Zimbabwe tour 2009

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Paoli

Agree 110% with Ninjaman.

I'd rather them stop doing business with Mugabe's white cronies like John Bredenkamp, Charles Davy and co instead of banning a tour of England.

So would I, just for the record. But there is no government power in the UK to make that happen (see above). There IS a government power to keep the Zimbabwe team out of the UK.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

The big companies from the big countries did not for a long time.[...]Sports boycotts did ZILCH!!

No the big companies did not at first, like big mugs most of the UK companies did though - You underestimate Sports boycotts Ninjaman, they don't inflict financial pain but they make the isolation of a dictatorship run country as isolated as it can be.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

It was only when the anti-apartheid movement stepped the game up in the 1980s and pressure was forced on big corporations that the bite began to take hold[....] When people like Chase Manhattan moved out, then things became an issue.

Yes that's true - had the rest of the world should behind the UK when it called for sanctions against the white Ian Smiths "UDI", then the apartheid government of Rhodesia would have fell very much sooner.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

So South Africa couldn't send a team to Lords? Big deal!![...] Means very little in the scheme of things.

You really believe that?, it was not just Lords - it was the whole commonwealth.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

So are you saying, you would do something about China but they are too powerful?

I did not say that.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

There are millions of people in China starving,[...] China is not self dependent and what they mean to the Britain and the world's economy (which is what matters to how you are treated) means that you'll make a fuss over Zimbabwe (not saying you shouldn't)[...] and find excuses as to why you treat China's equally appaling actions different.

You are way off topic here, for a start we can't stop the China cricket team coming here - because they don't play cricket.What are you suggesting we do, build a multinational force and invade China - just to even things up because the UK wants to ban Zimbabwe from playing cricket in the UK.
Also I would argue that China is far more self sufficient than Zimbabwe.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

The point is members of the government of Zimbabwe and their families or any Mugabe "henchmen" are barred from entering Britain and if they have assets there are stripped of them[...]. I read somewhere one young lady whose father was a government minister was deported when all she was doing was attending university in Britain[...] Yet, someone who is making money with Mugabe too, has a daughter who was dating a Prince, 3rd in line for the throne) and, as you say, not many people would know or car, maybe because there haven't been many news reports telling them to?

On your first point - the UK banning the Zimbabwe cricket team is consistent with that action.
On your second point, sad as it may be - again it's consistent with the UK not allowing the Zimbabwe cricket team to play in the UK.
On the third point - if this is true, then the matter should be addressed - and if Prince Harry wants to date this person, then he should go abroad to do just that.
And any official who has been party to that, should be brought to book.

You made a point Ninjaman that "The sons and daughters of Zimbabwe" did not exist, well tell that to the relatives of the players next time thay are forced by economic threats by the ICC to play there - and tell that to the players having to travil there having been theatened.

[Occasional Fan]

I'd leave Prince Harry and his ladyfriend out of it, Ern. Love is a bloody powerful emotion which complicates a lot of aspects of life. Whatever the laws of the land say, it would be pretty difficult to outlaw that (I hope, anyway)!

[Ernest]

Well OF - I was not just being fair, I was being seen to be fair.

Athough your post does present a very powerfull argment, as to what should not be meddled in.

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Ernest

No the big companies did not at first, like big mugs most of the UK companies did though - You underestimate Sports boycotts Ninjaman, they don't inflict financial pain but they make the isolation of a dictatorship run country as isolated as it can be.

A poster said earlier that we must acknowledge the difference between Apartheid SA and Zimbabwe.

I do not believe, for a second, that a sports' boycott will in any way isolate Zimbabwe from anyone who matters to them - please observe regional reaction next time the Aussie or UK govt. mention zimbabwe - Mugabe's presence at the AU summit was, very recently, roundly supported by African leaders and he not very long ago received a standing ovation at a UN conference) -"quiet diplomacy" becomes vocally (and in many ways understandably) defensive.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Ernest

You really believe that?, it was not just Lords - it was the whole commonwealth.

Of course I know it was not just Lords. My point to you is how does stopping them sending a team anywhere stop the oppressive government from obtaining money to continue its oppression. The answer is, it doesn't.

Sporting boycotts do very very little in reality. The record actually backs me up on this.

That people

You are way off topic here, for a start we can't stop the China cricket team coming here - because they don't play cricket.What are you suggesting we do, build a multinational force and invade China - just to even things up because the UK wants to ban Zimbabwe from playing cricket in the UK.

I assume you are being deliberately evasive by completely choosing to miss my point because you are intelligent.

I know China have no cricket team. Neither does Saudi Arabia to add another country to the mix.

China/Saudi Arabia are just as much oppressive states as Zimbabwe. However, I bet you there will be no stopping a Chinese or Saudi Arabian team in 4 years when the London 2012 Olympics is on. Surely what is good enough for one should be good enough for the others?

Why? Because unlike, Zimbabwe which even if it was well managed would still be very insignificant on the world stage, China/Saudi Arabia are countries whose influence in the way the world is run means every government bites its tongue and only a certain level of dissent about them is allowed. All of a sudden, sporting boycotts come off the table, leaders will be met and meetings will be had over dinner with the Queen.

And I'm sure you know this, but instead of actually acknowledging my point that sporting boycotts are selectively used and for propaganda purposes, you then have to invent some sliding scale of oppression that China is not as bad as Zimbabwe, is self sufficient etc... or something else designed to help people sleep better at night. Cognitive dissonance at work.

