Here’s the thing. I am 100 per cent behind the government of President Jacob Zuma refusing to grant a visa to the Dalai Lama.
The spiritual leader of the Tibetan people was supposed to be Chief Guest at the 80th birthday soiree of feisty anti-apartheid campaigner and SA’s conscience-in-chief, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.
Typically, the SA government dithered and foot-dragged until the Dalai Lama cancelled his trip, blaming not being granted a visa in time by SA’s High Commission in New Delhi, India, where he lives in exile.
Here’s the thing. I am 100 per cent behind the government of President Jacob Zuma refusing to grant a visa to the Dalai Lama.
The spiritual leader of the Tibetan people was supposed to be Chief Guest at the 80th birthday soiree of feisty anti-apartheid campaigner and SA’s conscience-in-chief, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.
Typically, the SA government dithered and foot-dragged until the Dalai Lama cancelled his trip, blaming not being granted a visa in time by SA’s High Commission in New Delhi, India, where he lives in exile.
It appeared as if we’d been collectively been shot over this visa thing. Talking heads recalled that in 2009, the same man had been denied a visa to visit South Africa to attend a peace conference because of pressure from China. Archbishop Tutu raved and ranted like most people had never seen him—at one point even declaring that Zuma should watch out; and that he will start praying for the fall of his government.
For the uninitiated, China seized Tibet in 1951 and considers the Dalai Lama a divisive figure hell-bent on breaking away from the mainland. On the other hand, the Dalai Lama says that he is not after secession, but greater autonomy for the Tibetan people.
But enough history lessons!
My take is very simple: the government was not only within its rights to refuse the Dalai Lama entry into South Africa; it should have defended the move from the roof-tops. Every country has the right to exclude anyone from its territory. Countries do this ALL the time. It might be immoral and distasteful, but it happens to the best of them.
I remember as a child back in Uganda, I had a passport that had a large blue stamp that clearly stated that I was “ALLOWED TO ENTER ANY COUNTRY EXCEPT APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA”. Ugandans who wanted to work in this country often had to enter via a third country (typically Lesotho or Swaziland).
Also, while Americans preach freedom to all and sundry, they’re reluctant to allow people of Arab descent to visit New York. Not since 9-11 anyway. They are even more steadfast in refusing entry to Iranians. Should we be condemning them? Should we condemn countries for barring Robert Mugabe from flying into their capitals? Gaddafi? So maybe we should condemn them, but sovereign nations do what is in their national interest.
In the case of South Africa, its relationship with China is more important than the Dalai Lama. After all, China is the world’s largest creditor nation with $3.2 trillion in foreign currency reserves. It’s the world’s largest exporter, the world’s largest importer of raw materials of the kind in SA mines; it is SA’s largest trading partner; it’s one of Standard Bank’s largest shareholders; and we just got $2.5 billion (R20 billion) investment from them. Should SA jeopardise a relationship this entrenched over a birthday soiree? Your guess is as good as mine.
My only quarrel is with the government dithering. The back and forth over the visa clearly indicates that one wants to be seen to have stopped the Dalai Lama’s visit, which smacks of intellectual dishonesty. If I was working for the government’s communications department, I'd buy space in ever every major newspaper (including Grocott’s Mail) and state that “The Dalai Lama is not welcome in South Africa. Now; and in the future.”
But since I am only penning my usual drivel, I only have two words for callers to SAfm’s After 8 Debate: bite me!
