by rosaceae 2008/4/28
愛國，不用翻譯，自己造句。
這就是我看到一個中國的網頁所產生的感想。
我為了要瞭解《經濟學人雜誌》上3 月19日記者在暴動當時在現場所作報導的文章，是否已經出現中文翻譯，特別在網路上搜尋了一下。卻看到這個
網頁， 讓我大吃一驚的是，根據這個網頁，這位經濟學人的麥杰思記者認為：「這根本是一場犯罪份子有預謀的屠殺。這麼嚴重的騷亂在任何一個國家都必須用嚴厲的措施 加以制止，可是中國政府保持了克制。這好像和我們西方媒體一般報道的中國當局不同。我認為我們很多國際同行在徹頭徹尾的撒謊。」還說：「作為一個媒體工作 者，我可以負責任的告訴大家，CNN等一些媒體的報導根本就是謊言，我認為他們侮辱了我們的職業而感到羞愧。」
經濟學人這麼清醒的雜誌，會有這樣的看法，對自己的同業這樣批評，應該會引起西方記者界的大震撼吧！不只美國的新聞，英國的其他報紙電視新聞，應該都會加 以報導，經濟學人自己也會寫社論大加評論。記者自己的反省之聲，這個我在英國也不是沒聽過，可是怎麼似乎一個字都沒聽說呢？
究竟是怎麼一回事，我特別去找原始的網頁，原來這位經濟學人的記者真的有接受採訪，採訪他的，不是別人，就是CNN。CNN採訪他，可是他當CNN的記者的面，批評CNN都是謊言？這個邏輯通嗎？
當然是：不通，不通。我特別把他受CNN採訪的原文全部翻譯出來，在最底下。
對照兩文，可以清楚的看到的是，中國網站裏的譯文，不僅把James Miles提到他過去採訪天安門事件，當時政府用強大武力鎮壓的往事完全刪除，也把藏人民怨累積很久很深的部份完全略去，也不提他不認為是達賴策動，只留 下他看到中國軍隊完全沒有動作的部份，再加油添醋，把CNN扯進來，捏造出一些他完全沒有講過的話。
原來所謂的中國對外界媒體作審查，是這樣作的！中國最近拚了老命指控西方媒體報導不實，還要求自己在海外的同胞留學生到CNN總部、分部抗議，甚至有兩人 對CNN提起民事訴訟，要求作名譽損害賠償，可是中國自己才是大說謊家。我看到底下的討論，眾多網民們稱讚這位記者這樣說才是正辦，有人對某個句式特別心 儀，特別要求英文的鏈結，也有人貼出來，然而卻沒有一個人指出來，這篇所謂的譯文，除了幾分真實以外，所有被大家稱讚的部份都是造假的虛構產物？
眾口礫金這句成語（在中國的白話文就是：謊言說一百次即成真理），被中共文宣部真是發揮到淋漓盡致，而中國的眾人也都不查，就這樣被人愚弄了。
我除了感到嘆為觀止之外，也已經去信經濟學人，告訴他們有這一回事。
只是中國官方默許、鼓勵網民的輿論與激憤，他們收得回來？踩得住煞車嗎？中國官方舞起這場民族主義的風暴，除了讓人民看不到真相，有益於自己的統治之外， 不會有其他任何人得利了；輸得最慘的，可能就是中國人民自己，從此以後，就算真相擺在眼前，他們也會因為這是從西方媒體來的，這是CNN來的，而不予信 任。原來這就是今年中國第一次辦奧運，好像是向世界開放，卻在心理上鎖國的諷刺現實啊。
中國網頁上的「譯文」：（明顯與事實不符部份以藍色字標示出來）
『国际观察』 [时事聚焦]CNN无耻之铁证－－外国亲历记者现身说法(转载)
英记者谈拉萨骚乱
西藏发生骚乱期间，英国经济学家周刊记者麦杰思因得到中国官方的批准正在拉萨采访，目睹了骚乱的情况。
麦杰思说，他3月12号抵达拉萨，3月14号就爆发了骚乱。他说：“骚乱发生后，我在横穿拉萨市的北京路上看见大约100名藏人向汉人经营的商店以及被他们认为是汉人的过路人扔石头。他们有的是佛教僧侣，有的是普通市民，也许还有一些外地人。
“3个骑自行车的人从我身边经过，这群人就往他们身上扔石头，而且还向过路的汉人出租车司机扔石头，有一块石头打中了汽车窗户，司机很快掉转车头逃离现场。我还看见这些人在路中央用脚践踏中国国旗。”
*拉萨暴乱后中国军人巡逻*
麦杰思说，之后的几个小时，在拉萨市的旧城区里，有一大批汉人经营的商店受到袭击，店主的财物被拖到街上，并被堆成堆用火点燃。很多汉人仓惶逃跑，还有一些汉人躲在商店顶层自己的家里。
*唯一获中国许可进藏外国记者*
麦杰思说，西藏发生骚乱后，有些外国记者试图通过非官方渠道进入西藏，但他是唯一得到中国官方许可进入西藏，并从头到尾目睹骚乱过程的外国记者。他说：
“这是我在中国作为外国记者的15年当中第一次被允许访问西藏。虽然骚乱非常严重，中国当局却没有采取暴力措施。尽管他们人身受到攻击。从这一点上我鄙视我的一些同行的失实报道。
麦杰思在拉萨期间，中文部记者多次试图采访他，但都无法打通他的手机。麦杰思目前已经回到北京，由于考虑到安全问题，他在3月19号离开拉萨。麦杰思 猜测，由于中国申奥时作出了给予外国记者更多采访自由的承诺，而他本人是得到中国官方批准，通过正常渠道进入西藏的，因此中国官方才决定把这件事做到底， 并在骚乱期间仍旧允许他留在西藏。
