Today I feel proud to be a South African – and I have the Dalai Lama to thank for this. No, I have not become a Buddhist and have not yet mastered the art of acceptance. Neither have I managed to let go of the vanity and sense of self importance associated with moral outrage.
I am proud to be a South African because so many South Africans from across the racial and political divide have spoken out against the deeply offensive and strategically incompetent decision of the ANC government to prevent the Dalai Lama from visiting our country – most probably because the Chinese government or those associated with the government donated vast sums of money to the ANC election war chest (did I hear Browse Mole Report?).
Even the Minister of Health put principle before ambition and expediency when she remarked that “the very fact that this government has refused entry to the Dalai Lama is an example of a government who is dismissive of human rights”. Remember the days when SACP deputy Jeremy Cronin was forced to apologise for warning against the “Zanufication” of South Africa? If he had not apologised his political career would have ended and he would probably have been “redeployed” as the assistant deputy manager of the Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein sewage plant.
It was therefore pretty brave (or stupid, depending one whether one has any ethical standards and moral principles or not) for the Minister of Health to speak out about this issue. She has done much better than all those cabinet Ministers who refused to answer whether HIV caused Aids after then President Mbeki went on his deathly flight of fancy about HIV. She is a true South African partiot – unlike the leadership of the SACP who issued a statement supporting the government position because, after all, those murderous comunists in China are at least communists so who cares about principles and human rights.
(Of course, if it was a collective cabinet decision to prevent the Dalai Lama from entering South Africa, Hogan would have acted improperly as section 92(2) makes clear that cabinet members are collectively and individually accountable for the decisions of cabinet. This means once cabinet has made a decision, all cabinet ministers must abide by the decision and should not criticise it publicly. If they cannot do so, they must resign. But I note government spokesperson, Themba Maseko, did not raise this issue, so I have to assume that this was not a collective decision of cabinet.)
In South Africa we tend to see things in apocalyptic terms, and when the government makes a decision like this, a decision that is so strategically unwise (did no one tell these guys that the decision would make them the laughing stock of the world?) and so obviously based on the corrupt need for money and power that it boggles even a sometimes cynical mind like mine, we tend to become hysterical. When this happens, commentators predict the collapse of the Rule of Law and shout about the end of the (idealised) world as we thought we knew it.
What we often overlook is the decency, honesty and commitment to human rights shared by many sane and reasonable countrymen and women in civil society, in churches, in the media and (even) amongst our politicians. That is why I want to celebrate the fact that this decision has so spectacularly blown up in the faces of the immoral people in government who thought they could get away with this without too much of a fuss. It shows that we as a nation is better, more honest, and more concerned about human rights than our government gives us credit for. We are actually far better than our leaders – give or take a health minister.
Which brings me to that small country of 330 000 people who only a short year ago was thought to be the happiest place on earth. Yesterday I read an article in The New Yorker about the bankruptcy of Iceland. Yes, the country is bankrupt – almost like Zimbabwe, but without the Hitler mustache, the torture and the beatings and the neighbouring ex-head of state with a Napoleon complex and a weird love of conspiracy theories discovered on the Internet.
In Iceland the whole banking system collapsed last year and its currency depreciated by 300% in a few weeks. (That would be the equivalent to the Rand collapsing to R30 to the dollar in a month or two.) The author of the article noted that many people in Iceland seemed to have a need to blame the collapse of the country’s economy on a conspiracy and had a need to brand those in charge of the banks and the economy as evil villains. He ten explains this tendency by remarking that: “A country overwhelmed by evil has more dignity than one tripped up by fools”.
In South Africa, our need to retain our dignity as a nation often leads us, also, to brand our rulers as evil and to believe in conspiracy theories that make those people who believe 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government look like sane and reasonable citizens. We do not want to see our rulers as the fools they often are because it dehumanises us.
So, today I say, cheer up. Our government may often act like fools. They may be cynical, self-serving and often corrupt. But maybe this does not mean we have evil people in charge of our country. Maybe these people are merely stupid, incompetent and dishonest. They are politicians after all. And in the long run the decency, commitment and bravery of ordinary South Africans and even politicians like Barbara Hogan will ensure that we will not end up like Hitler’s Germany, George Bush’s USA or Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe – although there is of course always the possibility that we will also go bankrupt like Iceland.
Ces la vie. Democracy will ensure that we throw out the bums in the end. Even if it will be too late for all those people in the Free State dying of Aids related illnesses every day. Maybe not this time, but in the future we will vote out the bums and give some other fools a chance to rule us.
