I absolutely agree that what's happening in Zimbabwe is extremely disturbing and distressing, and Mugabe is yet another tragic example (if we needed one) of how well-meaning revolutionary leaders can degenerate over time into paranoid dicatators.

That said, I would also question - to the extent that comparisons are useful in this sort of circumstanc - whether the human rights situation in Zimbabwe right now is any worse than what is happening in fifty other countries around the world which are not clothed in the vestiges of English colonialism that still tend viscerally to evoke the Anglophilic nostalgia of the residents of many Commonwealth countries.

But to say that South Africa should have the World Cup taken away from it for failing to put sufficient pressure on Mugabe is surely an absurd proposition. You might as well have called for us to have the Commonwealth Games taken away from us because of the law and order problems and other abuses in the Solomon Islands and East Timor.

Zimbabwe is a sovereign state, not a province of South Africa. South Africa is extremely reluctant to intervene other at a diplomatic level. Not only would Mbeki upset the large element in his constituency who blindly support Mugabe simply because he is hard on the Whites of Zimbabwe, but - much more importantly - he would be faced with the potential of having total responsibility for the forseeable future for all of Zimbabwe's problems on top of his own enormous ones. I doubt very much - no matter what the media often seems to suggest - that the problems of the Zimbabwean polity, economy and society are solely the responsibility of one man's maleficance and can be solved simply by reversing the decisions to relieve White farmers of their land.

Given how often people protest and demand sanctions against the US and other countries for unjustly intervening in the affairs of sovereign states (eg, Iraq, to take an obvious example) it would be ironic indeed if sanctions were imposed against South Africa for failing to take such a course of action.

Mbeke has been a disappointment in his denial of hiv being the virus responsible for the AIDS epandemic that has killed tens of thousands in Southern Africa.

He is an extremely conservative politician who is coming to the end of his term as president, a term of wasted opportunities. Let's hope his successor takes a principled stand and allocates significant funding to effectively fight AIDS. The new president could do this by stopping wasteful and unethical support to Mugabe. Zimbabwians also need moral and logistical support from all quarters around the world to evict this tyrant.

Having said that, Africa needs investment and tourism. The world cup deserves to be held for the first time in an African country. South Africa has the facilities to successfully host the World Cup. It's overdue in this continent and should not be cancelled or transferred.

South Africa does have a consitution that has been instrumental in introducing laws for Civil Unions for gays and lesbians. That is more than can be said for Howard's position against a bill of rights in general and civil unions in particular.

Unfortunately no African leaders have dared to speak up against Mugabe, lest their own domestic human rights records are put under the spotlight at home and abroad.

Advocacy for human rights in Zimbabwe needs to be taken to the UN Security Council for debate on Mugabe's crimes against humanity. He needs to be brought before the International Court of Criminal Justice and arrested whenever he steps outside of Zimbabwe. Who is up to that? Australia?

I am at a loss as to what the World Cup 2100 has to do with the situation in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe is no protectorate of South Africa. Before these human rights zombies wish to use Bush,Blair and Howard to act on their behalf let them look at the disgraceful situation in the Solomon Islands and Timor d'Este and focus their good intentions on matters Indigenous and campaign just as vigorously for a meaningful Bill of Rights and update the archaic 19th century constitution.

The argument for refusing to play the Springbocks in 2001 included that the South African Government had been claiming that the sporting contacts by other countries were endorsements of apartheid. Teams that toured South Africa also acted in accordance with the principles of apartheid. (New Zealand and Australia sent all white teams for some years. Then Maori were included in the NZ teams, but were called 'honorary whites.)

Similarly, Mugabe trumpets continuing sporting contacts as endorsement of his regime. There is a good argment for Australian teams refusing to play Zimbabwe, for by doing so, they, and we, support a vicious, evil regime. There is an argument, even if the tyrannical government is not claiming endorsement, that decining the contact presses the population to change things.

It's a novel idea to propose boycoting those nations that support tyrannical regimes in third countries. How do you argue the general principle?

If we had adopted it we could not have played the US at anything when it supported Pinochet and Sadam Hussein and the Taliban. We would not have played any of the Warsaw Pact countries. We should decline to play Pakistan now. Perhaps India, for its covert support of the Tamil Tigers? (But let us not get sidetracked on the issues of where to draw lines. They are not of moral significance.)

And Indigenous Australians here in this country live in fourth world conditions - but according to this author we are legit. pull the other leg...

While I normally enjoy reading Peter Roebuck for his eloquence, this article, though passionate, seems to have taken a logic by-pass. Exactly why did he say the 2010 World Cup should be taken out of South Africa?

