'Tibet Issue' is by no means a religious issue

I. Citation

'Tibet issue' is by no means a religious issue
April 29, 2008
People’s Daily Online (China)
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90780/91342/6401073.html

II. Summary

This article is about the conflict between China in Tibet. China was very upset when they heard of threats to disturb the upcoming Beijing Olympic Games. A group of Tibetan Buddhist monks tried to ‘manipulate’ the Chinese’s words by making this a religious issue. The Chinese are very upset by this and are saying that it is not a religious issue, although it has been said that ‘Tibetans are in shortage of religious freedom.’ This could possibly mean that the Chinese are making this religious-based. The Chinese deny saying this, as it is not true. Tibet has many religious sanctuaries around the country and many religious festivals throughout the year. The only way to see if this issue settles is with time.

III. Reflection

Ø This relates to the AP World theme of “impact of interaction among and within major societies” because threats made by a small group in Tibet have turned into a major issue between two nations.
Ø These religious accusations come from threats made to - in one way or another - ruin the Olympic Games this summer.
Ø Although a specific name is not given, it says that this article is from the People’s Daily. The author must be an insider for the Chinese since the People’s Daily is located in China.
Ø The author is definitely swayed in his/her opinions. They seem to be very defensive when talking about the accusations against the Chinese.
Ø In order to more fully understand the issue, I would like to hear from a Tibetan official to see how they are reacting to the Chinese denying all accusations against them and to also hear more about the accusations themselves.
Ø I think that both parties are to blame in this issue. This entire issue is just back-and-forth arguing. If Tibet hadn’t started by making the threats, then China wouldn’t have said something that offended Tibet. Both nations need to agree to disagree.