I suppose it takes a big man to see how small he is. And then that man is beaten by a woman, our Health Minister. She is a man I tell you. The rest in cabinet? Who cares what they think? I don’t. They don’t seem fit to run a country! How did they ever get there? Huh? How? But wait, they’ll be back after April. And we’ll have more of the same thing. I call it the Bold and the Bloody fool, this thing we call goverment!
Viva Ms Hogan!!
Prof, am I missing something here?
Section 92 (2) says:
Members of the Cabinet are accountable collectively and individually to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions.
It still does not bar a member of the Cabinet from voicing dissent from a collective decision whether that is in the media or in parliament. Yes they are still accountable for a Cabinet decision, even if they disagree and make it publicly known.
Or am I missing something? Surely a Cabinet minister can disagree with a Cabinet decision and speak out about that disagreement?
re my previous post, does section 96 (1) and/or 96 (2b) come into play perhaps?
Fact 1: No developed country has ever invited/allowed entry to its soil, Dalai Lama, in March-due to the historical relations of this Month and His Holiness. Fact 2: Government, lead by the ANC, has not invited Dalai Lama this time (bydaway-he has been here before, invited by the ANC gov, duh!) to the country, and yet, they (ANC lead government) would have to facilitate his deplomatic entry, security while here and so on, so whats wrong if gov aint ready for that – for now. (His Holiness is aftall, not just Spuy or Pierre or George or any ordinary foreign national visiting the country, duh!) Fact 3: S.A government foreign policy regards People s Republic of China as one state- contrary to the view of Independant Tibet, advocated by His Holiness and them. So yes – our deplomatic relations with People s Republic of China, in terms of trade, investment and so on, will ALWAYS be considered, but still, that does not mean our foreign policy is dictated by outsiders, we are a sovereign state in every sense of the word – ask Americans – We ve disagreed and condemned them when it was unpopular to do so at the time, still depending on them largely, for aid. Fact 4: Comrade Barbra is a member of cabinet and ought to know which platforms to use to raise dissent, surely, members of cabinent do always unanimously agree on controversial issues. Collective leadership means advocating and defending the position of the majority of the collective, because such a position, would have been debated thoroughly before being arrived at – unless Comrade Hogan prove to us that decisions are taken unilaterally by some in cabinet, she must learn to stop shooting her mouth of everytime she individually doesnt agree with the decision.
Erratum: …Members of Cabinet do NOT always unanimously agree…. (I meant)
PdV
“across the racial and political divide have spoken out against the deeply offensive and strategically incompetent decision of the ANC government to prevent the Dalai Lama from visiting our country”
And yet just the other day, when the ANC said they wanted to make government ministers accountable, PdV reprimanded us all for failing to draw a clear distinction between the SA government and the ANC ?
spuy
“S.A government foreign policy regards People s Republic of China as one state- contrary to the view of Independant Tibet, advocated by His Holiness and them.”
I suppose the His Holiness will also reign until Jesus comes lol.
Funny how our “democrats” can take such a huge issue with some dodgy statements JZ made but gets all emotional and starry-eyed when they defend the leader of a religious monarchy.
George, that section must be read against the background of our quasi-Westminster system of government. In such a system we have collective responsibility by the cabinet for decisions taken by the cabinet. Cabinet Ministers who do not agree with a decision taken by the cabinet can resign. Yes, the section talks about responsibility to Parliament but there is a strong tradition that collective government means more than that and it is generally understood in SA to include the need not to criticise cabinet decisions once taken. The question here is: was this a cabinet decision or one made by the President alone. If latter, there is no need to shut up.
Ozoneblue, I don’t understand your point. My phrase conveys the understanding that the ANC is in government. This is a fact. This is NOT the same as saying that the ANC and the government is the same thing, which I fear some ANC leaders sometimes think. If you do not understand this simple point, you actually prove mine. Besides, there you go again, trying to nit-pick because the substantive issue is a wee bit too embarrassing to deal with. Must be hard to always have to defend the indefensible.
Spuy, any proof of Fact 1? I am rather skeptical this is true.
Spuy & Ozone
Regardless of your attempts to once again try to validate this awful decision by your incompetent ANC led government; the result is the cancelation of a world peace conference which (once again) made us the laughing stock of the world. Please just think about it ‘CANCELATION OF A WORLD PEACE CONFERENCE’. Guess it’s not peace you want but power, hey.
Are you guys also getting kickbacks from the Chinese government for making such atrocious statements in which you condone this decision?