麦杰思说：“中国当局也许还考虑到，至少允许一名外国记者目睹少数民族暴力活动的严重程度，正如我在3月14号和15号所看到的那样，这也许对中国当局有利，因为这根本就是一场犯罪分子有预谋的屠杀。这么严重的骚乱在任何一个国家都必须用严厉的措施加以制止。可是中国政府保持了克制。这好像和我们西方媒体一般报道的中共当局不同。我认为我们很多国际同行在彻头彻尾的撒谎”
*未目睹枪杀事件*
麦杰思表示，在3月14号到3月15号发生骚乱期间，他本人只看见骚乱者用石头或燃烧瓶疯狂袭击中国保安部队，但却没有目睹任何武警开枪事件。骚乱发生时，拉萨大部分保安人员都采用盾牌围成防线来阻挡闹事份子的进攻，尽管他们手里握有武器，很奇怪他们为什么不开枪，或许这就是中国军队铁的纪律决定的。
*中国将努力展现西藏恢复正常*
麦杰思预计，中国政府从现在开始将非常谨慎处理奥运之前的安全问题。他说，今年5月，奥运圣火将抵达西藏，并经过喜马拉雅山地区后，拉萨市还将举行奥运火炬传递的庆祝仪式。麦杰思认为，届时，中国当局将努力向外界展现出西藏已经恢复正常的面貌。
‘作为一个媒体工作者，我可以负责任的告诉大家，CNN等一些媒体的报道根本就是谎言，我为他们侮辱了我们的职业而感到羞愧’麦杰思最后说。
CNN採訪James Miles的逐字稿：
BEIJING, China (CNN) -- James Miles, of The Economist, has just returned from Lhasa, Tibet. The following is a transcript of an interview he gave to CNN.問：你可以很容易看到你所想看到的嗎？
答：確實如此，通常中國當局在這種事件發生時，對於外國記者出現非常敏感。我在此過程期間，都期待他們會來找我，並且叫我立刻離開拉薩。我想他們克制沒有 這樣做，一個非常重要的原因是，他們想到北京八月要辦奧運。而他們已經想盡辦法想向世界證明，中國正在開放。我想他們不想讓我待在那裏，但是因為我有官方 許可文件，而過去幾個月以來，他們想傳達的訊息之一，就是北京的記者可以比以前更自由在中國內部行動。當然西藏是個特例。我在中國採訪已經十五年了。這是 第一次我得到官方許可，可以到西藏去。而驚人的是他們決定讓我待在那裏，他們可能有點在賭的感覺。但在暴動進行的時候，我想他們大概覺得讓我在那裏，可以 幫忙傳達中國人自己一直想要指出來的，針對特定族群的暴力的程度。
問：你說的，證實了官方的說法。你究竟看到的是什麼？
答：我所見的，是針對一個族群，或兩個族群，仔細計算的暴力。主要是針對住在拉薩的漢人，但也有拉薩的少數穆斯林回族。回族在拉薩控制了大部份的肉品工 業。而這兩個族群被藏人突顯出來，成為目標。他們用傳統的圍巾把藏人所持有的店家標示出來，而這些店都沒有遭受攻擊，而攻擊的範圍廣及整個城市，不只是在 舊藏區，也在其外，漢人居住的地區。幾乎每兩家就有一家商店被火燒、劫掠、摧毀、打破、而其內的東西被拖出來到街上，推到一起，放火燒。這是驚人的族群暴 力，讓人看得不是很愉快，而有些藏人亦很驚訝地看著。他們自己都嚇一跳。而且不只是針對財產。暴動一發生，許多漢人與回人都逃走了。但那些一開始被夾在其 間的人，都成為目標。他們被丟石頭。其中一次，我看到他們對一個十歲的男孩、也許在附近騎腳踏車的，丟石頭。我自己親身走到他們面前，並說請停止。這是城 市裏滿腔怒火即將發作、族群仇怨的大爆炸。
問：你有看到任何武器嗎？
答：我看到他們帶著傳統的西藏劍，我並沒有看到他們把劍抽出來恐嚇別人。但清楚的是，帶著劍就是要讓人害怕的。後來我跟漢人談起來，他們常常提到這一點，就是這些（藏人）有武器，很可怕。
問：中國官方有回應了。在某些報導中，消息是來自從西藏流亡（政府），大家都好像天安門廣場事件一樣積極想要報導此事。
答：中國對此事的反應是非常有趣的。因為你首先期待，拉薩會有不安的跡象，因為這個城市即使在最佳的狀態，亦像是在刀鋒邊緣，而（中國政府的）反應會是立 即而有決定性的，他們應該會立刻把受波及的城區圍起來，他們應該會抓住那些涉入暴動的藏人。事實上我們看到的，在最早的發展，卻是中國當局完全不採取行 動。好像他們無法下定決心要怎麼處理，因此癱瘓無法動作。暴動很快就從北京路漫延，這是拉薩的中央幹道，直通舊藏區的狹窄巷道。但我在當時暴動一開始時， 並沒有看到當局試圖介入。而我懷疑奧運即是一個原因。他們非常擔心，如果他們在暴動的早期真的進入的話，他們控制的動作就會造成流血。所以他們反而讓暴動 持續進行，而一直到我所能看到的星期六，三月十五日中午為止。所以事實上，他們所做的，是犧牲許多、許多城中漢人的生計，好讓暴動者可以發洩他們的憤怒。 然後逐漸移進軍隊，偶爾使用來福槍單一開火，似乎是警告的開火，好把大家都嚇回家，並且中止此事。
