oh yes super logic man, instead of saving the life of a protester, you are asking him to grant a mans wish of dying for what he belives, is this the way US does take care of human rights in its soil.
Of course not. What a silly question...!!! The US and China have different views on
BASIC human rights and freedoms.
A 'freedom' is the ability to do <something> without hindrance and am not talking about violating the laws of physics here. In the US, the restrictions on the 'freedom of expressions' is far less than other countries, including China, for example.
A 'right' is the accessibility to an existing structure, be it physical or virtual. In the US, you have the 'right' to go into public land or to enter a business without being restrained by the color of your skin or to buy any food you like.
So from this perspective, every country can only exercise its governmental authority and powers defined by what it believes to be proper for its citizens. If China believe governmental authority
MUST be unchallenged for all issues, then the Chinese must do whatever is necessary to support that belief.
So when you say this...
Every one in a nation has the right to peacefully demonstrate, he/she can not indulge in violence that bring damge to others or to him/her self.
You are at best partially correct. Or partially incorrect. However you want to see it. If China declare
NO accessibility to peaceful protest, then no one has that 'right' in China. Burning oneself to death is not a violent act. So if the Chinese government believe that its authority
IS, instead of 'should be', unchallenged, then using flamethrowers against these Tibetan monks make logical sense. It will stop any potential individual violent at the start and it will grant the person the wish to die by immolation, whether he wishes it at that time or not.