I swear if it wasn’t for the shortsightedness and incompetence of the ANC led government the ‘zanufication’ of SA will occur at a much faster rate.
Personally, I have a few comments on this whole saga:
1. I think the reason given by the govt is ridiculous, to say the least. There is no doubt in my mind that there must be some other reason.
2. I don’t really see the cancellation of the Conference as such a major issue. I hope they can use the funds for something more constructive, like providing ARV’s in the Free State – I never like these Conferences because nothing tangible seems to come out of them anyway. My guess though is that the govt will be paying a number of service providers for breach of various contracts, e.g. the venue booking, catering etc. So much for saving the moolah!!
3. Whlst Min Hogan may have said the popular and probably the correct and defensible thing, I think she was out of line. I’ve never been familiar with her political background but I think she, just like Routledge-Modise, need to have a political class so that they can understand that when you are part of a collective, the decision of that collective binds you even if you disagree with it. Prof, I think the govt has been clear all along that this was a govt decision.
Something tells me that if TM was still the President, Hogan would have received an invitation to visit the President’s office, if not fired already!!
4. I see that even our beloved CC judge, O’Regan, has entered the fray. I think this was unfortunate. The last thing we need is the judiciary questioning decisions taken by the other arms of govt, especially when everyone is still so concerned about the respect for the judiciary. I am saying this mindful of the right to freedom of speech as enshrined in our constitution.
ozoneblue // Mar 26, 2009 at 7:52 am
didnt take long for this muppet to come back
lol
“I suppose the His Holiness will also reign until Jesus comes lol.”
well since you dont really know much about buddhism and cant seem to think before u speak infact his holiness will reign until jesus comes as they believe in reincarnation and his holiness is the 14th reincarnation of himself…..but since you lack culture i dont expect u to understand others
and the guy isnt just a leader of a religious monarchy, what u see there is a true freedom fighter, but since ur fake i dont expect u to understand that either.
@spuy
since u and ur boyfriend O3 seem to reside in the relm of perveresed logic
fact1: Iol please get your facts str8, so no developed country in the world is allowed to have the dalai lama into there country because of the touchy historic issue of march…..please wtf are smoking?
fact2: well funny enough the government was ready for the Pope…ello? and um what about some of the movie stars that were to attend this peace conference what about the security on that? or maybe the ANC doesnt have enough in there budget for the dalai lama security because all of it is being spent on the Zuma the black jesus who needs protection from his own people???
Fact3: I disagree ur government is fool hearty to place all eggs into one basket and since the people of china is funding ur ANC elections why rock the boat and esp they threatend ur ANC that allowing the dalai lama into south africa would hurt your relationship. but lets piss off all other trade partners and im sure Fifa wasnt to impressed with this little stint of urs, and as for the US um last time i checked u get ur Aids benefits for free
fact4: Had no idea hogan was a communist as u refer to her as comrade and she must learn to stop shooting her mouth off, lol well im sure she learnt that tactic from Malema and besides atleast she has the morals to stand up for what seems to be right….oh and i see the ANC will have words about this to her, looks like another threat to ur job.
Pierre De Vos at 8:13 am
My point is a simple one Pierre. This was not a decision made by the ANC, it was a decision of the government taken in the best interest of South Africa. The Tibetan issue has always been a controversial one and has traditionally been used by certain Western interest groups to discredit their “ideological opponents” i.e. the “communist” Chinese government. I also don’t see why South Africa has to be drawn into such a controversy : China invests a lot in Africa and has become one of our most important trading partners.
It appears that Spuy and Blade Nzimande have the same source re the Dalai Lama:
“ANC national executive committee member and SA Communist Party general secretary Blade Nzimande told SABC radio last night that most Western countries had also refused the Dalai Lama entry in the month of March because of the failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule 50 years ago.
“Very few, if any, of the Western powers allow the Dalai Lama to visit their countries in March – It is an internationally recognised diplomatic protocol,” Nzimande said.”
This was taken from an article on IOL:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_News&set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=vn20090326061216809C814762
Brain dead troll at 8:45 am
“but since you lack culture i dont expect u to understand others
and the guy isnt just a leader of a religious monarchy,”
I suppose since you lack any kind of intelligence or credibility you would not understand that a religious monarchy is in essence incompatible with the ideals of a secular democratic state.
Ozoneblue or argument is flawed
ur government is the ANC and all decisions are made within the ANC and government. catch a wake up
the best interest of south africa? No u mean the best interest of the ANC it is no secret the Chinies are funding ur elections…best interest of south africa lol ha ha ha whatever makes u sleep better at night communist.
