Sporting Thoughts
How can so many respected journalists and politicians unanimously agree on something that is patently wrong? The Times talked about a "clear moral case"; Clare Short's honest proclamation prompted Tony Blair to issue a similar statement: the England cricket team should not go to Zimbabwe. The arguments being jockeyed about seem to be based on security, financial and moral grounds. 'Morality' seems to be at the fore of proponents' reasons for a boycott, because by and large the other two issues are pretty settled. The ICC has declared Zimbabwe safe and secure enough a country to host cricket matches for the World Cup, and the financial implications of a boycott on both counties' Cricket associations would be disastrous if not fatally ruinous.
At this point I should admit I am no expert on all things Zimbabwe -and Mugabe-related, from all accounts (in the British press) he appears a nasty man brutally running a tyrannical regime. This I understand and appreciate, but the question must be asked: is the regime that much more morally abhorrent than others to justify this boycott? The game, or even a contentious handshake, would not legitimise this regime, this has already been done by many British firms who still trade and do business with it. Do we witness a host of other countries willing to back our courageous stand against this evil dictator, or is this, as I suspect, some post-colonial hang-up? Will we have to boycott the 2004 Olympics in China for the virtual apartheid conditions of Tibet or their bloody suppression of religious and political opposition?
Many proponents of a boycott point to the successful sporting boycott of South Africa during apartheid. However there is a clear distinction to be made between a country whose apartheid policies extended into sports teams and a country where the gripe is purely with the leader's actions. Mugabe's crimes can be crudely simplified as stealing an election, starving his people, and shamelessly persecuting a minority for political popularity. A list of other world leaders who share some or all of these characteristics would be a shameful indictment of politicians everywhere. This is not a justification for Mugabe's criminal, murderous regime, but an attempt to highlight the hypocrisy evident in the 'morality' of those that advocate a boycott.
At its most base level, the argument must focus on what would happen if we did or didn't go. If we were to boycott we would be alone, would lose points, lose money, and have no effect on the regime in Zimbabwe. If we were to go, we could craftily avoid all propaganda photo-ops for Robert and his mates, play and game of cricket and promptly leave. Best of all, we would more than likely lose the game, and so allow the Zimbabweans some light relief from their grim situation. Allow them to cheer on their multi-racial team winning, after all they don't have much else to cheer about.
9th Jan 2003