As a frequent critic of South Africa’s abysmal approach to foreign policies both here in Africa and across the globe I was not surprised to see the latest brouhaha regarding the Dalai Lama. What it boils down to is this: The government has rejected a request for a visa from the Dalai Lama to attend a peace conference in Johannesburg this week, which is linked to World Cup 2010, because they feel this is not in the best interests of our country.
This refusal to afford the 14th Dalai Lama a visa flows directly or indirectly from the fact that the embassy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Pretoria purportedly called upon the government to do so and allegedly hinted at it harming bilateral relations. This in turn has set off Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and former president FW de Klerk, who are embarrassed on account of having played a role in inviting the Dalai Lama to attend the conference.
Let’s all start off by climbing down from our high horses because as China’s main trading partner in Africa with about $6 billion being invested here in the last two years and the global crisis starting to pinch, the government would have been reckless to simply have ignored the request. I wonder what De Klerk’s National Party would have done if they had been placed in the same position by the US for example. I’m almost 100% sure that in these circumstances they would have bowed to external pressure just as quickly.
Of course Tutu has always been a fair-minded broker who has had the interests of fairness and justice at heart. No doubt he has been following the dispute between the PRC and the Tibetan government exiled in India, over the issue of independence. As far as the PRC is concerned — other than a tiny portion which forms part of India — Tibet has been part of China since the Yuan Dynasty. As far as they are concerned Tibet’s unique language and culture does not create a right to independence and that there are other groups, indisputably part of the PRC, who are also possessed of the same make-up as the Tibetans. Tibet claims that the Republic of China (ROC) government, which ruled China between 1912 and 1949 (now rulers of Taiwan), had no effective control over their territory. Britain (until 2008) and India in terms of a 1914 convention (not accepted by China) recognised some form of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. India, however, was of the view that Tibet’s failure to formally claim its sovereignty once and for all during ROC rule was a mistake. In 1950 the PRC invasion of Tibet took place and in global terms Tibet is generally accepted to be part of the PRC.
As we are all aware Tibetans have not simply accepted this and in an effort to subdue this part of their population the PRC has been accused of human-rights violations.
In terms of the conference, which deals with human rights and looks towards 2010, particularly in light of having invited the Dalai Lama, South Africa has to come up with something better than just a blanket rejection. The PRC has just staged the Olympics and won’t be unaware of the diplomatic nightmare it can be to stage a major event. Accordingly instead of simply suggesting that it is not in South Africa’s interest to allow the Dalai Lama access, it would be more prudent to offer the PRC any conditions it would like to impose should the visa be granted. For example that South Africa is inviting the religious leader must not in any way be construed as involving itself in the domestic or independence dispute between the PRC and Tibet.
The Chinese premier has just returned from a visit to Africa and has made overtures to four countries outside of those with vast mineral resources. This continent is accordingly enjoying some sort of priority with the PRC. What is now required is to ascertain whether it is possible for China to accommodate South Africa without losing face or suffering damage as a result thereof.
It is very easy for everyone to jump up and down and scream foul on this one — just don’t lose sight of the fact that if the government doesn’t factor in the sentiments of a major trading partner the downside is far greater than if they were to snub a popular leader such as the Dalai Lama.
This entry was posted
on Monday, March 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm and is filed under News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
70 Responses to “Balancing China and the Dalai Lama”
The ANC must simply stop claiming to be a ‘liberation’ movement. You can’t give in to the worlds biggest oppressor, and deny one of the world’s foremost men of peace and then claim to be a liberation movement.
Other countries have withstood China’s pressure, and are still standing. Is it a sticky situation? Well, that’s what diplomacy is for!
Not harming trade with a major partner is common sense. But then this must be reconciled that with our deteriorating relationship with Britain - our largest trading partner? We now have to get visa to enter Britain at a cost of R1000 each just to do business. That is going to have an serious impact on what is currently our most important trading partner.
Our Home Affairs incompetence has had a role to play in that but behind the scenes is our continued support, on very spurious technical grounds, for the likes of ZANU-PF, the Myanmar Regime and recently the Sudan regime.
The government have backed up dictatorial and abusive regimes continously since Mbeki took charge. Motlanthe is showing that our foreign policy is unlikely to change under Zuma.
Submitting to China must then be seen against this which complicates matters. I understand Real Politik and it has relevance. Unfortunately, our proud history of standing up against oppression has been squandered by the government.
If this was a once-off and our reputation intact, your point is perfectly valid. However, against the backdrop of our foreign policy, it has saddening and shameful overtones.
