Visas the tip of an iceberg

I'll definitely agree with Britain, surely how one rationalize the fact a person from outside the country get an ID easily than SA citizen.

Frankly, I can't blame Britain for resorting to this stance. In fact,
I'm surprised they did not do this years ago! The Mbeki regime has
strategically blundered in the last decade on many of the positions it
took in the UN Security Council. A few could be forgiven but SA had a
pattern to its voting that left many wondering. I'm still trying to
make sense of the Mbeki's s diplomatic tactics in the international
community.

The more perplexing problem however is the "non-South Africans were
increasingly being found in possession of South African passports"
issue which is a major security problem especially for the UK. The
sudden swelling of certain immigrant populations in South Africa is
puzzling since crime, unemployment and xenophobia does not make it a
particularly attractive destination compared to other places in the
world. Most of these recent immigrants I spoke to did not regard South
Africa as a permanent home, instead they saw it as a stepping stone to
get to the UK and possibly US for better economic opportunities.
Anyway, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since I cannot
possibly imagine their economic struggles back home but I sill cannot
help thinking that something just doesn't smell quite right because:
1. They don't hesitate for one iota in getting married to a South
African citizen to obtain legal status in fact this is the usual mode
of operation.
2. I cannot help wondering where they obtain the economic resources to
attempt this multi-stage emigration plan.
3. They seem to have a ready made network in the immigrant community
that are unusually helpful to one another setting up bank accounts,
jobs and communications back home.
Maybe all of this the usual immigration mode of operation and I'm
simply too suspicious a character, but based on my superficial
knowledge of immigration, I know how difficult each of the above is to
obtain in a new country where you may not even speak the language!

For the UK to close this security vulnerability makes sense. Its a
pity so many South Africans have to be inconvenienced because SA did
not want to work with the UK to plug this security loophole.

While this is hugely frustrating (and expensive), it is very difficult to fault the British authorities as to the reasoning? One has to assume that people wanting to do harm will find ways and means in which to do so.

The bitter little under-current is South Africa's unwillingness to stand up for what is right in the international forums. A prime example is the inexplicable non-commital attitude to the disaster in Zimbabwe. If South Africa wants to be respected in the international community, surely it has to a) stop support of oppressive regimes; and b) really crack down on the rampant crime that infiltrates every facet of the country?

Until then, I respect (through gritted teeth) the rights of another country to make sure that they are not letting hoodlums over their borders.

"...we are no dumping ground for your problems" -- marvelously consistent with the policy on our northern borber!

While passport security is a legitimate issue, there were many countries that opposed the mandate creep of the (unrepresentative) UN Security Council to human rights issues, which is under the purview of the Human Rights Council. Just like "pre-emptive war" was not under the mandate of the UNSC similarly was Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe.

There is a frighteningly simplistic presentation of these issues and an emotive stance taken on these issues without looking at the instrumentality of the UNSC. Countries have legitimate concerns about expanding the mandate of the UNSC after Iraq and rightly so. Why have the journalists not looked at the relevant legal treaties/charters, and the record of these countries presentations at the UNSC on these issues? This is recurring theme in M&G reporting and perhaps the paper is siding with the UK and US despite being warmongers and scapegoating other countries that may have other agendas but are nevertheless protecting the integrity of the UN.

"A senior South African home affairs official, who chose to remain anonymous, complained that Britain had wanted to deport illegal immigrants with South African passports to South Africa en masse.

"They never gave us a list so that we could check whether these people are truly from South Africa or whether they fraudulently obtained the passports. So they wanted to send them all to us, thousands of them. And we said no, we are no dumping ground for your problems."......

What blatant idiotic stupidity ...... and of course one really has to wonder if this is not one of those with somewhat dubious qualifications - but a senior home affairs official....?

First, one really has to wonder just how much this particular "official" has been making in "kickback" and bribes to come up with this convoluted response. Secondly one really has to wonder his (or her) actual qualifications and understanding of the actual protocols regarding both illegal immigrants and those with so called fraudulent passports.

Perhaps, someone with a modicum of intelligence could explain that under the control of any illegal immigrants, the correct protocol is to return them to the point of origin - that is the place who allowed him (or her) to actually board the plane in the first instance. If your corrupt officials allowed him to board, then you are responsible for his repatriation - END OF STORY!

What happens to him (or her) when they are forcibly returned, is not the concern of Britain but those of South Africa, after all they have South African passports ...... do they not?

In response to the comment posted by Bashar Teg,
It should be noted that while many countries in the UN were not in favor of the UNSC resolutions tabled at the security council during SA's tenure, no rational human-right endorsing countries were included in the list.

