For a curious reason, NYT decided to revisit the British invasion of Tibet in 1904. An invasion that was long forgotten and was never mentioned by any western media organization during the Olympic protests.
It is interesting to compare the new report today with NYT's report of the same event 106 years ago:
TIBETANS CHOOSE WAR; BRITISH ATTACK FORT; Armistice Expires with No Overtures by the Natives. TO STORM GYANG-TSE TO-DAY Macdonald's Troops Will Assault the Villages and Stronghold -- Difficult Task for Them.
More below the fold.
In 1904, British/Indian/Sikh troops led by Colonel Younghusband invaded Tibet to "wrest commercial concessions." On their way, they slaughtered thousands of Tibetans and shelled monasteries. They occupied Lhasa for a brief time. The only modern analogy of this I can think of would be Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. For most people who know history, this was the beginning of the "Tibetan independence."
In today's report, NYT started with:
A battle here in 1904 changed the course of Tibetan history.
...
The bloody invasion made the Manchu rulers of the Qing court in Beijing realize that they had to bring Tibet under their control rather than continue to treat it as a vassal state.
A curious use of the phrase "vassal state". Although it is technically accurate, the meaning of "vassal state" is not quite that same as what it was 100 years ago. This is what NYT had to say in 1904 after the British invasion of Tibet,
AMERICAN DIPLOMACY EXTENDED TO TIBET
Hay Asks Great Britain What It Intends to do There.
Published: July 7, 1904
The New York Times
LONDON. July 6 — The Associated Press learns from a high British source that exchanges of views are taking place between America and Great Britain with respect to Tibet.
As Tibet is a dependency of China, its fate is of considerable importance, especially to America, not because Americans have any interest of value in that country, but because its acquisition by any power would mean a violation of the principle of integrity of China, which is the keynote of Secretary Hay's Far Eastern policy, to which Great Britain has given adherence.
Mr. Hay, therefore, has watched with the closest attention the British treatment of the Tibetan question, and, it is believed, has through Ambassador Choate delicately presented the possible bearing of the British military procedure on China's integrity. It is understood that the British Government frankly disavowed any ulterior purpose regarding Tibetan territory, reiterating that it had no intention permanently of occupying Tibet, and that Great Britain's motives were those already proclaimed to the whole world.
In view of this declaration, the British Government announced that Gen. MacDonalds expedition was expected to retire as soon as the purposes for which it was organized had been achieved.
The American government position at the time was clear: Tibet was a "dependency" of China and the British invasion was a violation of the integrity of China.
The journalistic half-truths and selective memories are stunning in more than one way. Here is a description of the officer who led the 1904 invasion in the new 2010 story,
Two months later, the evening before leaving Lhasa for good, Colonel Younghusband rode out to a mountain and gazed down at the ancient city, where he experienced a curious epiphany that inspired him to end all acts of bloodshed and found a religious movement, the World Congress of Faiths.
"This exhilaration of the moment grew and grew till it thrilled through me with overpowering intensity," he wrote in a memoir, "India and Tibet." "Never again could I think evil, or ever again be at enmity with any man. All nature and all humanity were bathed in a rosy glowing radiancy; and life for the future seemed naught but buoyancy and light."
Of course, Tibet was already conquered and there was no need for any more bloodshed. The biased media report on Tibet continues....
Historic reports of the assault on Gyantse and its aftermath are here, here, here, and here.