For me, this is a real ’sitting on the fence’ argument, because I can see both sides of the story and I think they have equal merit.
On one hand, I think it is the right thing to do to be seen as not supporting a terrible regime in Zimbabwe. If we did go over, then it sends a message that we don’t care about anything else going on in the country, we just want to play cricket and that we condone the atrocious way that the government in power treats its citizens.
On the other hand though, sport has always been a great medium for change in countries. If we did go over, the people who are so oppressed in Zimbabwe would definately get a boost and this may spur on a time of uprising and (hopefully) peaceful protest. I can see how by not going, we are taking away something that the Zimbabwe people have been looking forward to for some time.
All in all however, I think that the government did the right thing in banning the cricket side from going.
What do you think?
Monday, May 14, 2007
Boycotting the Zimbabwe Tour - Right or Wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So why was it wrong for teh AI to carry out the 'Play by rules' campaign at WC?
i'm not sure i fully understand your comment, but here goes:
i don't think the two are related at all. your mention of the 'play by the rules' campaign relates to cricket. the boycott of zimbabwe relates to a much larger issue, one that is far bigger that cricket.
it involves the recognition that the leadership of zimbabwe are perpetrating human rights abuses across the country with no end in sight.
i don't think that a 'rules' campaign is in the category, do you?
if i have misread your comment, please clarify for me so i can respond.
pacey
Anonymous,
I guess you have got it wrong. for 2 reasons. First there's no relationship with AI's "play by the rules" campaign and Australia's decision to "boycott Zimbabwe". AI campaign was not at all comparable with the extent of seriousness in this incident. As Pacey said, in her comment "the boycott of zimbabwe relates to a much larger issue, one that is far bigger than cricket" (But Pacey got one thing wrong, I'll discuss it later)
Secondly Mr. Anonymous, it was "Pacey" who is the author of this post, not me "Voice in Colombo" who used to bash Amnesty International on this blog, for their "Play by the rules" campaign during the world cup. So you start attacking the wrong person :-)
Pacey, I think you were wrong (in your comment) to say " 'play by the rules' campaign relates to cricket". Actually, if you followed that debate on the internet, during the world cup, you would have noticed it's no way related to cricket.
What Amnesty International tried was to achieve their political objectives (of putting pressure on Sri Lankan government) by dragging in the game of cricket, into their publicity campaigns. They tried to project a bad picture on Sri Lanka, and sri lanka cricket team, during the world cup by distributing some leaflets and printed balls. In simple, it was "using cricket to market a political message'> No way related to cricket at all.
In my personal opinion Australia's decision is wrong, because they took that decision for the wrong reason!
At first, I thought Australia decided against the Zimbabwe tour due to security concerns. Aussies has done this before, during 1996 WC by avoiding coming to Sri Lanka. I thought this is something similar to that. If that was the reason, I'm in total agreement with the Australia's decision. No government should allow their cricket team to tour a country where you feel it's not safe to tour.
But, this time it isn't security! It's purely politics, and the decision of only one man. John Howard. This is what he had to say to the media
-------------------------------------------------
"Mr. Howard said he was banning the tour to stop Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe – who he branded a "grubby dictator" – benefiting from a propaganda coup. (LOL by VIC)
"In less extreme circumstances, the Government would not wish to penalise cricket lovers in Zimbabwe or Australia," Mr Howard said.
"However, a tour by the World Cup champions to Zimbabwe would inevitably be used as propaganda by this appalling regime." (LOL again by VIC)
--------------------------------------
This is total rubbish. I thought silly politicians are only in Sri Lanka. But they are there even in Australia. Even if Mr. Howard avoid his prestigious world cup winning team by touring Zimbabwe, Mugabe will continue his appalling regime, and will continue to be a grubby dictator.
What Mr. Howard and Australian government can do is, dealing the politics with politics. Not with sports. Dealing politics with politics means, may be taking the matters up in UN assembly, or anywhere else. Or send an Army to Zimbabwe to end Mugabe's regim. (The George Bush Approach) .
Remember, Iraq is still allowed to play international football. Afghanistan still take part in Olympics. But there are separate political campaigns going on, to create a "good governance" in those countries. So, how fair is it to Australian government to put a sports ban on Zimbabwe?
Simply said, "just leave this game alone". Politicians, AI, get away from this. To summarize, I will back up the Australian decision, if it was for security reasons. But, for the reasons they have given out, I think it's a complete wrong decision.
Well, the part I agree with is that its easy to see both sides of the argument.
The part that I feel stronger about is that Sport is all about expressing the best of human spirit and it should not be used as anything else. Not even as a form of protest against atrocity. Or pain. And this may not sound right , but even when they wear those black arm bands when someone dies, I'm not so sure...To me sports is celebration and thats all it should be. But thats just me.
Meanwhile, thanks for adding me to your blogroll. And I have just done the same.
Great blog. Keep it up and I'll keep visiting.
Cheers.
to all commenters,
thanks for pointing out what 'ai' was. i wasn't sure what you mean't.
now it becomes clearer.
with comments detailing how iraq and afghanistan are still able to play international sport, it is easy to see that there is one common theme here (that has already been expressed, and i totally agree with):
let the politicians deal with the politics and let the sport be played.
pacey
Post a Comment