Reuters is reporting on an official Chinese government report that predicts major social upheaval and mass protests in 2009. While much of this is driven by economic and unemployment problems, this cannot be circumscribed to those areas — the problems are social too.

The Outlook report also stressed the nation’s strains were about more than growth rates. Protests were increasingly politicized, making it harder for officials to douse them by force or cash hand-outs, the report said.

“Social conflicts have already formed a certain social, mass base so that as soon as there is an appropriate fuse it always swiftly explodes and clashes escalate quickly,” said Huang.

The article points out (and I agree) that the candor of the report is meant to shake people in the government into treating these issues seriously and readying adequate responses. It’s a sign of the extent to which the Chinese Communist Party recognizes that their hold on power is tenuous. If circumstances don’t go well for them, they are at grave risk to lose their hold on power.

My friend Tenzin Tsundue, leader of Friends of Tibet in India, has penned a long op-ed for Phayul on the process and outcome of the Special Meeting in Dharamsala called by the Tibetan Government in Exile. The meeting’s aim was to discuss the future policy of the TGIE towards China, with the direct input of the Tibetan people – a daring foray into true democracy. Tsundue provides one of the more detailed write-ups of what happened at the meeting, as well as insight into the difficulties that existed in making it a useful and productive event.

When all opinions got collected, and the group leaders met to work out a final resolution, the true test of Tibetan democracy was at hand. The Dalai Lama had expressed distrust in the Chinese government but had not withdrawn his Middle Path policy. Therefore, the choice was still between the Dalai Lama’s Middle Path or Independence.

Then, exile government circulated the result of opinions secretly collected inside Tibet. Out of 17,393 people, 8,246 said they would follow whatever His Holiness says, while 5,209 voted for Independence, and 2,950 supported the Middle Path.

The Meeting resolved to follow the Middle Path as a public mandate but decided to suspend with immediate effect, sending delegations to China, as Beijing did not reciprocate appropriately to the dialogue process. If, in the short period they continued their policy of not responding to our efforts to find a negotiated solution, we would reinstate Independence as the goal of the Tibetan struggle and demand the right of Self Determination. And it would be us who would what “short period” would be.

The eight-point resolution received five standing ovations and brought tears in the eyes of many delegates as we rose to sing the Tibetan National Anthem, we felt once again reunited for one common cause under one leadership. Whatever we spoke for was all for the freedom of Tibet and our main concern was for our brethren inside Tibet who are living under Chinese occupation. The exile government and the people will now be more active in our non-violent struggle and stop being conciliatory. We will now be more confrontational and aggressive, but we are unanimous in our resolve in maintaining our struggle non-violent.

As the meeting came to an end the Prime Minister Prof Samdhong Rinpoche delivering a unique thank you speech said: “The Chinese government this week tried to put pressure on India to stop this meeting, and the Indian government pretended as if they didn’t hear it. We want to express our deep gratitude to the people and Government of India”.

This is actually the first I’ve heard of the TGIE conducting a survey of Tibetans inside of Tibet as to what they wanted from the diplomatic process. It’s a true testiment to the undying devotion of Tibetans inside Tibet to the Dalai Lama, despite fifty years of Chinese occupation in his absence, that a majority would simply defer to whatever he thought was the best course of action. It’s an even greater statement about the Tibetan desire, shared by all people, to be independent that those who specified a choice picked independence over the Middle Path.

Tsundue’s piece goes a long way in showing how the process internal to the Special Meeting ensured an outcome that both accurately reflects the desires of Tibetans inside and outside of Tibet, while ensuring that the movement back towards a policy of Rangzen is proceeding. Personally, China’s continued refusal to conduct dialogues in good faith regarding a meaningful autonomy for Tibet makes the advocacy for anything less than independence seem foolish to me. But as both Tsundue’s essay and the poll of Tibetans inside Tibet show, the Tibetan people have a complicated relationship between their desires and their admiration of the Dalai Lama. He’s spent over thirty years advocating the Middle Path and it won’t be abandoned in one meeting. The outcome of the Special Meeting, nonetheless, makes clear that Tibetans will continue to negotiate for meaningful autonomy in good faith, while recognizing if such efforts remain fruitless, it will be time to return to what most Tibetans inside Tibet want most: genuine independence and rights afforded to them under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Jonathan Kurlantzick of The New Republic has a very sober assessment of the situation in Tibet and how China is using development and jobs to compel Tibetans to be non-political. It’s a dangerous long-term strategy that could be a deathblow to Tibetan society and culture. Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, is now a majority Chinese city, thanks to government policies to bring settlers to Tibet and strong control of Tibet’s economy by Han Chinese. The balance between cultural genocide and colonialism is a fine one, but there’s no way to look at how the Chinese government is handling Tibet and think it reflects well on them.

