Australian government ban Zimbabwe tour
Cricket Australia must be breathing a sigh of relief as they're off the hook - the Australian government has banned the Zimbabwe tour. PM John Howard waxes on the subject:
"The government, through the foreign minister, has written to the organisation of Cricket Australia instructing that the tour not go ahead. We don't do this lightly, but we are convinced that for the tour to go ahead there would be an enormous propaganda boost to the (President Robert) Mugabe regime. The Mugabe regime is behaving like the Gestapo towards its political opponents. The living standards in the country are probably the lowest of any in the world, you have an absolutely unbelievable rate of inflation. I have no doubt that if this tour goes ahead it will be an enormous boost to this grubby dictator.There's been a lot of voices weighing in on this matter recently. John Coomber at the Courier Mail argued against a government ban. If the government bans Australia from playing, it will open up a can of worms for future sporting events. Does our Olympic team go to Beijing considering China's history of human rights violations? What about Pakistan's military government? This is a complicated issue as where do you draw the line that a country crosses before we refuse to tour there? I can't honestly answer that question but one thing is certain. Whereever that line is, Robert Mugabe has left it far behind.
It's pretty obvious to me that the players and the body wanted to act in conformity with public opinion but in the end, not surprisingly, they wanted a situation where the decision was taken by the government and not the players. I don't think it's fair to leave a foreign policy decision of this magnitude on the shoulders of young sportsmen. It's much better, in the end, for the government to take the rap. I hope the rest of the cricketing world understands that and it would be a very good idea if the rest of the cricket world adopted the same attitude towards Mugabe's regime. I'm not going to stand around and allow some kind of aid and comfort be given to him by the greatest cricketing team in the world visiting his country.
This country is a disaster. It has an appalling HIV-AIDS problem, its living standards have sunk to rock bottom, it's got an inflation rate which reminds you of the Weimar (Republic), pre-Nazi Germany which we read about in our history books. It's an appalling situation."
One Zimbabwe blog suggested Australia should tour but protest Mugabe while they're there. That way, the "propoganda coup" for Mugabe would be turned on its head and Zimbabwe's situation would be even further highlighted. Great idea in theory. Only problem - I doubt whether the Australian cricketers would have the inclination or the nads to go against Mugabe in his own country.
The Zimbabwe Independent says Zimbabwe’s young and inexperienced cricketers need Australia more than Mugabe does and the tour should go ahead. But Cricket Australia have side-stepped this issue, offering to play the team in a neutral country. This way, everyone can have their cake and eat it too.
So while John Howard has the rhetoric cranked on high, invoking Godwin's Law not once but twice in the one speech (although the comparisons are apt), in the end this is the right thing to do. It may be as MT suggests that a part of Howard's posturing is for the sake of the election at the end of the year. Regardless of his motives, justice is done. You know when the opposition agrees with Howard in an election year, it's a no-brainer.
| Posted by JC on Mon 14 May |  28 comments |
Don't get me wrong, I definately don't support Mugabe's regibe, but I think the way the govt has gone about the process has been for maximum media coverage. They put the players and Cricket Australia in an awkward position. Would Howard the cricket tragic liked to have seen other countries threatening to boycott Australia in return? A little more quiet diplomacy and consultation behind the scenes was needed before the govt finally made a decision.
Posted by MT on 2007-05-14 10:52:08
Posted by MT on 2007-05-14 10:52:08
I think it works the other way around MT. If the government just came out one day and said, we are banning the Zimbabwe tour. Everyone would complain the government are dictating terms without consulting anyone or allowing debate. Also it allowed the ICC the option to work out a acceptable alternative such as playing in a neutral country.
It was obvious from day one that the government was not going to let Australia go to Zimbabwe. The fact that they were willing to pay the fine, meant that it was just a case of whether there was a third option.
Of course Mugabe has come out and said Australia is being racist, because the team they will be playing are not white.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-05-14 11:33:59
It was obvious from day one that the government was not going to let Australia go to Zimbabwe. The fact that they were willing to pay the fine, meant that it was just a case of whether there was a third option.
Of course Mugabe has come out and said Australia is being racist, because the team they will be playing are not white.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-05-14 11:33:59
I said in the other "JC's law" thread that Howard has never been keen on boycotts before. here'a a quote from The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21725090-25090,00.html
"AFTER batting the issue backwards and forwards for a time, the Prime Minister finally decided at the weekend to block the Australian cricket team's tour of Zimbabwe, much to the amusement of Meredith Burgmann. The president of the NSW Upper House until earlier this year and often described as a "radical leftie", Burgmann was dragged off the Sydney Cricket Ground and arrested for protesting against a Springbok tour in the 1970s. She says John Howard has never been a keen campaigner on human rights issues. Indeed, Howard maintained a regrettable position on South Africa for a long time, Burgmann says, describing Nelson Mandela as a traitor and publicly denouncing sanctions against apartheid. Now, though, it's apparently justified to ban a tour of Zimbabwe. "He's basically taken action against an abhorrent black regime, action that he never supported against an abhorrent white regime," Burgmann says."
