicated to obscuring , choosing instead to misrepresent Tibetan protests as a reaction to religious, social and economic policy. The implication suggested here is that should there be by China an improvement and moderation in such measures Tibetan protests would diminish. That grossly misreads the central reason of Tibetan demonstrations and resistance, which as the author is fully aware is a common demand and aspiration for Tibet’s independence. Now why would Robert Barnet wish to avoid and conceal that truth?