問：若假設（中國當局）使用重手腕的鎮壓方式，是錯誤的嗎？
答：這涵蓋的是城市的廣大區域，而我是唯一的外國記者，至少是官方認可的一位‧‧‧可以在那裏看到此事的。幾乎不可能得到完整的畫面。我在那裏時確實聽到 許多謠言，就是有公安與暴動者發生衝突的場面。而謠言亦提及偶然的流血。但我無法多說那些我沒看到的，只能說有可能的是，有某些漢人在此次暴動中被殺死， 而亦有可能，某些藏人，藏人暴動者本身被公安部隊殺死。但不可能得到的是確切的數字，或者真正的一手資料，來證明上述說法。
問：你對事情未來的發展的看法？
答：我想他們手中真的有了大問題。我昨天離開拉薩，整個城事實上處於戒嚴的狀態。他們用盡可能，不宣布戒嚴，不像1989年拉薩的大型反漢暴動。這一次他 們未使用該名稱，然而拉薩現在的狀態，與1989年的情況卻是一樣的。官員們說沒有軍人，沒有解放軍涉入此次的維安行動中。然而我看到許多許多軍隊的卡 車、看起來像是軍事的車輛，其專有的車牌被遮蓋起來，或者被移除了。而許多在那裏軍隊，其制服上也明顯地缺乏任何一般區別公安或武警的標記。所以我大大地 懷疑，就是軍隊確實是在那裏的，而正在控制拉薩。而移除了那些公安人員，導致藏人能夠利用奧運作為機會之窗，移除了公安我想會是他們現在非常小心的。而且 他們亦有龐大的壓力要這樣做。在六月時，在拉薩有一個奧運火炬儀式。這是一個他希望世界看到的明顯場合，而他們希望世界看到拉薩是正常的。但我認為，要達 到那種境界，會相當困難，因為拉薩藏人之間的仇恨感是很深的。
問：你有確實看到維安部隊與藏人抗議者之間的衝突嗎？
答：在此時期我看到我所住的舊藏區旅館四週圍的情勢是非常緊張的，而且也很危險，我很難自由在街道上走動。但我看到的是一小群的藏人，而且在第二天的抗議 裏，朝著我所認為是，在我視野之外的，維安部隊丟石頭。我確實聽到，也確實聞到催淚瓦斯被發射反擊的聲音與味道。明顯的是，藏人與維安部隊卻實有發生小型 的衝突。但第二天，比起星期五所發生的大暴動，情勢大體平靜下來‧‧‧。而當局對這種與藏人的衝突，並不是使用鎮暴警察、棍棒與盾牌，或甚至帶著槍的的軍 隊，很快地向前推進。很長時間裏，只是偶爾使用催淚瓦斯，而我可見的，就是（如此一來）讓藏人四散到非常狹窄而蜿延的巷道裏。而我卻沒有聽到任何自動步槍 的發射，我並沒有感到像是1989年6月我在這裏報導天安門鎮壓抗議者一樣的，大量而全面地火力。這一次是非常不同的作戰方式，是更加仔細計算過的，而我 認為當局這一次所做的，就是讓人民先發洩怒火，然後再用軍隊、槍枝大量駐入，在整個藏區的每隔幾碼就駐紮。我想，要等到他們覺得安全了，才會有大流血，他 們才會確實使用那樣決定性的武力。
問：在你離開的時候，漢人自由地回來（城裏）了嗎？
答：在星期六早上有一些。在第二天，我們回到店鋪裏，而我看到他們小心走過殘骸，眼中有淚。他們很驚訝，像我一樣，在前一天居然都沒有公安出現。公安只在 第一天要結束的晚上，包圍了舊藏區。但在包圍起來的舊藏區內部，好幾個小時之後，人們仍然自由地繼續搶劫、縱火，而當局繼續不動作。只有在此情況持續到第 二天中午時，我才看到公安大量地進入。拉薩的漢人現在是非常擔心的一群人。有些在那裏已經很多年的人向我表示他們很驚訝這種事居然會發生。他們沒有感到族 群緊張是拉薩生活的一部份。現在我跟他們談過話的許多漢人，都說很害怕，可能會離開此地，這可能對拉薩的經濟、西藏的經濟造成損害。當然，你會預期漢人現 在可能要三思是否來拉薩觀光了，而最近觀光經濟的成長相當快。我在離開拉薩的飛機上，坐在一些漢人生意人旁邊，他們說他們通常都是坐火車進入拉薩的。但他 們現在害怕，藏人會炸毀鐵路線。確實，現在用飛的離開西藏，比用鐵路安全。我們沒有證據說藏人在從事恐怖活動，到目前為止都沒有此類的指控。但那就是現在 縈繞於一些漢人心裏的恐懼。
問：當你被告知要離開時，他們說了什麼？
答：我擁有可以待在拉薩八天的許可證。許可證的起始在於3月12日，暴動兩天之前，在3月19日時失效。我被官方安排的行程，在暴動發生兩天後就基本上完 全無效了。許多我所預定要拜訪的行程，都在暴動的中心地點。他們也不管我了。有一次我被公安攔下來，被帶入派出所。他們打了幾個電話，然後讓我走回充滿軍 隊、警察在進行鎮壓的街道上。他們堅持，我的許可證確實在19日失效，而我必須離開。我要求延期，他們說絕對不行。
問：所以你不是被踢出來的？只是因為許可證過期了？
