SA denies Dalai Lama Visa

petethebrick

The Dalai Lama has been denied a visa for a Peace Conference in Johannesburg.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7958881.stm

I think it's a disgrace that a country which itself had to struggle for freedom has bowed to pressure from China in denying entry to one of the worlds most prominent spokesperson for peace. SA should be more willing to stand on its own two feet in the international arena - especially as it is due to host the world cup in 2010.

Nodin

People have short memories, it appears.

랴연

Ah lads, theres always 2 sides to every story.

China aren't evil and the Dalai Lama isn't all good.

I've read up on the history involved and honestly there are many regions of China that could make the same argument that Tibet is making including Manchuria.

Its not as simple as evil Chinese invaders vs defenceless Monks.

Although I respect the Dalai Lama you have to consider that the local Tibetan people are much better off now under their own + Chinese rule then under the rule of the religious regime that existed before it. When Tibet was ruled by a religious elite before China things were alot worse for the lower classes.

Then again, I'm not saying that if they were given independence now that they wouldn't be better off, I'm just saying what they have now is better then the religious dictatorship which preceded it.

The best Tibet can hope for is what they already have got. i.e > been an Autonomous Region within the state of China.

China will never let them go, they can't. If they do you will have calls of independence from other regions and the Chinese still aren't happy about Mongolia getting away

SkepticOne

랴연 wrote: »

Ah lads, theres always 2 sides to every story.

China aren't evil and the Dalai Lama isn't all good. [...stuff about china and tibet...] Chinese still aren't happy about Mongolia getting away

What has all that got to do with South Africa refusing him a visa?

eoin5

랴연 wrote: »

Ah lads, theres always 2 sides to every story.

China aren't evil and the Dalai Lama isn't all good.

I've read up on the history involved and honestly there are many regions of China that could make the same argument that Tibet is making including Manchuria.

Its not as simple as evil Chinese invaders vs defenceless Monks.

Although I respect the Dalai Lama you have to consider that the local Tibetan people are much better off now under their own + Chinese rule then under the rule of the religious regime that existed before it. When Tibet was ruled by a religious elite before China things were alot worse for the lower classes.

Then again, I'm not saying that if they were given independence now that they wouldn't be better off, I'm just saying what they have now is better then the religious dictatorship which preceded it.

The best Tibet can hope for is what they already have got. i.e > been an Autonomous Region within the state of China.

China will never let them go, they can't. If they do you will have calls of independence from other regions and the Chinese still aren't happy about Mongolia getting away

This isnt about any of that, this is about why the Dalai Lama was denied access to a peace conference in Johannesburg.

Thirdfox

Strange incident actually (speaking from the viewpoint of an ethnically Chinese person who believes that Tibet will probably never go the way of Outer Mongolia). PR doesn't work great for China (then again I think they've pretty much given up hope for "Western" media - whatever that means).

Then again - Dalai Lama demanding "genuine autonomy"/religious control for 1/4 the landmass of China? Don't think a separatist will get much thrift from peace conferences - though he does now advocate non-violent means (unlike some of his peers).

History isn't black or white - but having said that, not getting a visa does seem strange (though Galloway was refused entry into Canada just yesterday on security grounds... Canada, the HR loving country of the world).

Don't believe that he's the wolf in sheep's clothing that the Chinese gov says he is. Nor do others in the "West" (English speaking countries I suppose) know about the CIA funding given to the monks for their failed uprising 50 years ago forcing the "government in exile" to flee...hardly non-violence there. Reading BBC reports it'd seem like he never called for independence (a view he has changed once he's realised that it is impossible or at least highly improbable).

Does he believe that he is doing the right thing? I do think so. Is he actually helping the Tibetans in a political sense? Probably not - the reign of the monks is over. Is he a valuable pawn to be used on the political stage? Sadly yes - for governments of the world they consider his value in political terms - meet with him = good PR with some media, bad with others and vice versa. Most politicians probably do not care about the issue - just if it is a good move politically. It seems that this time SA considered its options and decided it was a better political move to not let him attend.

Thirdfox

SkepticOne wrote: »

What has all that got to do with South Africa refusing him a visa?

eoin5 wrote: »

This isnt about any of that, this is about why the Dalai Lama was denied access to a peace conference in Johannesburg.