Im really lost you have been shouting from high heaven about struggle throwing every chance about apartheid and racism? u lack complete luster to be honest….if anything the Dalai lama and tibet never belonged to china it was a independent country until china yes your new masters invaded occupied and colonised Tibet….COLONISED APARTHEID STRUGGLE OPPRESSION do these words sound familiar with u?
it is south africa’s duty to help with freedom across the planet .
bottom line is since u say and admit now that china is south africa’s biggest partner dont u think ur little theory on Markets and Foreign Investors is looking abit silly now?
Please next think, just think before u open ur trap and make urself look like a wanker again
have a nice day
@Mzo,
“3. Whlst Min Hogan may have said…..
Would you then also consider Helen Suzman’s public dissent of the Nats collective decision as being inappropriate?
Ozoneblue
so a one party state would be more secular for a democratic state?
air must be really thin where u live
When I read this blog and read the way people like Ozone, Spuy etc etc reason, I understand where Verwoerd came from. I want nothing to do with people like them (I want to be separate from them – ek wil in APARTHEID van hulle wees). I am pretty sure it is their kind of reasoning and mentality that led Verwoerd to say something like “apartheid” was probably the way to go. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying I am a Verwoerd fan. Fortunately not all South Africans are like these guys and that is why Verwoerd was perhaps too hasty in what he said. On the other hand, perhaps he was murdered (by a faction who saw opportunity in Verwoerds error and take his statements and use it for themselves and run wild with it) before he could explain what he meant.
The Dalai Lama is “bigger” than anyone in the ANC or current government of South Africa, but they have told him he is not welcome here.
Retsrov
im afriad Zuma’s ego is to big for any international freedom fighter to be welcomed into south africa esp one who has more struggle credentials than him and esp of one who is a holy man….this is a threat to Zuma as he is the black jesus christ, south africa has only enough room for one holy man and thats Zuma
Ray // Mar 26, 2009 at 9:04 am
How about comparing apples with apples – we are talking democratic dispensation and apartheid era, hardly comparable!!
Ozoneblue,
I hope you also argued the same when the same “western interest groups” were drawn into the “controversy” challenging apartheid in SA.
From your argument you make it seem as thoughthe ANC is schizophrenic organisation aligned to whom ever will provide it with funding. I sincerely hope this is not the case
Mzo,
I agree with you for different reasons on the Constitutional Court judge. A judge should not express views on a current matter of political controversy!
Mzo // Mar 26, 2009 at 8:42 am
Nice post.
Retsrov // Mar 26, 2009 at 9:12 am
Don’t worry retsrov, you are separated from them. I beleive the APARTHEID you’re referring to is not based racism but classism – separation of the thinking and non thinking classes.
Did not the treasurer general of the ANC attend a launch of a Chinese Investment Fund a few weeks ago? The Municipality of King Sabata Dalindyebo(KSD) that includes Mthatha is to spend monies in twinning with a Chinese city, they promised to repair the potholes and city infrastructure.
Prof the anology with Iceland is insightful. I concur that the key question is how the decision was arrived at because that illustrate how our government is run and managed.
Considering that if you look at how the Cabinet statement about the Ngqula ‘R8m deal’ has comeback to bite and a retraction. The Minister of Public Enterprise is a cabinet member and should have been at Cabinet when the matter was discussed.
How could she have been part of a ‘collective decision’ about her own portfolio and two weeks later after the SAA Chair Prof Gerwel discloses to the parliament portfolio committee on public enterprise that even the President was briefed. Mabandla apparently had briefed a ’sub committee of cabinet’ and all is ok. The matter is closed.
Enter the Hogan-Dalai-comment. If this was a collective decision, then she would have a fora to address her concerns and then the resignation option would have arose, I submit. So i guess this was not a ‘collective decision’.
The two incindents point to a state of confusion at the helm. We must remember that the life span of this cabinet is a month plus few days to spare.
It is also ironic that when this matter surfaced the Foreign Affairs minister went underground and the Presidency dealt with the matter. Mama Nkosazana is nowhere to be seen. Her absence and silence makes one wonder if all bizness is run from Presidency?
And now we have tapes doing the rounds! Spy vs Spy stuff!
The Hogan trail is going to be the one to watch. She made a conscious decision to speak out. She is married to Ahmed Kathrada, obviously a political mentor too. So i reckon there is more than what meets the eye as the saying goes.
Interesting times!