Suggestions: easy to have made before the fact. The damage is completely done now. I would have said give the guy a visa and request him politely to stick to the topic. Advise him that you are unable to provide him a platform for him to discuss his interests in Tibet. Then simply don’t promote this conference as government. Request of the organisers that they not provide direct press releases that refer to Tibet. That’s it. If they refuse to do business with you on those terms and insist on making it a political platform for issues unrelated to SA and the World Cup (interesting terms there, as the conference is actually about using football to build bridges re: xenophobia and racism as far as I’m aware?) then you punish them under the radar after the fact.
In doing it this way, things are becoming clear that really should be left under the table. It is possible, for example, that SA delegations’ decisions in the Security Council may have been at the behest of China. It is further possible that silent ‘diplomacy’ on Zimbabwe may be at the behest of China.
Politicians need to be big picture thinkers, not yes men for neocolonial masters when it’s in no one’s interest. The sensible thing to do would have been to diplomatically request things of the guests, not just blanket-ban them.
i just dont understand what is not clear in that statement…no word about politics…no china mentioned…just a plain soccer tornament.
now tell me , why should it be turned into some recreational area for protestation & picketting for “freeing tibet”…a sub-nation thousand miles away from south africa
i agree with south african govt, wholeheartedly…it’s a good decision, we cannot allow our land to be used by people who have skewed agendas…this is about soccer…if they want to talk about “free tibet” campaign, i suggest they go to a Durban II conference…they’ll be more than welcome to jump up& down…
as for arch tutu & de klerk making a fuss out of this (much explained decision), shame on them…they should hang their heads in shame.
Tibet has an utterly unique culture. The country transformed itself from a warrior/shamanist culture to a pacifist/spiritual culture as it came under the influence Buddhist thought. The genius of Tibetan culture was to retain some of the more civilised aspects of its shamanic beginnings such as a highly sophisticated form of astrology with a sublime philosophy of doing ‘no harm to any living creature’. Given a largely illiterate population spread across the least inhospitable geography in Asia, much of non-violent shamanic culture became deeply embedded in their form od Buddhism.
The lama-istic tradition reached the ultimate in civilising philosophy/psychology and developed mental discipline unique in the world. The current Dalai Lama is the embodiment of that discipline and the compassion that distinguishes it from it cold intellectualism.
The Dalai Lama has NEVER advocated violence–even with the most egregious provocations from the the Chinese. The world has failed Tibet. It failed in 1948, ‘50, and ‘58 and every moment since then. China has committed genocide with impunity and not only in Tibet. Internecine warfare between rival racial groups define China.
‘Realpolitik’ makes hypocrits of all governments and SA is no exception but given its unique history SA may have more in common with Tibet than anyone imagines. Project ahead 20 years, China now owns most of the land and all of the mineral wealth. President Zuma is celebrating his 20th anniversary as leader of the Chinese Province of SA.
It only needed someone with brains to have explained to the Chinese in the first place that banning the Dalai Lama would give them much worse publicity than letting him in.
The ANC has lost touch with the people. So did Smuts!
There is no problem here…money talks, end of story.
Our commercial interests override the human rights of some obscure group of people someplace on the other side of the world…the merits of their claim are not at issue and their treatment is of little consequence when measured against the importance of trade relations.
The Chinese have got the money; they get to call all the shots.
What is irritating is the pathetic spin doctoring and hopelessly transparent attempts from our politicians to ‘have their cake and eat it’
They pretend to be on top of everything, posturing as a sovereign government which takes cues from no one and a veritable champion of human rights, being themselves a previously oppressed people.
Like the granting of this visa now will deflect the worlds attention away from World Cup sport more than a year away? LOL….pathetic!
Like human rights issues are ‘inappropriate’ at this time in the run up to the world cup?
Yeah right, human rights are great to pontificate over when it doesn’t cost anything other than the posturing of political windbags.
Perry Curling-Hope on March 24th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Siphwo Siphiwo
Would you have told anti-Apartheid activists to shut up and stop their “shameful” picketing around sports/cultural events? What about other sub-nations that were once colonies - Zim, Nam, Zambia, Mozambique, etc????
Well, would you - or is that somehow different because its not your own kinsfolk suffering the presence of an unwelcome foreign power?
Now that SA’s disadvantaged have their freedom to hell with anyone else wanting their freedom/independance - O how easy realpolitik is now the in thing.
“I wonder what De Klerk’s National Party would have done if they had been placed in the same position by the US for example. I’m almost 100% sure that in these circumstances they would have bowed to external pressure just as quickly.” Shows how low we have fallen that we now judge ourselves on the performance of the Apartheid government.
Siphiwo Siphiwo, the Tibetian’s don’t even want independance from China just local autonomy within the borders of China. Like the ANC as a liberation movement every opportunity was used to promote SA freedom, so give the Tibetians their right to do similar promotions on the world stage especially world sports events that have never been left alone in the past 100 years by politicians liberation movements.
