Balancing China and the Dalai Lama

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.

Suggestions please.

Cartoon: Soccer vs Spirituality cartoon