I noticed Downer said he doesn't want the team to play Zim even at a neutral venue. Maybe he's forgotten we only played them a couple of months ago in a WC warm -up game?
Personally I think the neutral venue is the way to go. Though you'd have to question Zimbabwe's commitment to the game anyway considering their team's WC matches weren't even broadcast on telly.
Posted by MT on 2007-05-14 12:39:26
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21725090-25090,00.html
"AFTER batting the issue backwards and forwards for a time, the Prime Minister finally decided at the weekend to block the Australian cricket team's tour of Zimbabwe, much to the amusement of Meredith Burgmann. The president of the NSW Upper House until earlier this year and often described as a "radical leftie", Burgmann was dragged off the Sydney Cricket Ground and arrested for protesting against a Springbok tour in the 1970s. She says John Howard has never been a keen campaigner on human rights issues. Indeed, Howard maintained a regrettable position on South Africa for a long time, Burgmann says, describing Nelson Mandela as a traitor and publicly denouncing sanctions against apartheid. Now, though, it's apparently justified to ban a tour of Zimbabwe. "He's basically taken action against an abhorrent black regime, action that he never supported against an abhorrent white regime," Burgmann says."
I noticed Downer said he doesn't want the team to play Zim even at a neutral venue. Maybe he's forgotten we only played them a couple of months ago in a WC warm -up game?
Personally I think the neutral venue is the way to go. Though you'd have to question Zimbabwe's commitment to the game anyway considering their team's WC matches weren't even broadcast on telly.
Posted by MT on 2007-05-14 12:39:26
Zimbabwe's corrupted cricket board is another matter altogether and I question the value of playing Australia for Zimbabwe's players when they isolate and ostracise their best players anyway.
Interesting quote from Meredith Burgmann though.
Posted by JC on 2007-05-14 13:14:43
Interesting quote from Meredith Burgmann though.
Posted by JC on 2007-05-14 13:14:43
Of all the people to quote that was the best they could find?
Does it matter what a radical leftie says? If Burgman was true to her principles should would be complaining why the world doesn't follow Australia's action. Not complaining that Australia are doing something.
Australia should not go to Zimbabwe. Australia through Downer has been pushing for action on Zimbabwe as it self destructed under Mugabe.
Whether or not they should play in a neutral venue, that gets more complicated. As there are many pros and cons. Promoting democracy etc, versus semi-supporting Mugabe.
Personally I think we need to see some guts from other countries around the world so its not just Australia having to take the moral stand.
Also MT check out Downer's record on Zimbabwe, he has been pushing for action against Mugabe for many years. It has been a big issue for him, it just doesn't always receive alot of press.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-05-14 14:12:47
Does it matter what a radical leftie says? If Burgman was true to her principles should would be complaining why the world doesn't follow Australia's action. Not complaining that Australia are doing something.
Australia should not go to Zimbabwe. Australia through Downer has been pushing for action on Zimbabwe as it self destructed under Mugabe.
Whether or not they should play in a neutral venue, that gets more complicated. As there are many pros and cons. Promoting democracy etc, versus semi-supporting Mugabe.
Personally I think we need to see some guts from other countries around the world so its not just Australia having to take the moral stand.
Also MT check out Downer's record on Zimbabwe, he has been pushing for action against Mugabe for many years. It has been a big issue for him, it just doesn't always receive alot of press.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-05-14 14:12:47
I thing I've never been able to fathom; if it is unacceptable for any country to send a touring team to another one, how does it then become quite acceptable to invite them to tour in your country. Case in point, the Poms cancelling a Zimbabwe tour a few years back only for a return leg to go ahead. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that was all about human rights issues. If it is not player safety at issue, then surely ties should be severed, both inbound and outbound.
Would defeat the purpose otherwise, I'd have thought.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-05-14 15:27:02
Would defeat the purpose otherwise, I'd have thought.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-05-14 15:27:02
I don't necessarily agree with Burgmann's comment, I just included it as an example of Howard changing his tune which only adds to my scepticism about the whole thing.