We seem to have forgotten our own long history of the struggle for freedom and justice. Now that we have ours, tough luck for those who don’t have theirs, not our problem, forgetting, conveniently of course, that we had aid from many quarters, and how hard we fought for our freedom.
This decision is nothing more than rank hypocrisy hiding behind the skirts of economics. Moreover, it is a decision laced with egotism, self interest and absolutely no consideration for the fact that we are all in this together, as one. It is one world, we are one people. But tragically our greed and fear is too strong for us to remember that. Have we really learned so little?
Sadly, money is once again allowed to speak louder than what is right and just.
Trade is all well and good but what happened to ethics and human values? Since when did trade become more important than freedom and justice? These things are all interlinked, to think they are not is to gouge one’s eyes out.
It is a sad indictment of the myopic world in which we live. And it’s a shame we seem unable to see the far bigger picture instead of gazing at our own navels.
is the link to see that this subject is also a headline for the International Herald Tribune and one can see the ANC government is not making any friends internationally. The ANC would have been very upset had the UK banned anti-apartheid protests during the 1970’s as SA was one of its major trading partners and suppliers of minerals. The ANC and South Africa have been the recipients of much solidarity during their struggles against oppression, but really don’t have solidarity to give when needed by other victims of oppression. This is such a lousy African trait, to receive and never to give.
I agree in the bigger scheme of things, the Dalai Lama is totally irrellevant. Tutu’s and De Klerk’s protests should be dismissed as nothing but attention and publicity seekers. This is the same Tutu that cried crocodile tears at the TRC hearings with the victims of apartheid era operatives that operated under successive regime’s of which De Klerk was part and parcel. For De Klerk to threaten a democratic govt. of his displeasure on the SA govt.’s decision is as farcical as it is hypocritical. For years he sat in the Nat. Party’s cabinet where decisions were made that aversely affected the majority of black people in this country. The majority of citizens are not interested in the doings of the Dalai Lama but more on where their next meal will come from!
> “Soccer World Cup 2010-South Africa”
>
> i just dont understand what is not clear in that
> statement…no word about politics…no china
> mentioned…just a plain soccer tornament.
Yes, Siphiwo, and the World Cup is precisely NOT relevant here. The issue at hand is a Peace Conference. The President’s spokesperson mentioned the World Cup as a total red herring, saying that the SA Government didn’t want the Dalai Lama’s presence at the Peace Conference to distract people from the Soccer World Cup. But the Peace Conference has no relevance to the World Cup! They are mutually irrelevant, except insofar as sport is important for peace, a notion that is itself irrelevant to the reason for refusing the Dalai Lama. The whole thing is an obvious non sequitur and epitomises rhetorical bullshit of the highest order. It is meant to distract, and it has succeeded in distracting you to the point where you wonder what all the fuss is about.
The fuss is about the fact that China invaded a small, peaceful nation, where it has continued to imprison, torture and kill thousands of innocents, systematically destroy their culture and their religion, and devastate their ecology.
China also happens to give money to the SA government.
Therefore, the SA government has complied with China’s request to deny an audience to the Dalai Lama, who represents the people it has been oppressing for fifty years. That is immoral, and that is the issue.
Treps, the party that you support, the ANC, reportedly receives electoral funding from China. Did you really expect that they would take a principled stance on the Dalai Lama’s trip to RSA? The ANC governs on the basis of benfit to its “cadres” and cronies, and have little regard for the best interests of South Africa. The reputational damage that has occured because of this “Lama-gate” is immense and will achieve what the ANc purpotedly sought to avoid, misdirect attantion from the world cup. You, Treps, are as responsible as the party which you will help elect to govern for another 5 - 10 years of collective misery. How I yearn for the days of Mandela and Mbeki….
The ANC has forgotten that many people (particularly from outside SA) who supported them pre-94 are also people who would support the cause of free Tibet. Apartheid was one oppression amongst many, and the self-important SA Government could be reminded of that. They’re losing friends fast and cosy with something that one day could be their greatest oppressor.
Anyway…let’s hope the fact that the World Cup is being held in South Africa doesn’t take the focus away from the football!
Michael, your framing of the Tibetan/Chinese nationhood problem is another red herring.
Historical debates over the ‘ownership’ of Tibet are complex, interminable and most importantly irrelevant. No conclusion could justify anything the Chinese have done in Tibet over the past fifty years.
Given the very clear and undeniable facts of which you are surely aware, your morally neutral framing of history (”Tibetans have not simply accepted this [occupation] … and to subdue this part of their [sic] population the PRC has been accused of human-rights violations”) is a deliberate and untenable pretense of neutrality that actually amounts to hiding the truth.