One argument (weak I admit) could be that the "peace" that he advocates would only be achieved by bloodshed - to gain control over that much land (roughly 1/4 - there are quite a few provinces outside of Tibet that he wants "meaningful/genuine autonomy" for too) is something the other ethnicities (there are 56 of them you know ) of China would probably never stand for.

So for the same reasons Canada refused Galloway entry to give a speech about peace (or at least against troops in Afghanistan etc.) in Toronto maybe the Dalai Lama can be considered a "security threat" too (not my words - the Canadian authorities).

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

One argument (weak I admit) could be that the "peace" that he advocates would only be achieved by bloodshed - to gain control over that much land (roughly 1/4 - there are quite a few provinces outside of Tibet that he wants "meaningful/genuine autonomy" for too) is something the other ethnicities (there are 56 of them you know ) of China would probably never stand for.

I think it is fairly easy to see that one of the reasons China would be against autonomy in the region is that other ethnic minorities would also start to question Beijing's control over them. However I think you will agree that it does not mean that holding the aspiration itself is wrong. One would have thought that South Africa of all places would tolerate advocating political change through peaceful means. You can see why Desmond Tutu was angry and quite rightly is boycotting the event.

So for the same reasons Canada refused Galloway entry to give a speech about peace (or at least against troops in Afghanistan etc.) in Toronto maybe the Dalai Lama can be considered a "security threat" too (not my words - the Canadian authorities).

I'm not saying his banning is justified here, but I don't think his banning here is due to his views on British involvment but rather his public support for the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah.

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

Does he believe that he is doing the right thing? I do think so. Is he actually helping the Tibetans in a political sense? Probably not - the reign of the monks is over. Is he a valuable pawn to be used on the political stage? Sadly yes - for governments of the world they consider his value in political terms - meet with him = good PR with some media, bad with others and vice versa. Most politicians probably do not care about the issue - just if it is a good move politically. It seems that this time SA considered its options and decided it was a better political move to not let him attend.

Again, it is not whether or not you agree with him on the issue of Tibet but whether he should be excluded from the country on the basis of his political views and I think we can agree that he only advocates peaceful means of achieving these. There are obviously economic and other reasons why SA would have bowed to pressure from China to ban him but that is not the issue here, imo.

GuanYin

Thirdfox wrote: »

One argument (weak I admit) could be that the "peace" that he advocates would only be achieved by bloodshed .

That is pretty much the whole of the thing. DL not only stands by while innocent blood is shed in his name, but many argue that while he politically preaches peace, realistically he incites the violence among his followers, while not actually directing him to it.

Let us be clear, the Lama aren't Ghandi, for all the while they may wish it, they have always used violence and suppression.

랴연 wrote: »

Its not as simple as evil Chinese invaders vs defenceless Monks.

+1 million.

However, that doesn't make as nice a news story.

Although I respect the Dalai Lama you have to consider that the local Tibetan people are much better off now under their own + Chinese rule then under the rule of the religious regime that existed before it. When Tibet was ruled by a religious elite before China things were alot worse for the lower classes.

That is a complete understatement.

Simply put, the Dalai Lama has been put on a pedestal by Western Society, mostly because he is standing up to a communist ruled China. This sits well with the US who like the "Smiling little monk Vs. Big bad uniformed Commie" story.

In reality, he is not seeking the liberation of his country for the good of his people through peaceful means. He is, at worst, advocating and at best ignoring the violence perpetrated by his followers in his name. All of this is to give the Lamas power in Tibet again, for their own benefit and gain.

Thirdfox

In this regard I mostly agree that the action taken is not correct. Let the man speak. If someone wants to peacefully campaign for the legalisation of child pornography then they should equally be allowed to do that. ...Actually isn't that what NAMBLA in the US is all about (promoting legalisation of paedophilia instead of child porn)?

Freedom of speech is one of the areas which I differ substantially with the viewpoint of the Chinese government. (And the German/Austrian government for that matter). Though perhaps not for the reasons that media over here would hope for (that angry Chinese people would suddenly realise what they've been missing all these years and embrace "Western" values) instead I think we can debate, and win, on a level playing field and we don't need to stifle the free market of ideas - good old Holmes.

Then again - having been living in the US for the last few months I had a few situations when I was made uncomfortable by what people on tv were allowed to say about others - it would have definitely have fallen under our defamation laws. It's all a balance I suppose. The Chinese/German/Austrian balance is off, equally the US balance is probably off too (in my opinion).

ilkhanid

"Although I respect the Dalai Lama you have to consider that the local Tibetan people are much better off now under their own + Chinese rule then under the rule of the religious regime that existed before it. When Tibet was ruled by a religious elite before China things were alot worse for the lower classes."

