Rebecca Novick at the Huffington Post has an excellent write-up of a report by four Chinese academics on the Tibet question. The report, translated by the International Campaign for Tibet, goes into great detail looking at the causes of unrest in Tibet as they exist separate from Chinese government and state-run media propaganda. The spring 2008 protests were the impetus for the report, but the team of researchers look at larger underlying social and economic conditions that have lead to unrest in Tibet.

The analysis of how Tibetans were being treated by the Chinese government during the spring of 2008 seems sensible and the reports drive to look past propaganda about the protests being caused by the Dalai Lama to understand actual causes of last year’s Tibetan national uprising seems spot on:

The researchers cite “major errors in government policy,” in the wake of the protests, including the “over-propagandizing of violence,” that encouraged “racist sentiment” towards Tibetans. “The excessive response of governments all over Tibet was to regard every tree and blade of grass as a potential enemy soldier.” This apparently left Tibetans feeling even more alienated and relations in Han/Tibetan communities more strained. “The fascination that Han citizens have expressed toward Tibetan culture changed to fear and hatred of the Tibetan masses, and Tibetans were rendered as a people incapable of gratitude.”

The research panel concluded that the “3.14 incident” was caused by “the confluence of many factors…which cannot be simply reduced to splittist violence,” the term “splittist” being a reference to those in the Tibetan freedom movement who want a completely independent Tibet. The Chinese government include the Dalai Lama in this category despite his repeated statements that he only wishes for Tibet’s “genuine autonomy” within China. The authors don’t completely rule out influence from Tibetan exile groups or the Dalai Lama, but do not support the Chinese government’s claim that he orchestrated the protests, and conclude that the unrest “could not have been created solely by external factors.”

Novick rightly highlights a  line that should give anyone in the Chinese government serious pause about the efficacy of their policy positions on Tibet.

One line in the report holds the key to any serious analysis of last year’s events in Tibet. “The notion that appears impossible to understand is the implication that reasonable demands were being vented, and this is precisely what we need to understand and reflect upon.”

Unfortunately, the Chinese government’s actions during the Olympics in shutting down Tibet and again blocking all access to foreigners, tourists, and journalists this winter and early spring shows that they are uninterested in learning about why their failed policies have lead to unrest in Tibet. Instead,  the Chinese government only sees the continuing desire for freedom — held by Tibetans for more than 50 years of occupation — as a disease to be crushed. What is missed is that these uprising, these consistent acts of protest are simply the symptom of the Tibetan spirit remaining free and uncrushed by more than half a century of Chinese military rule and economic exploitation.

The report is truly a rare moment of honest intellectual analysis being done within China about how their government has handled Tibet. I hold out hopes that reformers within the Chinese government and ruling Communist Party will read this with open eyes and begin to recognize that when it comes to Tibet, nothing other than an about-face in their policy course will lead to improved conditions. Of course, even reformers should not delude themselves that providing more positive social and economic policies that benefit Tibetans in Tibet will be sufficient to end the Tibetan desire for freedom and independence in their land. A change in policy and attitudes on these issue will reduce human suffering and should thus rightly be pursued. But progressive social and economic policies are no stand in for Tibetans having their birth right…the human right of self-determination.