Certainly there is a viable (if vague) ethical calculus here, weighing the value of China’s investment in South Africa against the value of the human lives it has destroyed and the cultures it has suppressed in Tibet and its own country. But to reduce basic, principled morality and intelligent compassion for human suffering to pragmatics, as you do here, is a deplorable failure.
If one is aware of China’s human rights record, it becomes immoral to be involved with China in any way that does not lead in some concrete way to the cessation of China’s human rights abuses. It’s not as though China is selflessly helping Africans — it has its own economic interests at heart.
It is hard to distinguish your failure to take an intelligent moral stance on the issue from mere cowardice.
South Africa lost any claim to the moral high ground yrs ago by backing the Mugabe gang. Adopting “RealPolitik” to its paymaster/benefactor China, is a short-term gain & when the minerals are gone so is China. SA is fast becoming just another African one party state.
China’s investment in SA is like a loaded gun to our head - like playing Russian roulette with SA.
So what’s that $6billion really worth?
- Is $6billion worth addressing lingering apartheid racism and xenophobia that currently stalks our country?
- Is $6billion worth healing our society by reducing hate speech promoting tolerance in politics?
- Is $6billion worth protecting our countries natural resources from Chinese plunder while they rapidly deplete their own resources with uncontrolled expansion?
- Is $6billion worth appeasing Mugabe in the face of world and now we are left to cope with the Zimbabwean refugee crisis unfolding on our doorstep?
- Is $6billion worth siding with China in UN Security country resolutions that make us support dictators?
- Is $6billion worth squandering out goodwill internationally with countries that aided us in liberation as opposed to China’s forgetten silence?
- Is $6billion worth being true to all the SA heroes that struggled for against oppression by siding with a country oppresses its own people?
Heck, maybe $6billion is worth it after all. Lets bend over and enjoy it!
China will surely ask us to perform many more despicable acts in the future.
Have a nice day Michael!
Trying to balance China and Dalai Lama is balancing trade/commerce with human rights, morality and ethics. Was it fair that countries like India which are now the leading trading partners of SA decided to forgo trade, commerce, tourism and sports (and give up their only chance of ever winning the Davis Cup in Tennis) just to protest the cruel and oppressive apartheid regime that subjugated and enslaved the majority based solely on their race and colour of their skin. Was it fair that a relatively weak newly independent country decided to give asylum to a man of peace, 50 years ago and in the process taking on the mighty Mao who believed that power moves from the barrel of the gun. Just for sticking to the principle of supporting human rights and freedom, India elicited the wrath of the most populous heavily armed nation in the world sitting at its borders. For a country like SA reborn from the destruction of an oppressive apartheid era to now claim that it is in its best national interest to disallow a proponent of non violence and a apostle of peaceful change to not set foot on their soil is a travesty of the ideals that were to make SA the moral super power. Instead, what SA has turned into following the Mandela presidency, is a nation of denial. Starting from denying that HIV causes AIDS, to unwavering support of Zim’s Bob to this denial of visa to participate in peace conference.
Moot point chaps. The whole boondoggle has been called off. So no more peace or Dalai Lama. Ho hum, what a *#+^# up. Another great moment in SA diplomacy.
I’ve never seen such ignorance…Siphiwo, how about you attach a picture of yourself, so that a face can be put next to the rubbish you keep uttering ????
Not only do we forget our own history and struggle for freedom but we seem to completely fail to observe the role China is increasingly playing in Africa. If anyone was upset by British colonialism, be sure that it will be a tea party by comparison to Chinese colonialism which is already well under way.
One might perhaps ask why Mbeki followed such very quiet diplomacy with Zimbabwe - perhaps it was because China fundamentally owns Zim and economic pressure was brought to bear accordingly.
Let’s make no mistake, this is not about soccer, it’s not even about peace, it’s about something far bigger and more awful. Time to wake up and smell the chop suey.
Traps, are you turning into an apologist of the indefensible on behalf of the ignorant? What comes next? Do we start banning Americans from SA because GWB was a palookah and the PRC embassy suggests that we do? Do we ban the IPL from SA because India hosts the Dalai Lama?
Foreign policy has been a weakness of this country, staffed by the inept by and large and characterised by lunatic policy agendas. We make friends with the distasteful characters and alienate the useful.
If we had a total vacuum of foreign policy we couldn’t do much worse. No minister, no ambassadors. No policy statements. We’d be better off.