And now Hogan is in the firing line. Such a shame that probably the only competent minister is now being bitch-slapped by her own i.e. the glorious ANC for opening her mouth…
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=nw20090326083827485C896532
Hogan is regarded as competent. She must uphold the ministerial principle. Dalai Lama must not steal the show. He muist come another time after the 2010. e do not need disturbances during this crucial occasion. He must have the courage to return to Tibet and defy China.
this is getting fun now:
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2491834,00.html
re my above post, a question to Prof:
Should we have activist judges??
Even though I agree with her, is it a good thing for a ConCourt judge to publicly criticise the government of the day?
Retsrov // Mar 26, 2009 at 9:12 am
I find your reasoning rather upsetting.
Verwoerd never even had dialogue with people (read idiots) like Spuy or Ozoneblue. He made his comments/decisions without even considering the majority of South Africa as human.
I will never advocate being separate to a difference of opinion, no matter how much I disagree with their opinion and their flawed reasoning, they have a right to disagree and cutting yourself off from people who have a different opinion is just a little too much “Mbekism”
According the leadership it appears Mugabe is lekker, Dalai Lama is kak!
The principle of Cabinet collective responsibility must be properly understood. It does not apply to a decision taken by another Minister. Was the decision a Cabinet decision? Was it taken by the President? When?
“In Clare Short’s resignation speech to the House of Commons on 12 May 2003 she gave a
critical assessment of the current state of collective decision making:
In [Labour’s] second term, the problem is the centralisation of power into the
hands of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers who
make decisions in private without proper discussion. It is increasingly clear, I am
afraid, that the Cabinet has become, in Bagehot’s phrase, a dignified part of the
constitution—joining the Privy Council. There is no real collective responsibility
because there is no collective; just diktats in favour of increasingly badly thought
through policy initiatives that come from on high. “
Well said MZO.
You’ve said all that i was gonna say
George Gildenhuys at 10:22 am
eh…excuse me but separatism or religious Apartheid is not a human right. His Holiness would have been welcomed with open arms if he was a real victim of human rights abuses i.e. the Chinese government discriminated against him on racial or ethnic grounds.
Every government has got a right to sovereignty and if we had to entertain the ideals every separatist leader claiming to talk on behalf of some minority our world will decent into chaos.
Ozoneblue,
It depends whose version of human rights you are referring to.
Hypothetical: If you were able to hold the Chinese government accountable to our Bill of Rights, I would say there are quite a lot of rights being infringed.
ozoneblue
For your information their is a lot of discrimination by Chinese towards Tibetans. The Chinese see themselves as a benevolent more developed people, and not oppressors but in actual fact are helping the Tibetans develop.
The Tibetans are considered uneducated, barbarians and even dirty.
ozoneblue // Mar 26, 2009 at 11:02 am
R u on something? seriously cos i can smell the crap
that comes out ur mouth from here.
lets see why march is so touchy
86,000 Tibetans in central Tibet were killed by Chinese armed forces in MARCH!!!
http://www.freetibet.org/about/1959-tibetan-uprising
So the dalai lama isnt a victim or human right abuses?
our world will decent into chaos?
is it just me or im i the only one who just fell of his chair laughing at what this clown just had to say
Hey monkey nuts heres some history u dumb ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/unrest-tibet-continues-human-rights-violations-escalate-20090310
http://www.freetibet.org
Ozoneblue ur still an asshole
Here is a very cool blog about China. In this post they translate the letter (written in Chinese) by a Tibetan girl who has forgotten her own language.
She lives in the capital of Tibet, now full of thousands of Han Chinese.
“My neighbors often praise us sincerely: “Are you really Tibetan? Hey, you don’t look it. You’re so white and so clean….”
In this city that’s called a center of culture, even my mother, my own family, everyone is trying as hard as they can to avoid revealing their Tibetan identity because we can’t fight off the nasty things people say.”
http://www.blackandwhitecat.org/2008/04/09/are-you-really-tibetan-youre-so-clean/
ozoneblue // Mar 26, 2009 at 11:02 am
R u on something? seriously cos i can smell the crap
that comes out ur mouth from here.
lets see why march is so touchy
86,000 Tibetans in central Tibet were killed by Chinese armed forces in MARCH!!!
http://www.freetibet.org/about/1959-tibetan-uprising
So the dalai lama isnt a victim or human right abuses?
our world will decent into chaos?
is it just me or im i the only one who just fell of his chair laughing at what this clown just had to say
Hey monkey nuts heres some history u dumb ass
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
http://www.freetibet.org
Ozoneblue ur still an asshole
Retsrov, it’s almost like saying Adolf Hitler was a real sweet guy before he met the Jews.