Another thing to think about is the 20-20 World Cup in September. Aus is in the same group as Eng and Zimbabwe. If they refuse to play the Zim tour at a neutral venue then they'd have to forfeit the Zim 20-20 match (in Cape Town) and maybe miss out on going through to the next round. can't imagine Ponting will be too happy with that!
Also they are talking about restricting the players' passports so they can't tour. I had the impression (might be wrong) that the Zim tour was going to tacked on to the 20-20 WC in South Africa so how is that going to work? They can have their passports in SA but not for Zimbabwe? I just think the whole thing hasn't been thought through properly, which was my point, they should have sorted something out first before opeining their mouths.
Posted by MT on 2007-05-14 15:39:28
Another thing to think about is the 20-20 World Cup in September. Aus is in the same group as Eng and Zimbabwe. If they refuse to play the Zim tour at a neutral venue then they'd have to forfeit the Zim 20-20 match (in Cape Town) and maybe miss out on going through to the next round. can't imagine Ponting will be too happy with that!
Also they are talking about restricting the players' passports so they can't tour. I had the impression (might be wrong) that the Zim tour was going to tacked on to the 20-20 WC in South Africa so how is that going to work? They can have their passports in SA but not for Zimbabwe? I just think the whole thing hasn't been thought through properly, which was my point, they should have sorted something out first before opeining their mouths.
Posted by MT on 2007-05-14 15:39:28
I think the passport thing, was to try to get CA out of having to pay the fine, and giving the money to Mugagbe. (A loophole in the contract maybe). The government cannot unilaterally just say to Ponting and his boys "No you can't go to Zimbabwe". The only legal power the government has thats handy is to withdraw their passports. (Even that is borderline).
The whole public nature on the Zimbabwe thing, is to put pressure on both the ICC, Mugabe and to raise public awareness of the situation in Zimbabwe.
I think MT you misunderstand how diplomacy works. If Australia did this by stealth, no one would notice. The phrase, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it did it happen?" comes to mind. The whole point is to put pressure on the ICC and other countries to follow suit. No media attention, then there is no pressure.
Also Howard (or more specifically Downer) has never changed his tune on Zimbabwe. Comparing what is happening now to 30 to 40 years ago is riduclous. Just because someone said something 20-30 years ago doesn't mean he is fixed to that position. That is like saying because you shoplifted as a kid you will always be a thief.
Or that if Australia had convicts as its first settlers, the all Australian are convicts.
The reasoning behind continuing a tour outside the country is so that hopefully the Zimbabwe people see what the world should be like. That there is a better world than what Mugabe has to offer. Whether its true is another debate.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-05-14 16:32:06
The whole public nature on the Zimbabwe thing, is to put pressure on both the ICC, Mugabe and to raise public awareness of the situation in Zimbabwe.
I think MT you misunderstand how diplomacy works. If Australia did this by stealth, no one would notice. The phrase, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it did it happen?" comes to mind. The whole point is to put pressure on the ICC and other countries to follow suit. No media attention, then there is no pressure.
Also Howard (or more specifically Downer) has never changed his tune on Zimbabwe. Comparing what is happening now to 30 to 40 years ago is riduclous. Just because someone said something 20-30 years ago doesn't mean he is fixed to that position. That is like saying because you shoplifted as a kid you will always be a thief.
Or that if Australia had convicts as its first settlers, the all Australian are convicts.
The reasoning behind continuing a tour outside the country is so that hopefully the Zimbabwe people see what the world should be like. That there is a better world than what Mugabe has to offer. Whether its true is another debate.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-05-14 16:32:06
Actually, I have a friend who is a diplomat, they hate it when govts make big populist statements (mostly for domestic public consumption, like in an election year) and then leave the diplomats to clean up the mess! But it happens all the time from both sides of politics. That's what this whole thing reminds me of, the details should have been worked out with the players and CA behind the scenes and then the public announcement when it came would still have had a big worlwide impact. it might have been even more impressive if all the details had been worked out. The way it is, there's potential for embarassment of the Australian team when the 20-20 WC rolls around. Their first match is against Zimbabwe!
I should say that i don't agree with the comments that the ban is racist, I don't think it is. But I think the chance to look statesmanlike wouldn't pass Howard by - he's a consummate politician. And it certainly wouldn't hurt his standing with the electorate.
The whole thing about boycotts is it opens up a big can of worms. Pakistan isn't looking too good at the moment, Musharref is essentially a military dictator, do we ban going there? What about the Olympics in Beijing? Last I heard Falun Gong prisoners were being executed on demand and their body parts sold to rich foreigners.
