So the Dalai Lama is welcome NOW

[mahnmut]

South Africa in Dalai Lama U-turn

South Africa's government has made a U-turn over its decision in March to deny the Dalai Lama a visa. New International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said Tibet's spiritual leader could now visit whenever he wanted. The government caused an international outcry when it said it would not allow him to attend a peace conference, linked to the 2010 Football World Cup. Critics accused South Africa of caving in to Chinese pressure. (BBC)

Comments

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Just a small correction: he probably dreams to see the feudal theocratic state returning in Tibet, and he to be the ruler of it. But we're in the 21st century now, not the 19th.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

It's no surprise that some of his supporters are putting their own wishes in his mouth. He is an influential figure which everyone could hide behind.

Double standard is present everywhere in the world. HK and Macao have a somewhat different past from Tibet, they were controlled by colonial powers which for a long time maintained their influence there, while Tibet was on its own. HK is a powerful commercial economy which many countries in the West care about, and want to see remain such. Tibet, on the other hand, has been of no economic significance so far, and no-one in the West or elsewhere would move a finger for it if it's not in their economic interests.

And lastly, Tibet is a huge area while HK and Macao are/were city-states. There are plenty of differences.

Tibet is more of a propaganda significance, as you implied. Also, its main influence is in the sphere of religion. The Chinese government wants to maintain the dominance of secularism in China. If they give more autonomy to Tibet, it would set a precedent which the government think is dangerous.

It may be "just some autonomy" at first, but they fear it could result into something like Kosovo, and they definitely don't want that.

Either way, I agree that the Dalai Lama's figure has been exploited by many sides and for various purposes, which is expectable, but also appalling.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

You and that bogeyman chorus. China has a far more reliable bogeyman - Taiwan. Don't you think?

It has never been about "freedom". Sorry that I'm sounding cynical, but no-one would ever step in to help Tibet just because Richard Gere likes the lama's garment. It's all about geopolitical interests, and ultimately, economic interests.

The freedom-loving world doesn't seem to have problems trading with a seemingly communist regime as long as it's profitable for both sides, and as long as China keeps sponsoring the US (and hence, the West's) debt, does it?

Same about having an authoritarian theocratic state such as Saudi Arabia as a best friend. Let's just name things with their right names, OK?

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

The freedom-loving world doesn't seem to have problems trading with a seemingly communist regime as long as it's profitable for both sides, and as long as China keeps sponsoring the US (and hence, the West's) debt, does it?

Plus . . . don't forget that they made-over the roads in Mexico some few years ago!!! China has all North America by it's "balls" now :S

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

*sigh* people, when in groups (i.e. a nation), can be soooo extremely silly at times, no?!

Besides, they were probably going to let him in either way. They just want the people to know that government still exists & is still "in charge." ;)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

It's not that simple.

First, it wasn't the "nation" taking the initial decision to not let him enter the country. It was the government. Second, it's all a matter of economic interests, as I said in another comment here. China has been exercising its influence, but there are also other political factors involved, and they prevailed in this case.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

Ah...so it was the government (as opposed to the nation/people) leading the initial decision. m'kay

Also, from the article:

The government said his presence would distract attention from the World Cup - the first to be held in Africa.

After reading that over again, I'd say, "Yeah, you're right!." It really is all a matter of economic interests. The goal is to make as much profit gain as possible when hosting La Copa Mundial. In this case, I can hardly blame the government for wanting to put a temporary ban on his visa.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Yeah, because the nation obviously cannot focus on more than one thing at a time. It's a neurotic disorder I guess. The stupid thing is that this could've resulted in such a nasty boycott of the World Cup that the Olympic episode would look like a chambermaids' strike.