South Africa denies visa to Dalai Lama

[DMB]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/03/23/south.africa.dalai.lama.visa/index.html

South Africa has refused the Dalai Lama a visa to attend an international peace conference in Johannesburg this week, a presidential spokesman said.

The Tibetan spiritual leader and Nobel Laureate did not receive a visa because it was not in South Africa's interest for him to attend, said Thabo Masebe...

...The peace conference was billed as an opportunity to showcase South Africa's role as a human-rights champion ahead of its hosting of soccer's World Cup next year.

At least they're fairly up-front about the reason -- trade with China. But "South Africa's role as a human-rights champion" is a bit of a laugh, given their record of schmoozing up to Mugabe.

[DMB]

Latest is that the whole thing has been called off because of the withdrawal of the Nobel laureates.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/03/24/south.africa.peace.summit/index.html

I heard Mandela's grandson on the radio sounding pretty pissed off. He was one of the organisers.

The Government is now lying and saying it has nothing to do with China. :rolleyes:

[Ray Moscow]

The ANC stills feels that they "owe" Mugabe for his support during aparteheid.

I figure they owe the Zimbawean people a helluva lot more.

[Mediancat]

As soon as I read the story I knew this was going to blow up in South Africa's face.

Rob

[dancer_rnb]

Worlds best loved theocrat........

[Ray Moscow]

Worlds best loved theocrat........

You know, I like the Dalai Lama, and I even like many of the things he teaches.

But the idea of a country being run by a bunch of religious people seems to me, more and more, to have a very dark side that no one seems to talk about.

Like, just how many people starved to death as a result as a result of bone-headed decisions informed by a certain brand of Buddhism and little else?

[David B]

You know, I like the Dalai Lama, and I even like many of the things he teaches.

But the idea of a country being run by a bunch of religious people seems to me, more and more, to have a very dark side that no one seems to talk about.

Like, just how many people starved to death as a result as a result of bone-headed decisions informed by a certain brand of Buddhism and little else?

I agree. Taking infants from their parents and indoctrinating them into the belief that they are reincarnations of Lamas seems very much like child abuse to me.

David

[DMB]

The Dalai Lama seems to me to be a spectacular success despite being the DL.

There are even worse things than the Tibetan lamas. How about the living goddesses of Nepal? See Kumari (children).

[Ray Moscow]

Hey, I've got a photo somewhere of her (a previous one, actually).

There are indeed far worse things than lamas. The crazy thing is to have them in charge of a country.

[Mediancat]

The problem is, it's Dalai Lama vs. Big Government That Took Over His Country and Made Him Leave.

I'm backing the Dalai Lama on that one.

Rob

[premjan]

Dalai Lama doesn't want a Lamasic government, he is for democracy in Tibet.

[Ray Moscow]

I remember a conversation with an engineer from (mainland) China several years ago. He was surprised at the international uproar over Tibet -- from his view, China kicked out a corrupt plutocracy that was impoverishing its people to establish something more equitable.

At the time I thought this was just Chinese party propaganda, but nowadays I wonder whether we're on the right bandwagon about Tibet.

[DMB]

It's a bit like Afghanistan. The Soviet-supported government that was kicked out with American help was far more modern and liberal than anything since. For me as a human-rights activist, the problem is at what level do human rights work? Do people have a right to national self-determination? If so, it may mean the majority plumping for a very illiberal government that tramples on the human rights of minorities.

[Mediancat]

Was the Dalai Lama part of that plutocracy? I don't see it, but maybe I've been misinformed.

Rob

[Ray Moscow]

Was the Dalai Lama part of that plutocracy? I don't see it, but maybe I've been misinformed.

Rob

It's alleged that the monk ruling class was rich, but practically everyone else was poor.

This is a typical pattern with relgious governments, but as to the particulars for Tibet I don't really know.

[Loren Pechtel]

I remember a conversation with an engineer from (mainland) China several years ago. He was surprised at the international uproar over Tibet -- from his view, China kicked out a corrupt plutocracy that was impoverishing its people to establish something more equitable.

At the time I thought this was just Chinese party propaganda, but nowadays I wonder whether we're on the right bandwagon about Tibet.

The government China kicked out was bad.

The problem is that they didn't liberate the country, just put their own oppression in place of what was there.

[premjan]

The Dalai Lama was a kid when he left Tibet, he wasn't responsible for the system, and he wants democracy for Tibet. He doesn't even want independence, autonomy will do. Even autonomy is a challenge for the centralized Chinese system though.

[dancer_rnb]

The Dalai Lama was a kid when he left Tibet, he wasn't responsible for the system, and he wants democracy for Tibet. He doesn't even want independence, autonomy will do. Even autonomy is a challenge for the centralized Chinese system though.