My opinion on sporting boycotts is that if the politics is affecting the sports team, then go ahead with the boycott. That's the case with Zim now and SA in the apartheid years. But it's not the case with Pakistan and China (as far as I know which is not much). I know it's hypocritical, ideally you'd want to be consistent, but then there wouldn't be many teams left to play against!
Anyway the planned Zim tour and the 20-20 WC are going to be close to the next election so it will be interesting to see what happens. I jsut think it would be unfair for the players to get caught up in it all.
Posted by MT on 2007-05-14 17:44:22
I should say that i don't agree with the comments that the ban is racist, I don't think it is. But I think the chance to look statesmanlike wouldn't pass Howard by - he's a consummate politician. And it certainly wouldn't hurt his standing with the electorate.
The whole thing about boycotts is it opens up a big can of worms. Pakistan isn't looking too good at the moment, Musharref is essentially a military dictator, do we ban going there? What about the Olympics in Beijing? Last I heard Falun Gong prisoners were being executed on demand and their body parts sold to rich foreigners.
My opinion on sporting boycotts is that if the politics is affecting the sports team, then go ahead with the boycott. That's the case with Zim now and SA in the apartheid years. But it's not the case with Pakistan and China (as far as I know which is not much). I know it's hypocritical, ideally you'd want to be consistent, but then there wouldn't be many teams left to play against!
Anyway the planned Zim tour and the 20-20 WC are going to be close to the next election so it will be interesting to see what happens. I jsut think it would be unfair for the players to get caught up in it all.
Posted by MT on 2007-05-14 17:44:22
MT I think you are thinking Australia is trying to achieve a total Sporting ban on Zimbabwe.
They aren't. I know it sounds silly but basically they don't want Mugabe to have a photo of him shaking hands with Ponting. I agree. As it seems to add legtimacy to his rule.
Playing sport against Zimbabwe in a neutral country doesn't give Mugabe any legtimacy.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-05-14 18:11:55
They aren't. I know it sounds silly but basically they don't want Mugabe to have a photo of him shaking hands with Ponting. I agree. As it seems to add legtimacy to his rule.
Playing sport against Zimbabwe in a neutral country doesn't give Mugabe any legtimacy.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-05-14 18:11:55
I guess what I'm asking is if the election had been held 6 months ago, would the govt have handled this differently?
My gut feeling is yes, it would have been. Downer would have made a few noises to pressure on the players, but I reckon the actual decison would have been left up to the players, just like in 2004.
yeah, I reckon a total sporting ban on Zimbabwe is the logical conclusion to all of this. I don't really know how effective these bans are though, I know people say it was in SA but was it? Took an awfully long time if it was.
Posted by MT on 2007-05-14 19:14:38
My gut feeling is yes, it would have been. Downer would have made a few noises to pressure on the players, but I reckon the actual decison would have been left up to the players, just like in 2004.
yeah, I reckon a total sporting ban on Zimbabwe is the logical conclusion to all of this. I don't really know how effective these bans are though, I know people say it was in SA but was it? Took an awfully long time if it was.
Posted by MT on 2007-05-14 19:14:38
I am not always sure a full sporting ban will be applied.
Of course I don't actually think Zimbabwe should be playing ODI, Test or even 20/20. Except in special occasion such as world cups. They boost stats of countries that play them alot.
Following the arguement of banning South Africa, we should actually have a total sporting ban on Zimbabwe. However whether that will work with Mugabe who knows.
With South Africa it was based on forcing the democracy in South Africa to change. However I would hardly call Zimbabwe a democratic nation.
Like I said MT Australia has always pushed this issue, no matter whether its election time. Like at the last Commwealth meeting, with Australia pushing for action on Zimbabwe.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-05-15 01:05:17
Of course I don't actually think Zimbabwe should be playing ODI, Test or even 20/20. Except in special occasion such as world cups. They boost stats of countries that play them alot.
Following the arguement of banning South Africa, we should actually have a total sporting ban on Zimbabwe. However whether that will work with Mugabe who knows.
With South Africa it was based on forcing the democracy in South Africa to change. However I would hardly call Zimbabwe a democratic nation.
Like I said MT Australia has always pushed this issue, no matter whether its election time. Like at the last Commwealth meeting, with Australia pushing for action on Zimbabwe.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-05-15 01:05:17
Probably the easiest thing would be for Zimbabwe to lose ODI status as well as Test status. Then no one would have to play them. They must be on the verge of it, now they're ranked below Itreland. Can't see the ICC making the decision though.