Trying to marry politics and sport where they should remain apart has often been shown to be a folly. Remember the fiasco of the American Boycott of the 1980 Olympics followed by the retaliatory boycott of the Russians four years later. The Americans boycotted the Moscow Olympics because they didn’t agree with the Russians invading Afghanistan. Twenty-five years later, the Americans are invading the country themselves!

Now by Peter Roebuck’s logic, what sports should we be boycotting? If we don’t like what the Americans are doing, should we boycott the three golf majors that are being held in America this year? Or should countries not participate in the Australian Tennis open because of John Howard’s complicity with Bush?

Let’s try not to punish sports for the errors of politicians.

Even in the famous and positive example of the South African team sports ban of the seventies and eighties, this was still an issue kept within the domain of sport. The reason the South African cricket teams were banned was that their sports federations were controlled by whites only and team selections were racially based. When this state of affairs changed, independent of whether Mandela had taken power or the SA constitution had changed, or any other reason, the cricket and rugby teams were welcomed back into the world fold.

We’re having the World Cup in South Africa because the Football Federation wants to promote the sport, yes promote football, around the world, and especially this time in a developing football continent, and South Africa was thought to have the best facilities in Africa to make that a success. For some reason that I can’t figure out, Peter Roebuck wants to take that sporting opportunity away from Africa.

Fair enough Peter Roebuck but, by the same token, should China host the Olympics in 2008?

Apart from suppressing civil liberties at home, China threatens Taiwan with invasion, is dispossessing Tibetans of their land and is blocking action against Sudan in the Security Council

Politically speaking 90% of all countries in Africa are basket cases, sports is perhaps the way out for African countries. Depriving them a chance of hosting the world cup or any major sporting event is harming the average African.

Question is whether she has the resources or know-how to host major events seeing as talents are emigrating from the country in droves.

Its so easy to fulminate about the action we should take against other countries - when the results of those actions will never be seen by us.

I was in RSA when armchair activists were bravely forcing themselves to forgo their usual South African tipple and downing inferior Spanish reds to do their bit against apartheid from the comfort of Australian and English wine bars.While, in RSA black families that had lived and worked for generations in Cape vineyards suddenly became homeless, hungry, jobless and died in droves.

When all the giants like Kodak, Apple etc. pulled out no whites suffered, but thousands of black street kids appeared in the towns, babies starved to death, violence became endemic.

So yeah, now, lets teach them another lesson and take sporting events away once again. Its not the rural kids whose only hope of making something of themselves is through sport who support Mgabe. Its not desperate parents who strive to afford a pair of footie boots for their kid to give him a chance of escaping the poverty trap who support Mgabe.

The violence, horror and crime in South Africa is intolerable but much less publicised than in Zimbabwe. But hey,lets all make it just that little bit worse so we can pat ourselves on the back for our sanctimonious solutions to other countries problems. It won't, after all, be any skin off our noses.

I agree with the author of this article. South Africa should lose its right to host the World Cup. However, to assert that it should lose this right because it has chosen to support Mugabe, is an over simplification of the broader issues. For starters, if I was a soccer fan, the last place I would want to take my family to watch sport is a major city in South Africa. Law and order is non-existent and public transport is so unreliable that one is likely to be stranded or dumped in just the kind of neighbourhood you don’t want to be in. Having said that, the fact that there are now literally millions of starving and desperate refugees from Zimbabwe in South Africa, particularly in the northern provinces, doesn’t exactly improve the situation.

The reality is that, like Zimbabwe, South Africa is in constant decline. Obviously, Zimbabwe is much worse at this point. Since independence from the ‘barbaric Rhodesian regime’, life expectancy in Zimbabwe has gone from 70 to 45, inflation has multiplied by over 500%, 1 in 4 people are now infected by HIV, literacy levels have halved and the infancy death rate quadrupled. The figures reflecting just how bad it has got in Zimbabwe are endless. However, let’s not forget Zimbabwe had a ten year head start on South Africa, and Rwanda a 20 year head start on Zimbabwe etc etc.

In any case, it would seem to me that losing the Football World Cup would be beneficial to South Africa. If nothing else, the regime in South Africa would be advised to deflect international attention long enough for it to hoard away billions from the treasury as Mr Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe.

To suggest that what is happening in Zimbabwe is no worse than what is happening in many other countries is incorrect. Genocide is occuring in Zimbabwe. It is not hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands dying in Zimbabwe, but hundreds of thousands. Some estimates range into a couple of million. Rather than actively committing this genocide, like those committed by the Germans during WW2 or in Rwanda in the 1990's this one is being committed largely like that of 1917 in Turkey against the Armenians, or in China under Mao- No need for death camps when you can just starve people to death.

