Who's Behind The Lhasa Revolt?

China accused the Dalai Lama of masterminding the revolt in Lhasa. The DalaiLama has categorically denied this. He has gone on to allege that Chinesesoldiers dressed as Tibetan monks perpetrated the violence in Lhasa. Much beforeDalai Lama said this, Tibetan sources, following the Lhasa violence, had claimedto media that People's Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers dressed as monks hadstarted the riots. After verifying this claim the Dalai Lama said: "Thepicture in which a monk is seen holding a sword is not a traditional Tibetansword. It is a Chinese sword. We know that a few hundred Chinese soldiers havedisguised themselves as monks."

Would the PLA instigate violence in Lhasa merely to damage the reputation ofDalai Lama and his Tibetan followers? In balance, damage to the reputation ofthe Chinese government itself has exceeded damage to the Tibetans. Why thenwould PLA soldiers be ordered to unleash violence in Lhasa? Yet the Dalai Lama'sallegation should not be dismissed. Indeed it is strengthened by a strange pieceof evidence.

When the Lhasa violence erupted on March 14, no foreign media person couldremain on the scene except one British journalist. The journalist was JamesMiles of London's The Economist. He saw at close quarters the rioting inseveral parts of Lhasa as he traveled around the city. This, among other things,is what he said in the report he filed for The Times of London on March15, one day after the riots: "I saw a group of a hundred or so residentsbreaking up pieces of concrete and throwing them at the windows of Chinese shopsas hundreds of on-lookers cheered. There was no sign of any attempt by securitypersonnel during all of this to restore order. For an entire afternoon and intothe evening Lhasa was under the control of rioters."

How could PLA soldiers, heavily entrenched in Tibet, as well as the police,remain helpless for one whole day? Subsequent events deepened this mystery. OnMarch 27 the Chinese government invited foreign media to see for themselves thenormalized conditions of the Tibetans living in Lhasa. The journalists weretaken to the sacred Jokhang Temple in Lhasa. Once again things went horribly,and inexplicably, wrong. A group of monks disrupted the government-managed tourof the foreign reporters. The monks screamed there was no religious freedom andthat the Dalai Lama was not to blame for the recent violence. There were justabout 30 monks demonstrating. One young monk stunned the visiting group byyelling, "Tibet is not free! Tibet is not free!" He then startedcrying. How could security be breached by this small group when there is suchtight arrangement in Lhasa?

The possibility of internal sabotage by a section of the Chinese governmentitself must be seriously considered. The differences between President Hu Jintaoand his predecessor Jiang Zemin need to be recalled. The chief editor of HongKong's usually well informed Open magazine, Jin Zhong, has claimed thatJiang is paralyzed and suffering from Parkinson's disease. Jiang's naturalsuccessor of the Shanghai group that he led is Zeng Quinghong. Zeng wasVice-President and number two in China's hierarchy until he was removed from hispost by Hu during the 17th Communist Party Congress in October 2007.

Zeng is among China's "princelings", who are children of the Communistparty elitists that brought about the revolution. Both his parents served MaoZedong and participated in the Long March. The top echelons of the PLA aredominated by elitist Hans. It should not surprise if the PLA, which acts like agovernment within a government, might consider Zeng as the natural choice tolead China. Could the PLA and Zeng's sympathizers exploit the Tibet issue todisgrace President Hu?

President Hu was the architect of the repressive policy in Tibet. Failure ofthat policy will be seen as his personal failure. Hu's rivals would know that anautonomous Tibet within China would not diminish but enhance China'sinternational standing. It is a tailor-made issue for striking at Hu. Thecurious role of the PLA and Tibetan security suggests that some such possibilitycannot be discarded. The Tibet issue cannot be exploited by the Dalai Lama or byforeign powers to deliver a body blow to China. But powerful dissidents in Chinacould deliver a fatal blow. President Hu Jintao is silent on Tibet. Premier WenJiabao appears ridiculous by constantly demanding that Dalai Lama give up hisclaim for independence -- which the Tibetan leader has repeatedly and publiclydone so -- before China can talk with him. The Chinese government is busyaccusing foreign enemies. But the real danger to it could come from enemieswithin. The August Olympics might prove this.