Ozone, or monkey nuts, was that your new nickname?
“Every government has got a right to sovereignty” I’m not sure if you understand that the new constitutional dispensation was one of the biggest changes that the freedom fighters during the struggle fought for and won. That is why the revolution is over, you can lay down arms now and start picking your noses. We have a constitutional supremacy, a sovereign Constitution. We’re in the New South Africa now, get with it.
George Gildenhuys
Verwoerd was not a nice man by any stretch of the imagination. In fact he was downright nasty at times. But this sentence of yours is over-egging it, somewhat to say the least -
” He made his comments/decisions without even considering the majority of South Africa as human. ”
I don’t think an analysis of what he said will support that kind of hyperbole, neither will evevn an analysis of his deeds.
Did he thinks whites were superior. Yes. But if he acted like you impute him to have believed – his government would not have had the record it had on the health, infant mortality, poverty etc of all South Africans.
@Monkynuts
My comment is being moderated but look out for it its for u
Chris Mcdaniel // Mar 26, 2009 at 11:26 am
u seem to be so oblivious to what happend in March
86,000 Tibetans were slaughted by ur new communist friends in March can u comprehend that in that little thick head of urs?
and u have the audacity to post such crap ozoneblue // Mar 26, 2009 at 11:02 am
dude ur beyond a comic, ur really sick u know that??
I do think there is a tension here though that some people must at least acknowledge. In this sense Ozone has a point.
The other country that really does not support Tibet is of course that democracy called Spain.
Why? Because of the Catalans, Basques and now Galicians all clamoring for independence. They fear an independent Tibet could set a precendent that would break up Spain as we know it.
The Free State ARV debacle has occurred in her watch and I have not seen any decisive action on her part (but for more words) yet no one has attributed this fiasco to her (and its no excuse that she may not have caused it, she is after all ultimately accountable). We seem to ascribe “competence” loosely in South Africa. I hold no brief for the ANC or its government but it seems that we often times measure the worth of a leader by the number of times they show the middle finger to the ANC or its government “deployees”. To me this whole issue is an opportunity for us to reassess and better understand our foreign policy, including the consistence of its application, as well as to understand further this whole issue of collective accountability of government. Indeed, It is my belief that this whole matter reveals a serious flaw of our executive structure (i.e. how will a minister implement policies that she does not believe but is forced to represent because of the cabinet as a collective has decided? Will any dissonance between cabinet decisions and individual disagreement therewith impact on efficient policy implementation? What of the half decade old conflict between comrades, did – for instance – Jeff Radebe and, say, Lindiwe Sisulu, torpedo programs with an understanding that their intimate relationship with Zuma necessitated shoddy policy implementation to embarrass Mbeki? How to balance individual opinion and the need for cabinet unity of conduct? Etc).
Prof, I await with bated breath, your reaction to Justice O’Regan entering the fray. I mean, this was a decision (good or bad- as it may be) of the Executive, surely it is utterly dispecable for the judiciary to poke its nose on affairs of the Executive – judiciary, like all other state arms, must be seen, or rather, must respect each other s independence. Reactions to Executive decisions should be left to us ordinary citizens, You do agree Pierre, dont you? Can anybody provide me with proof of any visit of His Holiness to any developed country (so called developed countries, especially) in the March month – I m waiting!
I thought that the Dalai Lama sought some degree of autonomy for Tibet, not independence. I think that should be noted as the SACP are falsifying the position.
I’m uncomfortable with O’Regan making a stance as a lawyer, but as a human rights activist – go girlfriend go!
Wessel van Rensburg (AKA mhambi)
im sorry i dont believe that cos that precedent would have already been set with Kosovo, Georgia, south ossetia ,abkhazia, and palestine and apartheid south africa…. blaming tibet that could set a dangerous precendent for Spain is rubbish and the same goes to Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, the French in Canada, the Scots in Britain.
Every population that inhabits a defined territory and has a clear national character is entitled to independence. A state that wants to keep such a population must see to it that they feel comfortable, that they receive their full rights, enjoy equality and have an autonomy that satisfies their aspirations. In short: that they have no reason to desire separation.
I’m a little concerned that we are getting all fired up about the Dalai Lama when actually there are other important domestic issues to explore: NIA tapes of Mbeki, etc; Travelgate Debtors Book buy-out; Shaik “Medical” Parole; Swart Gewaar DA pamphlet; was Hlongwane an ANC mole all along hence COPE’s kak electoral campaign: etc.
Why are we more stressed by this?