The more I think about meher baba's comments, the more I disagree with them. (Hope meher's still following the thread.) The difference between Australia's approach to the Solomons and East Timor, and South Africa's approach to Zimbabwe, is that Australia is actually doing something constructive in these two countries and is actively engaged, risking its own service personnel and investing large sums of money- precisely what Roebuck is advocating SA should do in Zimbabwe. Meher's analogy does not make sense.

It should also be noted that if you want to influence the policy of a government which doesn't care if it is isolated from the international community, there is little you can do short of military intervetion. Sanctions, despite their best intention, will always hurt the innocent, and rarely affect the position of the government. The judgement must be made to whether it is less immoral to allow a despot to remain in power and continue to kill his country's people, or to kill many of his country's people in the process of deposing him.

The other thing that everyone is forgetting, is that this is Africa we’re talking about.
What apartheid did was draw so much attention to the black v white debate, that it glossed over (a) that most racism in Africa exists between people of the same colour (b) Africans are incapable of forming and maintaining a government without endemic and paralysing nepotism, corruption and racial discrimination.
I’m sure I’ll be labelled either cynical or a racist but a fact is a fact. There is not one nation in Africa that has succeeded since independence-by succeeded I mean maintained a government of any sought that has provided a stable, healthy and prosperous environment for the population (Botswana is closest to having done so).

Dozer
I think Meher baba’s comments about East Timor referred to Australia’s years of inaction and sitting on their hands before they actually did anything. In that light the analogy makes more sense.

I have no immediate solution to the Zimbabwe problem, and I’m not sure who does, but the question posed by Roebuck is ‘Does South Africa deserve to hold the 2010 World Cup?’

I am wondering why these two questions should be so closely related?

Dozer suggests that Mbeki should be considering military invasion. I think that invading and annexing a country is a rather radical method for ensuring the rights to a sporting tournament. Does this mean that if South Africa overthrows the Mugabe regime, and then if things there appear to be picking up a bit before 2010, then we can all go and support the Socceroos waving our green and gold with a clear conscience? I hope that putting this question in such ludicrous terms highlights the folly of what Roebuck was talking about.

Roebuck suggests that we should take away the Cup from South Africa and give it to a more ‘civilised’ country like Brazil or another Western European country with a ‘perfect’ human rights record.

I think it would make marginally more sense, if they wanted to make some kind of a protest, that if we approach 2010, and things in Zimbabwe have not improved then the Football Federation could just scrap the tournament, and instead of playing football, simply hold four weeks of mourning for those in Zimbabwe who have lost their livelihoods or their lives. That would get the world’s attention, but I’m not sure if FIFA would agree to that. Why should world football, or African football, take the sacrifice for the problems in Zimbabwe?

I agree with dozer’s later comment, sanctions usually hurt the innocent.

wre, once again your knowledge of world history is astounding, bravo

rainier- I’m guessing your comment was more sarcastic than genuine. Either way I’ll take it. Thanks!

Hello Mick,

I disagree with you on Meher baba’s meaning. I think that if he meant to suggest that Australia should have forfeited the rights to, say, the Brisbane Commonwealth Games in 1982, he would not have referred to “the law and order problems and other abuses,” and instead have referred to, (at least in reference to East Timor,) “invasion and genocide.” Furthermore, if he was referring to the years of inaction, he should not have made the analogy- as Roebuck is suggesting pressure should be placed upon SA to take a harder line towards Zimbabwe now, while Meher would be suggesting to punish Australia for its inaction in the past, despite the fact that it is now engaged in both East Timor and the Solomon Islands.

You are right to suggest that taking away the World Cup from South Africa is not really all that intelligent, or feasible. Even to use it as a bargaining chip to coax or compel SA to take stronger action would probably be counterproductive, and would quite rightly be taken as a huge insult. Nevertheless, pressure needs to be placed on the Zimbabwean government, and just about the only way to do that is through South Africa. More creative options than that suggested by Roebuck need to be put on the table. Importantly, scurrilous accusations of racism and neo-colonialism must not be allowed to hijack efforts- far more black Zimbabweans are suffering and dying than white Zimbabweans.

Invading and annexing Zimbabwe shouldn’t be a prerequisite to holding the World Cup in South Africa. But it may have to be an option which is “left on the table” if anything can be done to keep Zimbabwe from falling into oblivion. The point I make is that when dealing with leaders and governments who do not care for international isolation, force is often the only language they understand. Also, there is rarely a high moral ground when it comes to invasion. There are no good options. Many, many people die, either way, generally in equal numbers.