答：我們處於灰色地帶。理論上，中國自從2007年1月開始，就開放外國記者採訪，意味著我們不必再像過去每一次我們要離開北京，就必須向省級的政府單位 申請許可。官方的規定裏並沒有提到西藏。但口頭上，官員說得很清楚，奧運的規則不適用在西藏，而任何記者用非正式管道進去的，在暴動之前，或在期間，都被 抓‧‧‧並且被踢出來。而那些成功躲過偵察的記者，則被當局批評。所以你可以說，對，我確實是被踢出來的，因為你假如看他們所宣布的規定，你可以解釋我們 有自由待在我們所想待的地方。但在他們的解釋裏，西藏是例外，而在他們的看法裏，他們已經對我很寬容，讓我一直待到官方許可證的最後。
問：是達賴在幕後策劃的嗎？
答：我們沒有看到任何有組織的證據，至少我所感覺到、看到的在拉薩這兩天的暴動裏，沒有任何組織在其後。而我曾經看過中國內部有組織的暴動。1989年的 天安門廣場抗議，涉及了好幾個北京市民的組織，反對並且要求改革，要求民主。我們在拉薩卻沒有看到。在拉薩，沒有組織‧‧‧確定也沒有人自稱是從什麼組織 來的。這些他們對所謂達賴集團所作出來的指控，是西藏政治語言的儀式性一部份。中國當局常常說達賴喇嘛與他在印度的支持者如何如何。所以不令人意外的是他 們會在此案例中，再度重覆這個的指控。但他們未能提出任何此說的證據。而我認為，我們所看到的，比較有可能是西藏內部的藏人與達賴喇嘛的支持者之間，想好 好利用奧運年的這個渴望，但也是在拉薩當地長期發酵的民怨所激發起來的。原文
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/tibet.miles.interview/#cnnSTCText
Transcript: James Miles interview on Tibet
- James Miles, journalist with The Economist, was in Lhasa during violent protests
- Says he witnessed violence against ethnic Han Chinese and Muslim Hui minority
- Ethnic Tibetans involved in protests were "armed and very intimidating," he says
- He says he did not see any evidence of any organized anti-Chinese activity
BEIJING, China (CNN) -- James Miles, of The Economist, has just returned from Lhasa, Tibet. The following is a transcript of an interview he gave to CNN.
Q. How easy was it for you to see what you wanted to see?
A. Well remarkably so, given that the authorities are normally extremely sensitive about the presence of foreign journalists when this kind of incident occurs. I was expecting all along that they were going to call me up and tell me to leave Lhasa immediately. I think what restrained them from doing that, one very important factor in this, was the thoughts of the Olympic Games that are going to be staged in Beijing in August. And they have been going out of their way to convince the rest of the world that China is opening up in advance of this. I think they probably didn't want me there but they knew that I was there with official permission, and one thing they've been trying to get across over the last few months is that journalists based in Beijing can now get around the country more freely than they could before. Of course Tibet is a special