The Tibetan people..are much better off. Indeed. Excepting, of course, the million odd Tibetans who died at the hands of the Chinese since their arrival in Tibet.Of course old Tibet was a brutal, autocratic,backward,obscurantist theocracy. This obviously justifies and excuses decades of brutal repression at the hands of the Chinese, of course. Every Imperialism, from the USA and the Native Americans to the Spanish in South America and to the British in Kenya and Ireland has justified its depredations on indigenous people by referring the backwardness and barbarism of the population.

"Then again - Dalai Lama demanding "genuine autonomy"/religious control for 1/4 the landmass of China?"
Is'nt this begging the question; the claim that Tibet is part of China. Did'nt the British claim that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom? Did'nt the French claim that Algeria was an inalienable part of France itself? Isn't this what is in question to start with for the Tibetans?

And where exactly does the Dalai claim claim-either explicitely or implicitly- that he intends to re-constitute religious rule in Tibet if it should become autonomous/independent?

GuanYin

ilkhanid wrote: »

the million odd Tibetans who died at the hands of the Chinese since their arrival in Tibet.

What? When? Link? Source?

I mean there have been claims by the Lama (no more a reliable source than China) but no facts figures and denials even among Tibet's own people...

Is'nt this begging the question; the claim that Tibet is part of China. Did'nt the British claim that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom? Did'nt the French claim that Algeria was an inalienable part of France itself? Isn't this what is in question to start with for the Tibetans?

The difference is, the Tibetan people aren't treated as second class citizens.. under PRC government, they actually have more perks than the ethnic majorities.

And where exactly does the Dalai claim claim-either explicitely or implicitly- that he intends to re-constitute religious rule in Tibet if it should become autonomou/independent?

Probably where he conceded that he would accept more autonomy and the right to religious rule in Tibet under the PRC as a starting point. The issue is the PRC believe that this would be a stepping stone to revolution and a return.

NewDubliner

SkepticOne wrote: »

What has all that got to do with South Africa refusing him a visa?

China is shopping for raw materials in Africa. The RSA would like to sell them some.

ilkhanid

What? When? Link? Source?

I mean there have been claims by the Lama (no more a reliable source than China) but no facts figures and denials even among Tibet's own people...

I have seen several estimates. True, some go as low as 400 000 (as if that was somehow more acceptable!) but another goes as high as 1,200000. Considering the appalling death toll in China proper from the famine and dislocations associated with the Great Leap Forward, and then adding deaths from the Cultural Revolution and deaths from the repressing of rebellions, that estimate does'nt seem outrageous to me. Given the record of Maoist rule why should anybody be surprised. And why should the Tibetans be expected to forget the misrule and tyranny of Chinese rule,and the wrecking of their culture and religion for some improvement in their living conditions? Ireland did'nt in the 19th century and the peoples of Central asia and the Caucausus under the Soviets did'nt.

GuanYin

ilkhanid wrote: »

I have seen several estimates. True, some go as low as 400 000 (as if that was somehow more acceptable!) but another goes as high as 1,200000. Considering the appalling death toll in China proper from the famine and dislocations associated with the Great Leap Forward, and then adding deaths from the Cultural Revolution and deaths from the repressing of rebellions, that estimate does'nt seem outrageous to me. Given the record of Maoist rule why should anybody be surprised. And why should the Tibetans be expected to forget the misrule and tyranny of Chinese rule,and the wrecking of their culture and religion for some improvement in their living conditions? Ireland did'nt in the 19th century and the peoples of Central asia and the Caucausus under the Soviets did'nt.

I've seen claims that the world is run by reptiles who looks like humans. Show me a reputable source? If you're talking about Mao, everyone suffered. Where has this figure of a specific 1,000,000 Tibetans by the PRC.... even Tibetan's refute theLama's claims.

NewDubliner

GuanYin wrote: »

even Tibetan's refute theLama's claims.

Would those be the Han people planted in Tibet by China? Ireland has much experience of the problems that can arise from population plantation by a powerful neighbouring country.

But, to get on topic, it's important to know that the Republic of South Africa is one of China's biggest suppliers in Africa and mot probably has had to make the difficult decision to yield to China's demands rather than risk loss of much needed business.