What we are in effect saying with this decision is that we do not allow freedom of speech in this country - or at least only when it suits us. Following the Myanmar and Zimbabwe positions at the UN, together with our rejection of the Al Bashir indictment and now this, we must be getting a reputation of siding with the human rights oppressors. Furthermore, we are now subjecting ourselves to the dictates of China. Where will that lead us ? This was a private visit by an iconic and esteemed person. It was not a state visit. Surely China should have understood that and cut us some slack accordingly. Of course tolerance in any shape or form is not their way. If we value our sovreignty and independence going into the future, we have been well and truly warned by this sad event.
1] Convenient use of de Klerk when anyone with the smallest brain knows that the comparison is a crock. Unlike the ANC, De Klerk’s government did not brandish the mantle of saviour of human rights and democracy in Africa.
2] If SA can all but tell the West to take a hike over Zim then it can do so with China over the Dali Lama. Is the spin now that China’s aid and investment exceeds that of the West? If so SA should stop attending the G8 summits with a begging bowl.
3] The ANC by giving into China’s demand goes against its claim of being a sovereign nation. What is the next step a PR C representative in parliament? If we bow down for economic reason David Bullard may not have been wrong after all. Even with the compromise offered we have an economic colonist who can tell the government what to do.
Unlike the West that always tries to reason with the unreasonable and always comes off second best, China broaches no crap. Their way is black and white with no grey. If China says, “We no happy”. “We takey no more crappy”. You best be sure that is the truth.
What must be weighed up is who really needs whom. I feel that China needs Africa and Southern Africa more than the other way round. Africa must watch out otherwise Bullard’s futurist prediction may just come true.
Someone here wrote the one-sided truism that “The majority of citizens are not interested in the doings of the Dalai Lama but more on where their next meal will come from!” — and then after you’ve eaten will you go to the mirror and look at the spiritual cost of that meal? and of the other ones to come, seeing we are setting ourselves a precedent?
This is simply a PR disaster. The results of the government’s kow-towing to the PRC will be a loss of face far greater than the $6bn that the PRC has invested in South Africa. And really what would the PRC have done had the so-called “simple monk” come? They might have wagged their fingers for a while and then gotten on with the business of exploiting Africa just like other imperialists before them. After all, they are not providing those $6bn out of charity or concern for Africa, let’s face it.
And now that the conference’s off, the PR disaster is complete and the government’s ostensible reason for denying the visa is exposed for the sham it always was.
This whole thing is just shameful, not because the Dalai Lama and his erstwhile country are victims of oppression (that is, at the very least, open to debate, as the Shangri-La image of Tibet is a sham anyway), but because the ANC government made a decision based on false premises and in favour of a government which is no human rights paragon without understanding the PR angle and without consulting the people who were involved, specifically the 2010 Local Organising Committee, who will now have to work doubly hard to repair the PR mess caused by a very short-sighted decision.
What a ridiculous, unnecessary mess.
Yoh! Traps,
You really lost your moral compass on this one. I understand that SA is the only country in the world to deny the Dalai Lama a visa (apart from PRC obviously). SA seems to be marching to the sound of a different drummer on this one, and we know who that drummer is.
It probably would have been in Britain’s best interest to side with Hitler and invade France from the west while he invaded from the east; at least in the short term. What would have been the cost to Britain in the long term though. National interest and ethical behaviour may often be at odds with each other. The ANC government is proving this time after time. Unfortunately, moral behaviour seems to be the loser on each occassion.
Canada made His Holiness an hononorary Canadian citizen in 2006. The vote in parliament was unanimous. Statistics Canada shows that by 2003, China was Canada’s 2nd largest trading partner. 42 Billion Cdn dollars by 2006. There was extreme pressure from the Chinese govt to try to prevent this. They did not succeed. Did the govt cave? No! What was the consequence? Nothing! China needs the world as much as the world needs China. If all the countries of the world signed an Anti-Chinese intimidation pact that would trigger a multi-country boycott if any member country was bullied, the Chinese would stop being such bullies. They only succeed in bullying by isolating each country.
Africa should develop its own people and mineral resources instead of selling them out. What this fiasco has done is put the Chinese govt’s true colors in Africa in the limelight. Africa is being ripped off yet again, this time by China. Colonialism will stop only when citizens begin to say no to their governments.
This quite interesting both as a standalone topic, and in light of South Africa’s direction in the past couple of years.
Increasingly we have been telling the US off, we’ve bought arms under conspicuous circumstances from the EU - but the EU isn’t complaining because their aerospace & defence industry isn’t nearly as big as quarter of the US, we bought inferior planes from the EU because the EU was a larger trading partner, we’re for the Palestinians - but our action there is questionable, we can’t make-up our minds at the UN - what exactly is it that we where trying to do there?