To be sure, SA was truly at fault for not supporting an agenda that goes to the core of similar historical atrocities in our own country. Could we truly be so lythe as to pander to, better, facilitate similar acts of terrible magnitude elsewhere in the world? Zimbabwe's problems are our problems, and inaction on our part due to complicity on the highest level in our government with a malfeasant nut-job ruler to our north is unconscionable. Never mind what's going on in Burma and elsewhere in the world. Come on folks, are we really such a prepubescent world power that we decide to use our time on the security council to throw our weight around and push the overused misguided (and misinformed) west-bashing agenda? Who do we think we are? I think that the repercussions that have come to pass; frosty UK relations, and undoubted exasperation from the US also. It all points to the lack of responsibility we have shown to a greatly important role we were entrusted; to right wrongs in troubled countries. There is no "simplification" to be had in the goings-on in Burma and Zimbabwe - they are simply wrong and we did our utmost to prevent measures to help the suffering of the people's of those countries.

Sadly, its seems that we missed the irony in our playing-god. Could you imagine South Africa today had the nations of the world not stirred to stop Apartheid and segregation laws? These resolutions were passed on the UNSC. What a ridiculous parody we've played on our own national history. Beyond the specifics of our historical situation, the fact remains; we blocked vetted resolutions that were set before the UN's security council for petty rewards. Well done SA. And well done to the UK for sending us a message that it wasn't alright to do so.

Mr Basha, do you really want to single instance of government partisan participation and that is South Africa's involvement with Zimbabwe? If there is anything which shows why the western nations are dismayed with South Africa our nambi-pambi attitude to Mugabe takes the cake. Oh yes and all the other repressive regimes which do not practice democracy, do you really want South Africa with its great legacy of fighting for freedom to be branded as yet another compromised African nation. We should not ever be taking our lead from others but from a deap concern for the various freedoms of others, no matter who they are or where they live. You haven't got the message yet, the world wants leaders with greater integrity, compassion and vision, not useless ideologues that we currently have to suffer in many parts of Africa!

I am currently in Taiwan and have recently noted in the English newspaper that the UK has decided to lift visa requirements for citizens of Taiwan. Taiwan's house obviously is in order, ours apparently not.

Bashar thanks for the clarity, the fact of the matter as with Zimbabwe, Burma and indeed AIDS, often what is reported on is what the gov did or did not do without factoring in the rationality of the action or lack of. I would very much rather debate the merits of Mbeki's questions around Aids and whether he should at all have raised those questions.
It would seem, in the bigger scheme of things, that we are being punished by the UK for being recalcitrant of international affairs and deliquent internally. I am quite eager to insist on our right to self determination, go ahead take the visa, if that is the price we must pay for not dancing to your tune, we are happy to.
Lastly, I find quite a straightforward request that the official from the Home Affairs should demand evidence that the immigrants indeed came from SA and what better way to do than saying give us the list so we can check if indeed they originated from SA?
In this era of post modernism what is seen to be right by UK, would that extend to us, likewise we understand them to be responsible for their actions/inactions and so we are and that's that.

If the reason for applying the visa rule is based on the security risk, Britain is within its rights to do so.

The UK is within its rights to ensure the security of its citizens. We all know that our Home Affairs is both corrupt and incompetent. It is easier for a foreigner to obtain an ID than a South Africa. I know of many Zimbabweans who have SA IDs from corrupt officials. With regards to the UN resolutions, South Africa is within its rights to vote as it rationally sees fit.Mugabe ordered the killing of thousands of people in Matabeleland in the early 80s but he continued to be the darling of the UK until he decided to remove White people from the land. There is too much hipocrisy in world politics. The UN should pass the resolution condemning the US war on Iraq which has always been seen that it had nothing to do with teerrorism but more to do with the future of the US economy which is so dependent on oil.

The UK uses Visas as a stick to discipline African Countries when they do not support their policies.They sulk like the kid with the ball in the playground. SA must retaliate and slap visas to the British. In any case Britain is crowded, expensive and cold and one wonders what the fuss is about. There are many other friendly places to go.

Why dont we charge these Britons a lot for our minerals...they cant only have it their way.

And we'll see who's having the last laugh??? They're already on recession...

A recession in Britain means reduced demand, therefore we cannot charge more for our minerals, unless we reduce production. This is taught in Economics 101. A dramatic reduction in the production of minerals may support the price, as OPEC does with its oil cartel, but it will also mean the shutting down of mines which will result in many layoffs. More people to be added to our already bloated government grant scheme funded by the beleaguered tax payer and a ballooning deficit. It took over one hundred years to establish the infrastructure that supports SA and its people. To squander it on prejudice, low self esteem, racism, greed and corruption would be a shame.