Also I would argue that China is far more self sufficient than Zimbabwe.

Maybe so but totally irrelevant though.

You made a point Ninjaman that "The sons and daughters of Zimbabwe" did not exist, well tell that to the relatives of the players next time thay are forced by economic threats by the ICC to play there - and tell that to the players having to travil there having been theatened.

That they didn't exist is not MY point, it is the point of those in the intelligence services of South Africa.

The English team in all likelihood was not going to go anyway. Now if you are a part of a group intending to harm England players, tell me how does it benefit your cause to threaten them before they have even arrived?

No matter how many times you say it, it does not become true.

No one was FORCED to go to Zimbabwe.

I see melodrama is your forte.

If you don't want to go somewhere DON'T. But as part of the contract you signed up to, you have to accept the penalties which are either forfeiture of points or monetary compensation for loss of earnings to the other side.

The ICC oversees this but does not force anyone to go anywhere.

IF you don't want to go or don;t want to invite them, then don't.

But please spare everyone else who can't be bothered with the handwringing, the extended drawn out deliberations and false accusations of being forced to do something especially when we now you are probably not going to go anyway!!

[Ninjaman]

I should add that my point about who Prince Harry was dating was not to attack the actual young lady or him. Who everyone dates and where is their business. Just highlighting the double standard.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

My point to you is how does stopping them sending a team anywhere stop the oppressive government from obtaining money to continue its oppression[...]Sporting boycotts do very very little in reality.

In answer to your first point, I agree not sending a team will not stop an oppressive government obtaining money, but it does add to the pressure on that government - and sends a message of support to the people of that country - every little helps.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

China/Saudi Arabia are just as much oppressive states as Zimbabwe.[...] However, I bet you there will be no stopping a Chinese or Saudi Arabian team in 4 years when the London 2012 Olympics is on

You are probably right - the reason is money, I am not defending this but if the UK did not allow Saudi athletes in the country in 2012, they would retaliate with cancelling defence contracts - which would result in the loss of thousands of jobs - no government is going to commit suicide.
To deal with countries with the clout of China and Saudi Arabia would take unanimous international santions to have any effect, I would say the UN have failed the citizens of these countries.
I am not defending this at all, but I think you will find the same reaction in France, the USA, Russia or even the West Indies, who I might add off topic left the UK in the plop with no suger a few decades ago selling what would have been sold the the UK to the US "for a few dollars more".
I would argue that conditions in Zimbabwe are very much worse than in either of the counries you mention, I doubt people are starving in Saudi Arabia like they are in Zimbabwe - I bet the people of Zimbabwe would swap places.
Compare two dictators "the Sultan of Oman", and "President Mugabe", one has led his country out of the dark ages and shares his wealth with his people - the other staves his people, and some vanish into the night, and if you are really lucky - you are a White Farmer still alive.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

And I'm sure you know this, but instead of actually acknowledging my point that sporting boycotts are selectively used and for propaganda purposes,

No they are not used for propaganda purposes, what would be the point of that - what would the Uk have to gain?.Who would the propaganda be aimed at?.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

Cognitive dissonance at work.

Why's that.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

That they didn't exist is not MY point, it is the point of those in the intelligence services of South Africa.

It did not matter if they existed or not, the threat had been made - no one was certain at the time if the existed or not, the point was it put concern or even fear in the heads the the England players.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

No one was FORCED to go to Zimbabwe.

No one could have forced England players to go, perhaps Blackmail would have been a more apt word to use.

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

If you don't want to go somewhere DON'T. But as part of the contract you signed up to, you have to accept the penalties which are either forfeiture of points or monetary compensation for loss of earnings to the other side.

Nothing is as black and white as that, England players should have been given a dispensation by the ICC if ONLY because of the fact that TREATS had been made against their lived, be they real or not - the England players had no way of knowing.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by butchering lee

I do not believe, for a second, that a sports' boycott will in any way isolate Zimbabwe from anyone who matters to them[...]Mugabe's presence at the AU summit was, very recently, roundly supported by African leaders and he not very long ago received a standing ovation at a UN conference)

Sports boycotts on there own will have little impact, but is better than taking no action at all.
The sports boycott of South Africa did bite, there is no doubt about that.
With respect, there are always parts of the UN that will applaud anything or anyone - if any organaistion is worse than the ICC - then the UN has got to be that organistaion IMO.
I think it only natural that some African nations will rally behind each other, I expect he has some sympathy from certain states in that continent - that does not make Mugabe any better a leader of his nation.

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Ernest

The sports boycott of South Africa did bite, there is no doubt about that.

With respect, there are always parts of the UN that will applaud anything or anyone.

I think it only natural that some African nations will rally behind each other, I expect he has some sympathy from certain states in that continent - that does not make Mugabe any better a leader of his nation.

Yes, SA was the one exception (though the degree is unclear) which explains the lead sentence in my post.

I know which part did not stand (mugabe would call them "the usual suspects"), but it was only the British MP who walked out...Iraq was evidence that the UN is all but irrelevant, but at the same time evidence of how bad the immediate alternative is.

Mugabe is a very poor leader of his nation...that does not mean that he will be isolated following a sports ban. (the AU example - one of many - was intended as support to the inference in my lead sentence. African nations, or any other oppressed nations, did not rally behind SA).