So what about the Aus-Zim match in the 20-20 WC - play it or not? There are only 3 teams in each group so one forfeit has more impact than in the last WC. Plus winning the toss and batting first makes a lot more of a difference in 20-20. If Aus lost to England and forfeited the Zim match they'd be out!
Posted by MT on 2007-05-15 16:16:36
So what about the Aus-Zim match in the 20-20 WC - play it or not? There are only 3 teams in each group so one forfeit has more impact than in the last WC. Plus winning the toss and batting first makes a lot more of a difference in 20-20. If Aus lost to England and forfeited the Zim match they'd be out!
Posted by MT on 2007-05-15 16:16:36
Australia will play Zimbabwe in the 20-20 tournament. For Cricket Australia, whether you agree with it or not, the issue hasn't been whether to play Zimbabwe or not but whether to play *in* Zimbabwe.
Posted by JC on 2007-05-15 16:24:20
Posted by JC on 2007-05-15 16:24:20
Even though Zimbabwe is dangerous, i still dont get why they couldnt go, cause this can be a once in a life time experiance you know what i mean?
Posted by Kristy on 2007-05-22 19:24:10
Posted by Kristy on 2007-05-22 19:24:10
Australians always have been double sided, arrogant and uncivilised (how else can you define a bunch of thieves and murderess who robbed the country from the native aboriginals). Look at the case of their war on terror. While they shelter and fund terrorist organisations such as LTTE they speak about eradicating global terrorism (Especially how can they talk about terrorism when you consider they have terrorised the aboriginal people and robbed the country from them). At the same time they want to release people like David Hicks from the prison and bring them back to their sweet home. The reason – it is simple because he is a Aussie so it does not matter how terrible his crimes are as long as he is ‘a real Aussie’
The most reason case, Aussies are not going to Zimbabwe, the reason they say Zimbabwe have a dictatorship. Look who is talking, the same people who robbed the country from aboriginal people and dictate to this date!
The real reason - most of the white players of the Zimbabwe team were sacked (due to number of reason such as their reservation about including non-white players to the team) and lands were re-distributed to the right-full owners (from white farmers who robbed these lands from Zimbabwe people during the colonial period). Both of these were effecting the white people, those who have ancestral links with UK. At that time UK made a big fuss over this and naturally now Aussie (since they have ancestral links with UK) trying to talk about democracy. Look who is talking, why not start this at home. Go to your own libraries and read what you have done to aboriginal people, provide them better health care (a recent study shows they have the lowest level of health care in the world – for native people) and then and only then Aussies can even starts to think about democracy
So going back to my point, Aussies have different way of thinking (like I mentioned before it is in their genetics and related to their family history) and justifying about the same thing when it is done by a Aussie and from someone from somewhere else
Posted by LordOfCricket on 2007-05-23 12:23:46
The most reason case, Aussies are not going to Zimbabwe, the reason they say Zimbabwe have a dictatorship. Look who is talking, the same people who robbed the country from aboriginal people and dictate to this date!
The real reason - most of the white players of the Zimbabwe team were sacked (due to number of reason such as their reservation about including non-white players to the team) and lands were re-distributed to the right-full owners (from white farmers who robbed these lands from Zimbabwe people during the colonial period). Both of these were effecting the white people, those who have ancestral links with UK. At that time UK made a big fuss over this and naturally now Aussie (since they have ancestral links with UK) trying to talk about democracy. Look who is talking, why not start this at home. Go to your own libraries and read what you have done to aboriginal people, provide them better health care (a recent study shows they have the lowest level of health care in the world – for native people) and then and only then Aussies can even starts to think about democracy
So going back to my point, Aussies have different way of thinking (like I mentioned before it is in their genetics and related to their family history) and justifying about the same thing when it is done by a Aussie and from someone from somewhere else
Posted by LordOfCricket on 2007-05-23 12:23:46
You really are starting to sound like a broken record here, try something other than cutting and pasting next time.
Posted by Leeisl on 2007-05-25 01:35:43
Posted by Leeisl on 2007-05-25 01:35:43
"A bunch of thieves and murderers" - hmm makes a change from convicts at least.
I still say JC's law applies, which means we must be winning the argument...
Posted by MT on 2007-05-27 22:42:42
I still say JC's law applies, which means we must be winning the argument...
Posted by MT on 2007-05-27 22:42:42
Mm, sport and politics. Always an awful combination. If the government was REALLY against Mugabe's regime then they would put up trade sanctions and anything else to exclude it from all things Oz. Reminds me of Pol Pot all over again.
Posted by Gazza on 2007-06-22 20:49:04
Posted by Gazza on 2007-06-22 20:49:04
Post New Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.