Clearly, we’re just prostitutes waiting for the best pay, but we still have not learnt how to play major powers against themselves for our maximum benefit.
It is Africa that has what the rest need, stupids.
If there’s anything foreign-related I think is worthy of praise it’s probably only our involvement in IBSA - but we could do more there considering our unique talents and people of direct relation to both those countries - and our location on African relations.
April 2008
China ship full of weapons for Robert Mugabe
aaah yes, we all remember this, don’t we?
The Great Chinese Takeout
The sub-Sahara is now the scene of one of the most bare-knuckled resource grabs the world has ever seen:
Mozambique (a key source of timber for China)
Zambia (copper)
Congo (a wide range of minerals)
Equatorial Guinea (oil)
World Bank survey of 68 countries last year found that the sub-Sahara leads in the “percentage of firms expected to give gifts” to secure government contracts (43%).
“People are not worried about saving the environment; they are worried about getting some before it all runs out. That’s the mentality: ‘China is just going to consume everything — let’s get it now!’ ”
The financial sides of things is of major concern and perhaps was the deciding reason for the Visa denial BUT South Africa in the past 15 years has made bedfellows with the most despicable of characters, all over the world. We support the bad guys and overlook the good guys. South Africa is a nation that seesm to admire dictators and murderers??
Well I don’t understand why this is even being debated. We voted for a constitution where freedom of speech and association gauranteed. So what, we don’t offer anyone else the same access to our beliefs? So Michael could you please make an urgent application to the Constitutional court to have our piece of rubbish ammended to the truth. Please insert under gaurantee of freedoms and association…”unless the Chinese say we can’t.”
Not sure who is the more honest here Traps or Hayibo (http://hayibo.com/articles/view/1002). As other commentators have pointed out, comparison to the apartheid regime is not really a valid argument. Who will Traps compare the ANC government to next, Idi, Adolf or Josef?
Also as pointed out, SA does not bow and scrape before its actual biggest trading partners, rather the ANC government loves to criticize them and ignore diplomatic niceties like passport security.
So the arguments put forward by Traps as ANC apologist are pretty threadbare. So what is it about?
I reckon it’s the personal interests of members of the ANC government who may be involved in the discount sales of the this country’s assets such as the environment, minerals, ivory, people etc. Just like many other corrupt countries.
Traps, you should be ashamed of yourself. You sound like a 70’s Citizen reporter.
This depicts one of the worst transgressions to date by a South African government. You call a peace conference yet you deny a peace laureate a visa, what a shame. SA has always said that it is on the side of peace and justice. Let’s take the debacle in the Middle East, SA has taken the side of the Palestinians because they are the oppressed yet SA denies the same to the Tibetans. Our foreign policy has been appalling on a good day and this did not come as a surprise to me. Cheque book diplomacy devalues the country that we are trying to build as we yield to the highest bidder.
Doug from Holfontein on March 25th, 2009 at 9:31 am
There’s some speculation that the government has abandoned moral principles because of a potential $6bn benefit to South Africa.
How absurd. The harm to the country of taking this position, as well as the otherwise unbelievable human rights positions with respect to Burma and Zimbabwe, far outweigh the risk of losing national trade benefits.
Much more plausible is the theory that the ANC has abandoned all pretence of morality in exchange for much less money paid directly to the party coffers.
What saddens me most are the comments related to Tibet being a sub-nation thousands of kilometres away.
I remember our protests in 1978 and the “I boycott the Lions Tour” posters and stickers that we distributed, because the British Lions were touring SA. As oppressed people we were disgusted that Britain was not upholding sanctions against our country - thousands of km away from them.
Those people who today so glibly dismiss Tutu and countries far away - were they even around when we were hiding from the police, getting beaten up, tortured, and dying? Do they know what oppression is?
“I wonder what De Klerk’s National Party would have done if they had been placed in the same position by the US for example. I’m almost 100% sure that in these circumstances they would have bowed to external pressure just as quickly.” Are you kidding? Agree COMPLETELY with Brent!
Siphiwo Siphiwo - if you believe the govenment’s diversion tactic of citing the soccer world cup as a valid reason to reject the Dalai Lama’s visa IMAGINE how many South African’s believe that trash too? Disgusting. I hope you take the comments on this page to heart and rethink your stance on this one.
The current government and probably the one that gets voted in on April 22nd is quite willing to sell RSA’s credibility and the rights of it’s people to China for their personal gain.
The government has made a huge miscalculation. They thought that the rest of the country thinks like them and puts money ahead of everything else.
They forgot that for millions of South Africans, years of oppression, torture, denigration, murder and mayhem is still in the collective memory of the nation.
When your entire family has been killed and wiped out, what does money matter?
