England in Zimbabwe?

[Rachael]

FG - I don't think the Government have an aversion to piling pressure on Zimbabwe... but they are stuck with any lead on this issue having to be cajoled out of South Africa and other African states... and with the fact that there's an almost worldwide perception that we're only interested because of the land resettlement issue.

I don't doubt Mugabe's regime is abhorent... and at least as high a priority as all the other abhorent regimes we have dealings with... but personally I'd rather we focussed our attention on those regimes we can do something about than those where anything we try and do is likely to have more negative consequences than positive consequences.

If we were making Zimbabwe priority no 1 (which I don't think we can) then it would be reasonable to make the cricketers play their part (tey certainly wouldn't have toured Iraq when that was priority no 1, nor Afghanistan before that) but until someone works out a way of getting South Africa taking a lead the case for getting the wee little cricketers to jump up and down (and bankrupt the sport in both countries) just strikes me as a bit weedy.

[Richard Jenkins]

Given that Australia and SL are both touring, I think we are in a pickle really. I think the tour will happen, but I wouldnt tour.

[Richard Jenkins]

Whats the worst that could happen if
1 the tour went ahead or
2 it didn't?

[Richard Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rachael

FG - I don't think the Government have an aversion to piling pressure on Zimbabwe... but they are stuck with any lead on this issue having to be cajoled out of South Africa and other African states... and with the fact that there's an almost worldwide perception that we're only interested because of the land resettlement issue.

I don't doubt Mugabe's regime is abhorent... and at least as high a priority as all the other abhorent regimes we have dealings with... but personally I'd rather we focussed our attention on those regimes we can do something about than those where anything we try and do is likely to have more negative consequences than positive consequences.

If we were making Zimbabwe priority no 1 (which I don't think we can) then it would be reasonable to make the cricketers play their part (tey certainly wouldn't have toured Iraq when that was priority no 1, nor Afghanistan before that) but until someone works out a way of getting South Africa taking a lead the case for getting the wee little cricketers to jump up and down (and bankrupt the sport in both countries) just strikes me as a bit weedy.

Not sure I understand Racheal!

[Farmer Giles]

Well, RMJ, the Soviet Union certainly isn't still there, although I'm not sure that the Olympic boycott had much to do with that. The thing is that we have to take sport context. It's supposed to be a tough, but friendly occupation. If Nazi Germany was still around, and played cricket, I would be furious if it was suggested we went over to have a few Tests. Zim may not be as bad as that, but it's not good. It is ruled by a dictactor, and its people (apart from the politicians and their mates) are suffering. A decision must be made at the top, either politically or the cricket authorities. Never mind the legal bit, I wonder if Caborn (is he still sports minister?) would have the guts to advise the team not to go.

[Rachael]

Busy now... and not as up on the exact ins and outs as I should be... but the crux issue remains our effectiveness in dealing with Africa as a whole: I believe the key argument is that there's no sense in making ineffective gestures that alienate most of the rest of Africa (setting back worthwhile initiatives all over the place and potentially making the emergence of new Mugabes easier) for the sake of appearing to be "getting off the fence" in the British press.

[Richard Jenkins]

Wow.It sounds desperate FG. Like I say I've really no idea what the problems are in Zimbabwe, but they sound GRIM. I wouldn't play against Nazi Germany either, nor against aparthaid South Africa or segregated America. But sometimes my morals leave a lot to be desired.
One things for sure, you don't want to make it worse as Rachael says, by Alienating Africa. But can it get any worse?
I'm surprised South Africa are apparently against us on this one, (given the history)but if the game of cricket could go bankrupt, I can understand.

[Farmer Giles]

As they say, it's a big issue RMJ. As you and Rachael say, we don't want to alienate Africa, but things are not well in a number of countries there. Until recently, the President of South Africa was denying the existence of AIDS, which is blighting huge numbers of the population. Still, this is a cricket MB, not a political one. However, I don't think going to play a few games of cricket in a badly run country is going to improve things. Perhaps not going might make a tiny difference. Who knows?

[Richard Jenkins]

I would hope that cricket could change things for people, even on a personal rather than national level, but I'm an idealist. A few games of cricket in a badly run country probably won't change much, and that's dissapointing. So I guess the tour should not go ahead. I think South Africa goes to the polls soon, so things may change; I thought it was still Mandela!!(shows how out of touch I am!)

As for Zimbabwe, perhaps if Mugabwe were to pass away or be chucked out then things may improve.
I think Mugabwe is still cross with the Uk and blames the Uk for everything,.( even the state of zimbabwian cricket)
as the UK never saw the government formed in 1980 as constitutionally legal.
The division between the Shona and Matabele people is still a problem because of Mugabwe, who was the second prime minister of Zimbabwe.



Any one for cricket? I've heard it's a spendid game that you play with a bat and ball. it's jolly good fun.

[cantplaycantalk]

Well the differences between the Germany of 1936 and present day Zimbabwe are probably not as big as you think.

Hitler had started to persecute Jews, Communists etc in 36, but he was still years away from the mass murders.

There is even a parrallel in the way both Mugabe and Hitler, A. Blame all the problems on a relatively wealthy ethnic minority. and B. Passed laws confiscating the property of said minority.

Interestingly enough it wasn't the poor workers who worked for jewish factory owners that took control of the firms and assets that were stolen from the jews either. The assets tended to go to members of the National Socialist Party (Nazis).

The current nutter even has the silly little moustache...