example. I've been a journalist in China now for 15 years altogether. This is the first time that I've ever got official approval to go to Tibet. And it's remarkable I think that they decided to let me stay there and probably they felt that it was a bit of a gamble. But as the protests went on I think they also probably felt that having me there would help to get across the scale of the ethnically-targeted violence that the Chinese themselves have also been trying to highlight.
Q. What you say you saw corroborates the official version. What exactly did you see?
A. What I saw was calculated targeted violence against an ethnic group, or I should say two ethnic groups, primarily ethnic Han Chinese living in Lhasa, but also members of the Muslim Hui minority in Lhasa. And the Huis in Lhasa control much of the meat industry in the city. Those two groups were singled out by ethnic Tibetans. They marked those businesses that they knew to be Tibetan owned with white traditional scarves. Those businesses were left intact. Almost every single other across a wide swathe of the city, not only in the old Tibetan quarter, but also beyond it in areas dominated by the ethnic Han Chinese. Almost every other business was either burned, looted, destroyed, smashed into, the property therein hauled out into the streets, piled up, burned. It was an extraordinary outpouring of ethnic violence of a most unpleasant nature to watch, which surprised some Tibetans watching it. So they themselves were taken aback at the extent of what they saw. And it was not just targeted against property either. Of course many ethnic Han Chinese and Huis fled as soon as this broke out. But those who were caught in the early stages of it were themselves targeted. Stones thrown at them. At one point, I saw them throwing stones at a boy of maybe around 10 years old perhaps cycling along the street. I in fact walked out in front of them and said stop. It was a remarkable explosion of simmering ethnic grievances in the city.