It’s simple, really. The government identifies with money; the people identify with humanity. The government has a short time to get its priorities straightened out because this country will reach a breaking point.
In order to apologies, South Africa should offer the Dalai Lama free citizenship as Canada did when they were placed in a similar situation. The banning of the Dalai Lama, an international icon of peace and compassion is disgraceful and flies in the face of our hard earned liberation which we fought for so long. Many died and even more were imprisoned - are we really going to give our Rainbow Nation away?
We must boycott the World Cup in SA if the Dalai Lama’s banning is not withdrawn.
This debate has been most heartening and it is clear that vocal resistance to the South African government’s cynical pragmatism is growing.
This debate also gives internal expression to growing world opinion. Thirty years ago South Africa under the apartheid regime was often referred to as the polecat/skunk/muishond of the world. In other words, this country’s government’s policies morals stank to high heaven.
We had a brief respite with our small window of opportunity in 1994 to rid ourselves of opprobium and use wisely and constructively the adulation of the world under a leader of world stature. This was squandered very rapidly in the next 10-15 years though graft, corruption and destructive power politics.
The stench again begins to rise and the world that matters, and stood wide open to us, begins to withdraw. China has a good nose for smelly opportunities and stepped into the economic breach. It can easily outbid western arms suppliers and has no qualms about funding ruling juntas.
So, Traps, let’s be calm and relativise. We should not bite the hand that feeds, or rather that we increasingly will have to feed. Ons leef nog lekker, of hoe ?
As a “specialist criminal attorney” what exactly do you advise your clients?
Following your own reasoning, have you penned this in the hope of attracting the well-heeled ex-cronies who are falling foul of Jake-the-Take’s manne and are due to be charged as clients?
If your son or daughter had been at Tienneman Square would your feelings be different?
If your son or daughter told you they were considering selling drugs or becoming a street-walker would purely mercenary considerations apply?
In realpolitik terms, if we lost our bilateral trade with China, how many jobs would we loose and how many (e.g. in clothing) would we regain?
Pastor Niemoller kept quiet when the Nazis came for he communists, Gypseys, Jews, etc because he was not one of them; when the Nazis came for him, there was no-one (not even Mickey Big-Trap) lef to speak up for him.
Hume wrote “For evil to succeed it is sufficient that good people do nothing”
A very wise attorney once pointed out that “when you do the right thing, you never have regrets”
It is not as if the ANC has not made the same mistake before. When in exile they were funded by Christian Democrats (Britain, Scandinavia, USA), so they had to keep it a secret that their leaders were all communist and being trained secretly in Russia.
When Russia invaded Chezoslovakia some idiot congratulated Russia on behalf of the ANC. He was promptly fired, and it took O R Tambo a year to get the funding back.
The first goal of 2010, and as Tony Leon has said - SA has shot an own goal!
Having practiced Buddhism for forty years I have been very fortunate to have met and listened to the Dali Lama on numerous occasions.
I can only imagine his reaction to this bahula.
With his mischievous nature, sparkling smile and twinkling eyes, he would likely put his palms together, bow slightly forward and say: “May all beings be happy”.
Traps, you and Siphiwo desperately need a holiday to contemplate the meaning of life and how we’re all going to survive the escalating tsunami of the world’s ignorant.
@Traps you say vis-a-vis the Nats - I’m almost 100% sure that in these circumstances they would have bowed to external pressure just as quickly.
Exactly but the difference is that the Nats did not have a moral leg to stand on whereas we should have, and we did have in 1994, but the ANC government does not seem to know what morality let alone moral fibre, moral back bone or moral legs is or are.
Would anyone care to enlighten us why TAIWAN would go the same way as South Africa and also rule out a Dalai Lama visit, which was supposed to take place in December?
Michael, the comparison you make between the US and China, is a ridiculous one. In terms of human rights America has done far more good for the world than China ever has. Whenever there is a natural disaster the Americans are there helping out; no totalitarian regime, China included, has ever lent a helping hand to its brothers in their time of need.
That aside it’s important to note the following: this free debate could never happen in China.
With the exception of the debaters who support the action to ban the Dalai Lama, the rest would all be arrested, beaten, tortured, imprisoned and/or killed.
Traps,
You have lost all credibility. I didn’t see your name on the party list, but have you gained some posh clients for your practice. Lots of your ANC pals could probably use a lawyer.
Besides Tibet, I’m worried we’re selling out Africa to the highest brider, for the most guns to oppress the people under the incredibly stupid guise that China can’t do as much harm to this continent as those racist Europeans and those unilaterist Americans. Really? It’s like racial arguments being a front to get to the prize.