Chris Mcdaniel says:
“im sorry i dont believe that cos that precedent would have already been set with Kosovo, Georgia, south ossetia ,abkhazia, and palestine and apartheid south africa”
Not sure why you lump South Africa in there but anyway. Kosovo is a case in point and why many countries like Russia still don’t accept it as a state. Neither did Spain. Ditto South Ossetia, Abkhazia. They are not accepted as states.
You go on to say – “Every population that inhabits a defined territory and has a clear national character is entitled to independence.”
Nope – not in international law, and rarely in practise either. International law tends to side on the side of the status qou. It does not want to rock the boat.
I’m not saying this makes it right in a moral sense however.
Mpho
i did postings on “Zuma has a case to answer ” about the tapes I would like comment on it as i believe this is a National breach of security by a “private citizen”
No matter what the ruling party says (or does not say), China made it clear that they made the call to our government to bar the Dalai Lama from attending a peace conference; and our government, for selfish reasons, sold out. Period.
Wessel van Rensburg (AKA mhambi)
The only reason why i braught apartheid into it is simply for fight for freedom.
however u r correct international law dictates things abit differently, i was coming with a moral look at the situation
The Chinese government has the right under international law to regulate religious institutions to prevent them from being used as vehicles for separatism
However this falls away because Tibet, was a sovereign state 1300 years of independence from China prior to its invasion and annexation
Tibet formally declared its independence in 1912 and continued to conduct itself as a fully sovereign nation until its invasion by China in 1949. Tibet governed itself without foreign influence, conducted its own foreign affairs, had its own army and operated its own postal system. Tibet enjoyed de facto recognition by its neighbors as well as by Britain, with whom Tibet entered into a series of treaties regarding travel and trade.
Internation law says:
The right to self-determination is also set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is widely recognize as customary international law
General Assembly Resolution 2625 territorial integrity is a right only of legitimate governments which “conduct themselves in compliance with the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” This requires that the government’s authority not only be based on the will of the governed, but that the government also guarantees political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights equally to the governed population. China, however, systematically violates the rights.
Under these resolutions and others the same applied to kosovo which yes may not be recognized by Russia and maybe china but the EU and the western world recognises there independence and so does south africa its like 20% of world doesnt recognize Kosovo and georgia but 80% do
Wessel van Rensburg (AKA mhambi)
in my eyes there is no difference between:
Tibet independence against the Chines Empire
and
Greek independence against the Ottoman Empire
Spuy // Mar 26, 2009 at 11:59 am
Prof, I await with bated breath, your reaction to Justice O’Regan entering the fray.
I recall reading sometime back that the High Court does have an inherent jurisdiction to speak on matters that are morally reprensible or does not represent society at large acurately. It is why the apartheid judges were critisised for not speaking out.
I am writting from a very vague memory.
Prof please comment.
Mpho // Mar 26, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I agree with you, there are more important things that we can be discussing in this forum, including the prima facie illegal surveillance tapes that are said to be in JZ’s / his representatives’ possession.
I had a good laugh when I read Nguka’s statement that:
“If it is suggested – as I believe that it is – that I was involved in any conversations, the objective of which was to manipulate the National Prosecuting Authority or use it as a tool to frustrate Mr Zuma’s ambition to occupy the highest office in the land by prosecuting him, I am confident that if any authentic recordal of my conversations with whomsoever is produced, no evidence would be found that would implicate me in such a conspiracy. For the record, I am not – and have never been – part of any conspiracy against Mr Zuma.
It is a matter of public record that when I in my capacity as NDPP, had the opportunity to prosecute Mr Zuma, I declined to do so”.
I particularly like the last sentence!!
http://blogs.thetimes.co.za/hartley/2009/03/26/ngcuka-zuma-has-spy-tapes-of-me-full-text/
FYI:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
It is heartening to see racial and political divides being thrown aside in favour of standing up for what is right. I applaud Ms Hogan for her stand, and while I’m not sure it is entirely appropriate, it is certainly a strong statement for Justice Reagan to speak publicly on the issue.
I see the relevant spokesman – his name eludes me – commented that the media attention generated was precisely the reason thay the DL’s visa was not granted. If ever there was a definition for irony that has to be it.
As far as I’m aware, we are the only democratic country in the world who has ever refused a Nobel Peace Laureate entry. That alone is mind-boggling. When you consider the flimsy and contradictory excuses, it gets almost laughable, if it wasn’t so antithetical to everything the Constitution is built on.