Q. Did you see other weapons?
A. I saw them carrying traditional Tibetan swords, I didn't actually see them getting them out and intimidating people with them. But clearly the purpose of carrying them was to scare people. And speaking later to ethnic Han Chinese, that was one point that they frequently drew attention to. That these people were armed and very intimidating.
Q. There was an official response to this. In some reporting, info coming from Tibetan exiles, there was keenness to report it as Tiananmen.
A. Well the Chinese response to this was very interesting. Because you would expect at the first sings of any unrest in Lhasa, which is a city on a knife-edge at the best of times. That the response would be immediate and decisive. That they would cordon off whatever section of the city involved, that they would grab the people involved in the unrest. In fact what we saw, and I was watching it at the earliest stages, was complete inaction on the part of the authorities. It seemed as if they were paralyzed by indecision over how to handle this. The rioting rapidly spread from Beijing Road, this main central thoroughfare of Lhasa, into the narrow alleyways of the old Tibetan quarter. But I didn't see any attempt in those early hours by the authorities to intervene. And I suspect again the Olympics were a factor there. That they were very worried that if they did move in decisively at that early stage of the unrest that bloodshed would ensue in their efforts to control it. And what they did instead was let the rioting run its course and it didn't really finish as far as I saw until the middle of the day on the following day on the Saturday, March the 15th. So in effect what they did was sacrifice the livelihoods of many, many ethnic Han Chinese in the city for the sake of letting the rioters vent their anger. And then being able to move in gradually with troops with rifles that they occasionally let off with single shots, apparently warning shots, in order to scare everybody back into their homes and put an end to this.
Q. Would be false to suggest there was heavy-handed security approach?
A. Well this was covering a vast area of the city and I was the only foreign journalist, at least accredited, to ... who was there to witness this. It was impossible to get a total picture. I did hear persistent rumors while I was there during this rioting of isolated clashes between the security forces and rioters. And rumors of occasional bloodshed involved in that. But I can do no more really on the basis of what I saw then say there was a probability that some ethnic Chinese were killed in this violence, and also a probability that some Tibetans, Tibetan rioters themselves were killed by members of the security forces. But it's impossible to get the kind of numbers or real first hand evidences necessary to back that up.
Q. Form any sense of where it would go from here?
A. Well I think they now have a huge problem on their hands. When I left Lhasa yesterday the city was still in a state of effectively Martial Law. They've been bending over backwards this time not to declare martial law as they did in 1989 after the last major outbreak of anti-Chinese unrest in Lhasa. This time they have not used that term and yet the conditions now in Lhasa are pretty much the same as they were in 1989 under martial law. Officials say there are no soldiers, no members of the People's Liberation Army involved in this security operation. And yet I saw numerous, many military vehicles, military looking vehicles with telltale license plates covered up or removed. And also many troops there whose uniforms were distinctly lacking in the usual insignia of either the police or the riot police. So my very, very strong suspicion is that the army is out there and is in control in Lhasa. And removing that security given the way Tibetans are now focusing on the Olympics as a window of opportunity, removing that security now I think would be something they would be very, very cautious about. And yet there are enormous pressures on them to do so. Coming up to the Olympic torch carrying ceremony in Lhasa in June. That is one obvious event they will want the world to see and they will want the world to see that Lhasa is normal. But I think getting to that stage will be enormously tricky given the depth of feeling in Lhasa itself among Tibetans.
Q. Did you actually see clashes between security forces and Tibetan protesters?
A. Well what I saw and at this stage, the situation around my hotel which was right in the middle of the old Tibetan quarter, was very tense indeed and quite dangerous so it was difficult for me to freely walk around the streets. But what I saw was small groups of Tibetans, and this was on the second day of the protests, throwing stones towards what I assumed to be, and they were slightly out of vision, members of the security forces. I would hear and indeed smell occasional volleys of Tear gas fired back. There clearly was a small scale clash going on between Tibetans and the security forces. But on the second day things had calmed down generally compared with the huge rioting that was going on...on the Friday. And the authorities were responding to these occasional clashes with Tibetans not by moving forward rapidly with either riot police and truncheons and shields, or indeed troops with rifles. But for a long time, just with occasional, with the very occasional round of tear gas, which would send and I could see this, people scattering back into these very, very, narrow and winding alleyways. What I did not hear was repeated bursts of machine gun fire, I didn't have that same sense of an all out onslaught of massive firepower that I sensed here in Beijing when I was covering the crushing of the Tiananmen Square protests in June, 1989. This was a very different kind of operation, a more calculated one, and I think the effort of the authorities this time was to let people let off steam before establishing a very strong presence with troops, with guns, every few yards, all across the Tibetan quarter. It was only when they felt safe I think that there would not be massive bloodshed, that they actually moved in with that decisive force.