The difference is if a democratic society finds out about abuses in Africa, political heads roll. In other societies, people get squashed in Tienneman Square.
But moving along to current developments, it’s heartening to see The Honourable Health Minister Barbara Hogan speaking out on this one - in the interests of our collective health and well being. She’ll probably loose her job because she can’t shut her trap, and can’t be trusted to go along with these unhealthy practises.
And then onto The Honourable Government spokesman Themba Maseko’s admittion that government did not want jeopardise its bilateral and trade relations with China by being nice to the current Dalai Lama. That’s really nice, it’s like if the White House Press Secretary came out and said the United States of America invaded Iraq for oil, thus severelly constraining Middle East peace by giving Iran the credence to do what ever it likes - and that was wrong, necessating ‘change’.
When Mandela was president China objected to him meeting with the Dalai Lama as well. Mandela ignored them - and nothing happened, except that the Dalai Lama and Mandela became friends.
Gordon Brown also ignored China and met with the Dalai Lama as well - at the house of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The real point is our new communist party rulers don’t like the Dalai Lama and do like their Chinese buddies, so they were prepared to snub the Dalai Lama for their pals.
Dear Paolo,
You make a very interesting point, which nobody has yet made on the arms deal - “we bought inferior planes from the EU because the EU was a larger trading partner”. This is absolutely true - our $60m SAAB Gripens are notably inferior to the US made F-16’s in every respect, and should for F-16’s for some unlikely reason turn up in the region SA would have lost strategic advantage (even for providing cover for peacekeeping missions for instance). It’s a really odd decision - if SA truly were guided by Realpolitik, we would have bought US equipment regardless of our trading partners, as this would have been in our own best interests. The other amusement is our Gripen ‘toy fighters’ have 50% US content so should we have a fallout with the US, they could simply ground them by not providing spares (this would apply to 3rd party nations also). Kind of makes you wonder that we are guided by principle to our own detriment, and by Realpolitik to our own detriment also?
Dear Mark,
F-16’s: The airframes may be of an earlier design period but the aerodynamics of the US fighter are sufficiently advanced to give it an advantage over any European plane in the same class. In any case, the avionics are upgraded constantly to keep with the times. The real rivals to the Lockheed and Boeing stuff go by Sukhoi, and are made in Russia. But, they don’t have flashy cockpits, and where the lights work, they indicate engine failure.
The other planes - or specifically ‘plane’ - I was referring to is the Airbus A340-600 that South African Airways purchased in a massive fleet change. As it’s track record showed, the quad-jet A340 consistantly lost every battle against Boeing’s 777 twin - where it matters - which reads operating economics. Now that there are new aviation rules that allow virtually unristricted flights to just about anywhere for twin jets - largely based on the success of twin-engine jets like the 777 - does our (South African) contract to build gearboxes for Rolls-Royce Trent engines that power slow-selling A340’s and A380’s beat the over 20% fuel economy advantage the 777-300ER has over the A340-600 - besides greater loads it carries? I suppose my point is as government department with the assurance of tax payers, SAA failed to make a deal that was truly in tax payers interests - and the specific deal is yet another sign of this country selling out to the highest bidder.
Traps
Thank you. We cannot ignore our reality in pursuit of the holy grail, which is peace on earth and the rest of it. John Lennon had a song ‘Imagine’. We are still doing that.THIS IS REAL LIFE.
I am a Tibetan.since kindergarden our teacher used to make example leader like Nelson Mandela,Gandhi and Dr.Martin vision and their stuggle of human right and path to non violence.it been 50 years our stuggle under china regime.we still never give up for freedom stuggle and non violence path.today i felt sad that SA have forgotten too early thier stuggle from oppression.anyway i never give up my own path.my love and compassion to all.FREE TIBET.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
African National Congress secretary-general Gwede Mantashe in a report in The Star newspaper on Friday called upon newspaper editors to join the debat...
The African National Congress Youth League in the Eastern Cape confirmed yesterday that it would be convening a congress in the province despite there...
One of the most fascinating aspects of the Brett Kebble murder trial in the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg is the fact that the accused, Gle...
Just when African National Congress Youth League President Julius Malema believed he had an iron grip on the Limpopo province following the banishing ...
The undertaking by Justice Minister Jeff Radebe, in his address to the SA National Editors' Forum in Johannesburg on Saturday night, that the governme...
Loading ...
The ANC must simply stop claiming to be a ‘liberation’ movement. You can’t give in to the worlds biggest oppressor, and deny one of the world’s foremost men of peace and then claim to be a liberation movement.
Other countries have withstood China’s pressure, and are still standing. Is it a sticky situation? Well, that’s what diplomacy is for!
We need a proper government
(Report abuse)