It's possible he's a better man than he would have been if the Chinese had never invaded.

[premjan]

Maybe so. But I think Tibet and the rest of China deserves and can afford some more freedom than it gets.

[BWE]

I remember a conversation with an engineer from (mainland) China several years ago. He was surprised at the international uproar over Tibet -- from his view, China kicked out a corrupt plutocracy that was impoverishing its people to establish something more equitable.

At the time I thought this was just Chinese party propaganda, but nowadays I wonder whether we're on the right bandwagon about Tibet.

The government China kicked out was bad.

The problem is that they didn't liberate the country, just put their own oppression in place of what was there.

http://en.tibet328.cn/03/3/200903/t275034.htm

[premjan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tibetan_unrest

[Loren Pechtel]

I remember a conversation with an engineer from (mainland) China several years ago. He was surprised at the international uproar over Tibet -- from his view, China kicked out a corrupt plutocracy that was impoverishing its people to establish something more equitable.

At the time I thought this was just Chinese party propaganda, but nowadays I wonder whether we're on the right bandwagon about Tibet.

The government China kicked out was bad.

The problem is that they didn't liberate the country, just put their own oppression in place of what was there.

http://en.tibet328.cn/03/3/200903/t275034.htm

Something on Tibet human rights with a .cn extension?

:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

[hecaterin]

The Dalai Lama was a kid when he left Tibet, he wasn't responsible for the system, and he wants democracy for Tibet. He doesn't even want independence, autonomy will do. Even autonomy is a challenge for the centralized Chinese system though.It's possible he's a better man than he would have been if the Chinese had never invaded.I believe that; I've argued that myself.

Visiting Tibet, even as a controlled tourist, was enlightening. The lamasery was a not good thing. The tombs of the lamas with their hundreds of kg of gold, silver and jewels were every bit as disgusting as the wealth of Vatican City. The mere existence of an untouchable caste of hereditary torturers speaks volumes.

But a city with machine-gun armed soldiers on every corner is not much of an improvement. And of course the invasion "peaceful liberation" came at the right time to inflict the cultural revolution on Tibet, plus Maoist agriculture enforced famines. Rice does not grow at those altitudes.

Tibet is a tragedy; I see no cure.

[Loren Pechtel]

The Dalai Lama was a kid when he left Tibet, he wasn't responsible for the system, and he wants democracy for Tibet. He doesn't even want independence, autonomy will do. Even autonomy is a challenge for the centralized Chinese system though.It's possible he's a better man than he would have been if the Chinese had never invaded.I believe that; I've argued that myself.

Visiting Tibet, even as a controlled tourist, was enlightening. The lamasery was a not good thing. The tombs of the lamas with their hundreds of kg of gold, silver and jewels were every bit as disgusting as the wealth of Vatican City. The mere existence of an untouchable caste of hereditary torturers speaks volumes.

But a city with machine-gun armed soldiers on every corner is not much of an improvement. And of course the invasion "peaceful liberation" came at the right time to inflict the cultural revolution on Tibet, plus Maoist agriculture enforced famines. Rice does not grow at those altitudes.

Tibet is a tragedy; I see no cure.

I haven't gotten there yet but what you describe is what I was expecting.

I think if China were to pull out things would be better. I don't think the monks could reimpose the theocracy they had before.

[BWE]

I haven't gotten there yet but what you describe is what I was expecting.

I think if China were to pull out things would be better. I don't think the monks could reimpose the theocracy they had before.
You mean before they voted in a democracy before china's revolution?

[hecaterin]

No, but the old rulers are nearly all dead. The old lamasery rule can't come back.

But China isn't going to pull out, that's a fantasy-land scenario. They're settling ethnic Han Chinese there in huge numbers.

[BWE]

The government China kicked out was bad.

The problem is that they didn't liberate the country, just put their own oppression in place of what was there.

http://en.tibet328.cn/03/3/200903/t275034.htm

Something on Tibet human rights with a .cn extension?

:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:
Now that is funny. I clicked the wrong tab for the link. Now I don't remember which one I wanted.

:D
:o

[Loren Pechtel]

I haven't gotten there yet but what you describe is what I was expecting.

I think if China were to pull out things would be better. I don't think the monks could reimpose the theocracy they had before.
You mean before they voted in a democracy before china's revolution?

And why can't they become a democracy?

[BWE]

er... China's central gov't won't let them?

[premjan]

China should move towards a democracy. But a small step will do - for instance permiting alternate candidates within the communist party to run for the same post. Even if they stop persecuting people who go against the government, and eliminate restrictions on people this will be enough.