Nancy Pelosi and others are questioning the conduct of China’s government in dealing with the unrest in Tibet. Here’s my take on things.

It’s not my belief that the situation in Tibet demonstrates any violations of human rights. The right to peaceful assembly was not denied, for those who were protesting were violent, as even Tibet’s government-in-exile would admit. Smashing in windows and attacking innocent bystanders who happen to be non-Tibetan Chinese citizens does not constitute peaceful assembly.

And, if no such right were denied, then China’s military & police being sent in is the same as what any other nation would have done to suppress a dangerous riot.

As the BBC’s article notes, protesters were filmed burning the Chinese flag near Hezuo. Consider the following: flag-burning may be a protected right in some countries, like the United States, but cracking down on those who burn the national flag in China does not violate any rights, because flag-burning is NOT a given or human right.

Some believe that the right to free speech has been violated. Consider the following: the right to free speech may be a human right, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the debate about free speech continues today, even in North America. How far does free speech go? Is such a right protected even when it injures or harms others? Furthermore, does freedom of speech include the violence that went along with the protests in Tibet?

Perhaps, just perhaps, those protesters who were suppressed in Lhasa weren’t simply targeted for their message, but rather for their means of getting out their message.

Of course, then we must consider China’s important law that one may not threaten the stability of the nation. Surely, in democratic countries, the stability of the nation is always threatened, particularly when lobbyists or political parties attempt to sabotage the system in one way or another. Democratic countries cannot understand the need for such a law. Yet, China is Communist, and to maintain such a system, a nation’s stability is vital. Other countries who believe that this law should not exist are those who want to apply their own democratic system to China. As a sovereign government, Beijing has the power to justifiably create such a law.

We must then consider whether Tibet is a part of China. Many countries do not see it as such. If this is the case, why do they claim that China’s government is causing harm on its people? If Tibet is not part of China, how can the Chinese government be harming its own people?

Yet, if Tibet is considered a part of China, the argument that the government is harming its own people could be justified. However, nevertheless remember that violent protests which threaten the stability of China are illegal in China, and Tibetan protesters (who are part of China for the purposes of this argument) have violated the law. If they do violate the law, then Beijing has every right to go and control the situation in order to maintain the strength of the government.

Nancy Pelosi and others are hypocritical when they attack China’s human rights record. Every nation has had human rights issues in their past. The United States is no exception, and their violations continue today, particularly with Guantanamo Bay and the prison + detention camp there. For instance, most of the prisoners at the detention camp are not American citizens, were not on American soil when they committed the acts they are accused of, and many may have been protecting their homeland from an invasion. The American military has seized them, removed them without consent from their homeland, and placed them on American soil (and even that is debated) to be tried under American laws or American military laws. Additionally, of the 355 prisoners currently detained there, apparently only 60-80 will be put on trial, leaving 270+ prisoners held without charge. And what about the alleged & the proven mistreatment there? Or torture?

Perhaps, if China’s claim that the Dalai Lama instigated the violence is true, then it’s possible (isn’t it?) that the Tibetan protesters did what they did not because they felt it would impact how Beijing dealt with it, but because they knew it would trigger the deployment of military & police, some deaths, and international attention. If international attention was what they wanted, they’ve certainly been successful at getting it. If the rest of the world will support protesters who have violated not only the laws in China, but also what the laws would be in other countries (violent riots, destruction of personal property), then they are interfering unnecessarily in China’s internal matters and supporting the use of violence to achieve results.

In any case, regardless of whether the Tibetan claims are valid, the ends don’t justify the means.