Denying the Dalai Lama: South Africa’s visa diplomacy, human rights and the media

Suzette Van Der Westhuizen,Jo-Ansie Van Wyk

doi:10.7552/0-1-2-171

Abstract

South Africa has declared human rights a cornerstone of its foreign policy. However, its denial of visas to the Dalai Lama to visit South Africa on three successive occasions is illustrative of the contradictions in the country’s human rights foreign policy. South Africa’s decision to promote Sino-South African relations rather than address the causes of the Dalai Lama’s exile, and China’s occupation of Tibet and poor human rights record has resulted in widespread media reaction in South Africa and abroad. Three related matters were highlighted, namely South Africa’s human rights foreign policy; the country’s visa diplomacy and its refusal of visas to the Dalai Lama to promote Sino-South African bilateral trade and diplomatic relations; and the media as a key domestic foreign policy actor. This study uses a constructivist approach. It concludes that the South African media framed and constructed the South African government’s public and visa diplomacy in respect of the Dalai Lama from the ideational turn (the promotion of human rights) whereas South Africa’s foreign policy is presented as replaced by a hegemonic turn in favour of China.

Highlights

China’s power, status and prestige, as well as its ideological and solidarity links with South Africa makes it a very attractive diplomatic partner
Asked if South Africa had consulted China before taking the decision not to grant a visa to the Dalai Lama, the South African government said it was a decision taken by the South African government alone (Pretoria News, 25 March 2009)
The South African media reviewed for this research payed considerable attention to the Dalai Lama Affair, while displaying predominantly negative media attitudes towards the South African and Chinese governments

Summary

Introduction

China’s power, status and prestige, as well as its ideological and solidarity links with South Africa makes it a very attractive diplomatic partner. The media argued that the way the government handled the matter suggested a lack of moral fibre and ineptness in the foreign policy arena (Cape Times, 5 October 2011) Analysts such as Adv. Shami Kholong, a policy and risk analyst, concurred that the government’s “abortion” of the Dalai Lama’s visit undermined a pillar of the South African Constitution, i.e. the protection of human rights (The Star, 6 October 2011). Asked if South Africa had consulted China before taking the decision not to grant a visa to the Dalai Lama, the South African government said it was a decision taken by the South African government alone (Pretoria News, 25 March 2009) Both countries did, clearly use public diplomacy such as media statements and public engagements to state their positions on the matter engaging the public through the media. This sentiment was expressed by analysts, but the government did not see its way clearly to articulate this angle in public communication

Conclusion

Discussion