Smell the tyranny:

The police have detained 59 people in Tibet on charges that they sought to foment unrest by spreading ethnic hatred and by downloading and selling banned songs, Chinese state media reported Thursday.

The detainees, none of whom were identified, are accused of acting at the behest of the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader whom the government blames for encouraging separatist sentiment in heavily Tibetan areas.

Since Dec. 4, public security officials have been sweeping the markets of Lhasa, capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region of China, looking for compact discs that contain “reactionary songs,” according to the China News Service. Those who distribute such songs, the report said, “hope to spark violence and damage Lhasa’s political stability.”

Although news reports did not say whether the detainees were formally arrested and charged, they are accused of threatening national security by advocating for an independent Tibet and by expressing disdain for the ethnic Han migrants who now dominate commerce in Lhasa and other Tibetan cities. [Emphasis added]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Tibet is not a free country. Tibetans living under fifty years of Chinese military occupation bear the brunt of a brutal government that is scared of what Tibetans think, what they dislike, what they read, what music they listen to, what songs they sing, and what they believe. It’s a global embarrassment that the world community does not respond to China’s tyrannical occupation of Tibet with even a modicum of outrage.

No one could have predicted…

China said it has the right to block Web sites its says break its laws after being accused of restarting the practice it halted during the August Olympic Games as part of a promise to widen media freedom.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said Tuesday that certain Web sites had breached Chinese law by recognizing “two Chinas” — a reference to the self-ruled island Taiwan.

Liu, however, wouldn’t say whether any Web sites had been censored.

“Undeniably, on some Web sites, there are some issues that go against Chinese law. For example, some Web sites are actually creating two countries — that is one China, one Taiwan. They treat Taiwan as an independent country, which is against our law of anti-secessionism,” he said during a regularly scheduled press conference, without naming the organizations.

Censorship actually existed in China at a much higher level than Beijing and the I.O.C. had promised foreign journalists. There was a consistent and loud outcry against the blockage of controversial sites during the Olympics that was basically met by China saying “Shut the f*** up.” That they would step even farther away from the Olympics-timed levels of access should not be shocking to anyone.

Bob Dietz of the Committee to Protect Journalists has a good quote in the AP piece:

“It’s clear that China has no intention of fulfilling the hopes it raised when it was awarded the 2008 Olympic Games that the Chinese media universe would enter a period of expansion,” said Bob Dietz, the group’s Asia program coordinator, in a statement.

“Instead, all we have seen is a continuation of the same narrow policies of official resistance and restriction of foreign and local media,” he said.

The net result is that Beijing’s ruling party leaders exploited the symbol of the Olympics to bring in billions of dollars to their economy, put forward an image of a respectable (if not respected) partner in the global community, and then immediately flicked a switch and returned to how they were. Let’s be clear — China’s brutal behavior before and during the Olympics in Tibet, East Turkestan, towards dissidents and those displaced by Olympics construction was reprehensible. One of the only areas which even approached actual improvement – though as I pointed out above, did not reach their promised goals – was internet access for special groups of foreign journalists. Yet it’s clear that there has been no prolonged or sustained media and information freedom inside China. Just as we predicted.

Via Chris in Paris.

The Tibetan community’s Special Meeting in Dharamsala, India has concluded. The 600 delegates from around the Tibetan exile community, including a number of very recent refugees, have voted to continue with the Dalai’ Lama’s Middle Way posture towards China, but called for a re-evaluation if China continues to be non-responsive. Rangzen, or independence, — the position advocated by Students for a Free Tibet and myself — was included as something would specifically be evaluated if China does not show willingness to work with the Dalai Lama on meaningful autonomy.

Lhadon Tethong of Students for a Free Tibet and Tenzin Choeying of SFT India have penned an op-ed in The Indian Express on the outcome of the meeting and how it represents a big step forward for the Tibetan exile community.