Q. At time you left, were Han Chinese moving freely back?
A. There were some on the Saturday morning. On the second day we came back to the shops and I saw them picking through the wreckage, tears in their eyes. They were astonished, as I was, at the lack of any security presence on the previous day. It was only during the night at the end of the first day that this cordon was established around the old Tibetan quarter. But even within it, for several hours afterwards, people were still free to continue looting and setting fires, and the authorities were still standing back. And it was only as things fizzled out towards the middle of the second day that as I say they moved in in great numbers. Ethnic Chinese in Lhasa are now very worried people. Some who had been there for many, many years expressed to me their utter astonishment that this had happened. They had no sense of great ethnic tension being a part of life in Lhasa. Now numerous Hans that I spoke to say that they are so afraid they may leave the city, which may have very damaging consequences for Lhasa's economy, Tibet's economy. Of course one would expect that ethnic Chinese would think twice now about coming into Lhasa for tourism, and that's been a huge part of their economic growth recently. And leaving Lhasa, I was sitting on a plane next to some Chinese businessmen, they say that they would normally come in and out of Lhasa by train. But their fear now is that Tibetans will blow up the railway line. That it is now actually safer to fly out of Tibet than to go by railway. We have no evidence of Terrorist activity by Tibetans, no accusation of that nature so far. But that is a fear that's haunting some ethnic Han Chinese now.
Q. When you were told to leave, what were you told?
A. Well I had an 8-day permit to be in Lhasa. That permit began two days before the rioting, on March 12, and was due to run out on March 19. My official schedule was basically abandoned after a couple days of this. Many of the places on my official itinerary turned out to be hotspots in the middle of this unrest. They left me to my own devices. I was stopped by the police at one point, taken to a police station. They made a few phone calls and then let me go back out on the streets full of troops and police carrying out the security crackdown. They insisted however that when my permit did expire on the 19th that I had to leave. I asked for an extension and they said decisively no.
Q. So you weren't expelled? It just ran out?
A. Well we're in a gray area here. Because in theory China has been opened up to foreign journalists since January 2007, which means no longer, which was the case before, do we have to apply for provincial level government approval every time we leave Beijing for reporting. The official regulations don't mention Tibet. But orally, officials have made it clear that Tibet is an exception to these new Olympic rules and journalists who have made their own way there, unofficially, both before this unrest and during it have been caught or ... and expelled. Or those who have succeeded in making it out without being detected have been criticized by the authorities for doing so. So one could argue that yes I was expelled, if one looks at the regulations they've announced which one could interpret as meaning we have the freedom to be where we like. But in their interpretation, Tibet is an exception and in their view they were being rather liberal towards me by letting run to the end of my official permit.
Q. Is Dalai behind this?
A. Well we didn't see any evidence of any organized activity, at least there was nothing in what I sensed and saw during those couple of days of unrest in Lhasa, there was anything organized behind it. And I've seen organized unrest in China. The Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 involved numerous organizations spontaneously formed by people in Beijing to oppose, or to call for more reform and demand democracy. We didn't see that in Lhasa. There were no organizations there that ... certainly none that labeled themselves as such. These accusations against what they call the Dalai Lama clique, are ritual parts of the political rhetoric in Tibet. There is a constant background rhetoric directed at the Dalai Lama and his supporters in India. So it is not at all surprising that they would repeat that particular accusation in this case. But they haven't come across, haven't produced any evidence of this whatsoever. And I think it's more likely that what we saw was yes inspired by a general desire of Tibetans both inside Tibet and among the Dalai Lama's followers, to take advantage of this Olympic year. But also inspired simply by all these festering grievances on the ground in Lhasa.
