"Hey! Take your hands off Tibet!" the international chorus is crying out, "But not from Chechnya! Not from the Basque homeland! And certainly not from Palestine!" And that is not a joke.

I didn't want to get sucked into this issue, but the media criticism, the protests and demonstrations, and the government denunciations of the past couple of weeks did it for me. And after quite a lot of thinking, I finally realized what has bothered me about this whole issue over the years, particularly the attention that folks like Richard Gere have heaped upon it. I'm sure I'll get some hate mail over this, but I can take that.

The issue is why this gets so much attention in the first place. Here are a few choice quotes from a great editorial (h/t China Digital Times) by an Israeli journalist:

I am not ready to join in the demonstrations.

Why? Because I have an uneasy feeling that somebody is washing my brain, that what is going on is an exercise in hypocrisy.

[W]hat is really bugging me is the hypocrisy of the world media. They storm and thunder about Tibet. In thousands of editorials and talk-shows they heap curses and invective on the evil China. It seems as if the Tibetans are the only people on earth whose right to independence is being denied by brutal force, that if only Beijing would take its dirty hands off the saffron-robed monks, everything would be alright in this, the best of all possible worlds.

Taking this further, why isn't the media focused on other struggles throughout the world? Why is it only in this case that people are thundering about self-determination, freedom, liberation, etc.?

But are not the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria entitled to the same? The inhabitants of Western Sahara, whose territory is occupied by Morocco? The Basques in Spain? The Corsicans off the coast of France? And the list is long.

Why do the world's media adopt one independence struggle, but often cynically ignore another independence struggle? What makes the blood of one Tibetan redder than the blood of a thousand Africans in East Congo?

Again and again I try to find a satisfactory answer to this enigma. In vain.

So are there any answers at all? Yes, says the editorialist, and lists a few factors that have made a difference in sparking interest. Here are a few of them:

What, then, causes the international media to discriminate between the various liberation struggles that are going on throughout the world?

Here are some of the relevant considerations:

– Do the people seeking independence have an especially exotic culture?
– Are they an attractive people, i.e. "sexy" in the view of the media?
– Is the struggle headed by a charismatic personality who is liked by the media?
– Is the oppressing government disliked by the media?

All rather interesting. It is undeniable that some "causes" are hyped more than others, and that lots of activists are cherry picking their fights. Some of these folks will actually admit to the practice and then attempt to justify it. I've never found the rationalizations all that persuasive.

Once again, for the record, this is not about whether existing Chinese policy in the region is good or bad. I don't know the history, don't even know official policy, and don't really feel comfortable commenting on it. I wish certain other people felt the same way.

When some excited activists decide to climb the Golden Gate Bridge to protest a policy that effects a small number of people on the other side of the world, I can't help but wonder why. What exactly is it about that cause that got them excited? I think those bullet points listed above are a pretty good guide.