Tony Karon at Time surmises: “the South African government appears to have concluded that the outrage of Tutu and other human-rights campaigners is preferable to the wrath of the country's major trading partner and foreign investor.” But Karon adds that shutting out prominent public figures to avoid controversy is business as usual in the diplomatic world.

Come to think it, civil rights advocates have pointed out similar phenomena in the United States, particularly aimed at foreign scholars with non-orthodox political views. Oddly, such cases of "ideological exclusion" don't seem to attract as much attention as the rebuff of the Dalai Lama.

In related news, the United Nations conference on racism in Geneva was threatened by Washington's rejection of references to Israel and religious discrimination in the agenda. But recent tweaks to the draft text indicate that the United States was considerably more successful than South Africa in bending the conference agenda to suit its interests on Israel-Palestine.

Will we be hearing international outcry over the U.S. government's ironic political manipulation, blatantly aimed at buffering an ally against accusations of apartheid? Will the uproar in South Africa stir public consciousness about the Middle East as the World Cup draws thousands to the seedbed of the global anti-apartheid movement? (WBAI news touched on this issue; listen to the broadcast here at 48:00)?

So far, not bloody likely. If the derailment of these conferences demonstrates anything, it's the gap between words and deeds that defines contemporary global politics.

Image: Sasa Kralj / Associated Press