The recent riots in Lhasa and in a few Tibetan communities in Gansu and Sichuan provinces have been turned by some foreign media, and political figures into an issue of "human rights" for the people of Tibet.
In the name of human rights, these individuals seem unconcerned with the actual safety of the people of Tibet. Mobs, acting in the name of "freedom for Tibet", caused extensive property damage - torching and burning down houses, stores, and other structures.
Even more serious, the mobs attacked many innocent civilians, beating and killing Tibetans and the ethnic Han people.
No responsible government in the world can or should allow such violence to continue. Similar measures, and sometimes much harsher ones, have been taken to deal with such eruptions of mob violence in many other countries, including Canada, France, the United States and Britain.
In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, there were violent riots in US inner city areas of Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles by some African-American people. These riots - like those in Tibet - included torching of buildings, and attacks on innocent civilians.
The US government quite properly used police and military forces, including armored personnel carriers, to occupy the streets of the riot-torn areas in order to restore order and ensure the safety of life and property.
It was never suggested that ending such riots constituted "repression of human rights" or a "harsh crackdown".
Similarly, when Nicholas Sarkozy was interior minister of France a few years ago, he oversaw massive use of police and military forces to quell extremely violent riots by Muslim French youths protesting against economic and other forms of discrimination.
Sarkozy felt fully justified in the use of force; and no Western media or political figure suggested it was a "horrible human rights violation". So it is curious that in his current role as president of France he has quickly condemned China's use of precisely the same but milder means to protect its citizens in Tibet.
Or consider the "October Crisis" in Canada in 1970.
At that time a significant body of opinion in the Canadian province of Quebec favored independence for the province, as some outside China may favor independence for the Tibet autonomous region of China.
In support of the independence view in Quebec, the British representative in Quebec and the Quebec labor minister were abducted by a movement calling itself the "Quebec Liberation Front".
In response to the kidnappings, the Canadian government deployed its army to guard lives and property in Quebec; simultaneously invoked the "War Measures Act"; suspended Canadian civil liberties; and arrested and held hundreds of social activists in Montreal and other Quebec cities.
While two kidnappings had taken place, and there was an uneasy atmosphere, Quebec otherwise remained calm. There were no riots like those in Tibet.
Nevertheless, the Canadian government saw fit to use military force, and to even suspend civil rights, to insure civil peace in Quebec.
Whatever the alleged grievances, and whatever we believe about Tibet, mobs armed with sticks, rocks, and firebomb's cannot be allowed to rampage through the streets.
The use by foreign media or political figures of words like "repression" or "harsh crackdown" to describe China's defense of the lives and property of people in Tibet must be completely rejected.
Moreover, the attempt to characterize China as in "occupying power" in Tibet must also be rejected. Tibet has been part of China since the 13th century. The fact that some inside or outside Tibet may advocate independence for Tibet in no way changes this fact.
In the Western world there are people advocating independence for the Canadian province of Quebec; there are people advocating independence for the Basque region of Spain; there are people advocating independence for Scotland in Great Britain; and there are various other separatist movements. But the existence of these movements cannot change the fact that these areas have been part of their respective countries for several hundred years.
Similarly, the fact that some people advocate independence for Tibet does not change the reality of its history. Its status as part of China was, in fact, officially acknowledged in 1942 by the US government in these words: "The Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that the Chinese government has long claimed sovereignty over Tibet and that the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims."
So long as the Kuomintang ruled China, Tibet was viewed in the west as part of China. The notion that Tibet is not part of China - and the championing of the Dalai Lama - was a stance adopted by Western media and some political figures only after China's liberation in 1949, and is a vestige of the Cold War.
Finally, before condemning China on Tibet, US journalists and political figures in particular might reflect carefully on the US civil war, in which thousands of soldiers and many civilians died in a war fought to end the attempt of one part of the country to secede and set itself up as a separate state.
The Chinese government's restrained use of riot police to stop the recent violence in Tibet is not only fully justified; it is similar to, and far milder than, measures taken under similar circumstances by other governments.
It is time to end the hypocrisy and accept China's right and duty to protect the people of Tibet from violence, and to protect the unity of China.
The author is a Canadian teacher living in Beijing
(China Daily April 2, 2008)