Some observers have described this outcome as a blow to those of us advocating independence, but we don’t see it that way. As Tibetan youth leaders who participated in this historic meeting, we see this as a first step toward fundamental change. We understand, in spite of our impatience, that it is going to take some time to move the Tibetan establishment and public, long been committed to this approach. We were encouraged to see senior ministers and employees of the Tibetan Government in exile openly exchanging ideas with delegates representing the grassroots from far-flung Tibetan communities and NGOs. Many of us participated in passionate debates with respect for each other’s differing views. And in the end, we felt refreshed by the openness of the discussions.

To anyone who knows the recent history of Tibetan exile society and the often painful divisions that have occurred around the question of independence versus autonomy, this meeting was a very positive sign. The ultimate success of our movement depends on the creation of a vibrant democratic society that brings out the best in every individual — and that is exactly what we witnessed in Dharamsala last week.

Many who attended this meeting argued that Independence is the most strategic goal for our movement. We believe that the Middle Way approach is too heavily dependent on the cooperation of the Chinese government to succeed. We don’t believe the current government in China is capable of giving Tibetans any measure of freedom because its sole interest is to maintain power and Tibetans have proven time and time again that they challenge the authority of Beijing even at the worst of times. While our analysis reflects a very obvious political difference with the Dalai Lama’s chosen path, we felt that our voices were heard and our opinions respected. We were witnessing the emergence of a democratic Tibetan society, and though it is not perfect yet, it is certainly light years ahead of China’s one party dictatorship.Ultimately, two opinions gained unanimous support within the meeting’s subgroups: that the Tibetan government should adopt a more aggressive, less conciliatory approach toward the Chinese government and that our movement should remain nonviolent.

…

As Tibetan youth, we have sincerely responded to the Dalai Lama’s calls for new ideas to help end the suffering of our brothers and sisters across the Himalayas. We are ready to take responsibility for our political destiny and commit ourselves to a political solution, no matter how many years or decades it may take.

We believe that this meeting lays the foundation for realising this vision. And though we have not yet reached the point of fundamental change in the position or approach of the Tibetan government, this was a major step in the right direction — one that signals the beginning of a new era in our struggle.

I’m very happy that people I know who were at the meeting (Lhadon, Choeying, Tenzin Dorjee, & Jamyang Norbu, among others in all likelihood) have reported that they are happy with the outcome. Previous reports and statements I’d seen coming from the Special Meeting, including efforts by some Tibetans there to abdicate the responsibility given to them by the Dalai Lama to craft their peoples’ way forward, was deeply troubling. But if some of the Tibetan independence movements youngest and brightest leaders, people who are the leading advocates for Rangzen in the world, say that this was a good step forward, then I have to agree with them.

With that in mind, it’s time for the Tibetan exile community to open there eyes and begin to prepare themselves to the reality that China is not going to change, at least not under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party. As this reality continues to set in, it will be up to the exile community to come back to this resolution and move beyond the Middle Path and return to the moral mandate that is Rangzen.

Clifford Coonan of the Irish Times has a piece on the Special Meeting in Dharamsala, India that will help determine next steps for Tibetan government policy towards China. Lhadon Tethong of Students for a Free Tibet is quoted heavily in the piece:

Tibetans wanted a stronger response to China, including the introduction of a deadline by which China should react.

Lhadon Tethong, director of Students for a Free Tibet, which carried out bold demonstrations during the Beijing Olympics, described the outcome as a stark response by the Tibetan people to attacks on their beloved spiritual leader by the Chinese.

“It’s been very refreshing and exciting to see discussion of independence coming back into the mainstream.

“Independence is what the Tibetan people really want and this shows that the people are prepared to make massive compromise, but China has to react. This is a turning point,” she said.

If the Chinese do not make reciprocal moves towards the Tibetan position, then events will turn towards independence, Ms Tethong said.

http://cdn.episodic.com/player/EpisodicPlayer.swf?config=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.episodic.com%2Fshows%2F21%2F540%2F10%2Fconfig.xml
Lhadon Tethong and Tenzin Dorjee of Students for a Free Tibet are interviewed by Xeni Jardin of Boing Boing via video chat. Lhadon and Tendor are currently in Dharamsala, India, taking part in the Special Meeting called by the Tibetan Government in Exile to discuss the future policy towards China. It’s a very interesting interview and worth a watch.