Based on the government’s reasoning, I suppose it would be logical to deny the British and Irish Lions visas, in case the attention is drawn away from soccer to rugby during their 2009 tour?
It is good to see who has principles and values in government, and who doesn’t though. Because that way, when the majority who vote this government back into power end up getting screwed over for another 5 years, they won’t have anybody to blame but themselves.
Two issues: I am a bit torn about the comments of Justice O’Reagan. During the apartheid era the judciary mostly kept its head down and hardly ever spoke out. Those who did were brave and correctly lauded. But in a democracy judges should usually not make comments on political controversial issues of the day as it may affect the credibility of the judiciary. But there may come a time where it would become ethically untenable for a judge to remain silent while immoral and even abominal actions by the government threatens the constitutional state and brave judges should then speak out. While I am outraged by this deeply immoral and potentially corrupt decision I would not have made the call that O’Reagan did to speak out now. But maybe I am not brave enough. Perhaps she decided she was retiring in any case, but reluctantly I have to say I think she was unwise.
Second point: cabinet government means that when the cabinet makes a collective decision the members of the cabinet should abide by it. If they feel they cannot, they should reside. But if a policy was not adopted by CABINET, but made in smoke-filled rooms at Luthuli House a Minister does not have the same responsibility to abide by that decision. So far evidence suggest that this was not a cabinet decision, so Hogan was within her rights to criticise.
Oh, I have a third point as well. Why are journalists not asking government spokespeople or the ANC whether the ANC had received any money from the CHinese government or anyone associated with that government like the Chinese Communist Party? If they decline to categorically state that the ANC has not received money we would know the decision was not taken in the national interest but in the interest of the ANC. It will also underline the absolute imperative for legislation delaing with party political funding. How do we know our foreign policy is not up for sale? Well, we do not, because the ANC will not reveal the sources of their funding.
‘His Holiness”, the Dalai Lama, is a bit of a fake: Buddhists are not supposed to kill anything, yet he happily admits he is fond of bacon. Bacon!
And that’s not all: I’ve heard that he (He?) wants to reintroduce in a ‘free’ Tibet a system where there was no advancement or education for a country of serfs, and no employment except to serve as slaves for a self-elevated priest class. But then again, if that’s what the Tibetans want, fine.
Eating bacon isn’t exactly the same as killing the pig, although I suppose you could argue cause and effect. Do you have any backup for what you’ve heard?
In any event, the man is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and China is a repressive communist state who blocks YouTube when people say bad things about them. Who’s side do you think we should be on?
The Big Slipper @ 9:24 pm
Correction:
“and China is a repressive PREVIOUSLY communist state”
They should put you in a rooi-gevaar time machine and send you back to the seventies.
Prof we should also recognise that the current bench and political discourse is a product of the history of ‘activism’. Hogan was typically being an activist that she has always been.
Nicholson was also an ‘activist’ during the anti-apartheid struggle and his comrades were now in power and he couldnt let go the opportunity to enter into the political discourse. The Deputy Chief Justice had to meet Gwede to iron out issues. Sometimes they have to recuse themselves because of family connections to poloticians. Others end up buying shares from investment schemes run by ABSA/Tokyo Sexwale, and he had to publicly claim that he returned the money/shares. I will not go into Hlophe.
The two women have made all of us to sit and ponder, however I am waiting for an official ANC comment on this matter. It is testing times and much will depend how the ANC responds.
Events do shape societies and the man from Tibet has left us with a very hot political potato.
Our judiciary is coming of age, I guess.
The only impression that the Dalai lama left was a clear and present dangour of gaps in the anti-corruption apparatus. ANC is in bed with a new whore called china who im sure does magical things with ping bong balls. Funding political parties by foreign countries is extremely dangerous and corruptable.
Ozoneblue i think u need to go back to apartheid and see what oppression feels like or having over 80 000 people slaughted in one month.
Jirre Prof, maar jy kan darem ‘n ding sê! What can one add — you’ve said it all.
I think the Dalai Lama Affair brings the tragic consequences of the Mbeki years into sharp focus. I hope the NPA thinks very carefully indeed before dropping charges against Z (I can no longer bring myself to utter the name). They are teetering on the brink of a cesspool. They should perhaps rather think of adding some charges relating to the tapes they claim to have — for example charges under national security legislation.
Incidentally you made a typo — it’s “c’est la vie” — but the French usually say “c’est la guerre” — which, God forbid, could eventually be the case. Wars and civil wars are usually started by buffoons — and the buffoons are usually the ones to survive.
Welcome to Zumbabwe.
Big Slipper: Google is your friend.