Well,well,well,
The way some of you people talk of South Africa and Zimbabwe is beyond me,especially when you comment on heresay of tabloids and the like. Have any of you actually been to South Africa? If so, Did you go there on holiday to be ushered around in a tourist bus, showing you only the nicer and more appealing side of South Africa? Try living in City centres, where the local hotels have demarcated a tourist route through so-called heritage areas, where in fact its through areas that people have been mugged in broad daylight and some never seen again. This is the side of South Africa that is covered-up.
All you see in the news are the suffering of blacks and black children not the suffering of white children, also living in horrendous conditions. Please, to those who have never been to South Africa and witnessed the Politics between blacks themselves, not black and white. There is descrimination running rife and the white is dwindling in the middle somewhere. This is beyond the old regime and gone over board to pure black power struggle, the ever increasing involvement of religion in politics and using religion to gain the upper hand in politics. Hoe de donner werk dit? South Africa has nothing to do with Zimbabwe except for the fact of their president sticking his nose where he should not, and propmpting the black South Africans to "take their land back"? I wont even go down that route.
Spanky

Spanky,
You talk as if you know more about SA than anyone here. But in all you’ve said, your position is not clear (unless I’ve missed it). Should South Africa host the 2010 World Cup or not?

You say you don’t like religion getting mixed up in politics. Is it okay to mix sport and politics?

You say that South Africa is such as terrible place. I suppose that means you think they don’t deserve a premier sporting event. But what if hosting the tournament just helps the economy a little? Or maybe they deserve any help.

You ask whether any of the people commenting here have ever been to South Africa. Well, I was born there, but I haven’t visited in quite a while. Let’s assume that that disqualifies me and all the other Australians who are wanting to comment on this Australian based website. Hoe de donner werk dit?

So I turn to my South African friend who is just visiting here at the moment, and ask his opinion on Peter Roebuck’s idea to take away their World Cup. He furrows his eyebrows, scratches his head, and says, “I am no fan of Mbeki’s Zimbabwe policy, but that just doesn’t make any sense. Peter Roebuck has always had some funny ideas”.

Mick V,
Good to hear from you, After living in SA for the past 35 years and witnessing plenty, I am just one of those joes out there who believes that before anyone even thinks of hosting a sporting event like the 2010, SA has a lot to make up in just 3 years time, this without looking at the security aspect, which plays a major role with an event of this magnitude.
I left SA in July of 2006 with my family,one of the reasons is 2010!
Port Elizabeth is about to become the centre for all drug lords, beggars and thieves, thats not even counting those arriving from across its borders, as it has been noted that everyone from all country's north of SA, will cross SA Borders with a little pass card, can you imagine?
Besides this, when will people learn? How many tourists have been kidnapped, if not murdered visiting South Africa? as I said, just another Joe.
Spanky

Spanky is quite right. Although I have stated (and reiterate) that more blacks than whites have been victimised in Zimbabwe, it would also be quite accurate to describe what has happened in Zimbabwe (to the white farmers) as ethnic cleansing. It may be less visible, but this is also happening in South Africa.

However, I'm sure a good socialist would justify this as class struggle.

Hi Dozer,The problem,young blacks in South Africa are ranting&raving about something that happened before they were born & using the racism thing as an excuse for gain.I agree with the ending aparthied way back when,but the fact that the SA black people had work,had food,now it's worse than before.Story goes,that once the new government was voted-in,something in the region of R600M supposed for new homes.Ifthey saw 1/4 of that money,they were lucky.80,000 were to be built,not complete and were supposed to have been completed(I stand corrected)by 2005. Placing uneducated black people in prominent positions within companies been going for decades,in the name of affirmative action will always baffle me.Not a vindictive or sour person who wants to vent his anger on the past,present,future of SA,in my mind, we move on and SA is dawning on new era,new life.Its the way they are doing it that bugs the living cr@p out of me!I dont know if you know about the one government chap(no names)after seeing how many South Africans were leaving SA per annum, he stated "if you want to leave, then leave" the majority of the people were leaving Doctor,Architects,Lawyers,people who are needed to help communities,the Government crying for doctors &nurses&all to re-establish what theyre busy breaking down due to the over abundance of street children &workless people,moving into empty buildings and burning them to the ground,no,not just old to newish buildings,but Heritage,they are killing their own history,this has nothing to do with racism,as they think by destroying statues,parks & monuments will be the end of all that is white.They want to host the 2010 world cup,but theyre so busy breaking it all up and trying to upgrade for the 2010 in Port Elizabeth,they will have to do what they have been doing all along when the time comes,order the planes to approach PE from a different direction than usual,so as for the visitors not to see the the muck building up amongst the city with slums & broken down buildings,this is what they do there,cover up for international media,blocking what is actually going on.I love SA,but its all gone,Spanky

Hi Mick V,
Politics is not sport? Did you not see the various SA government officials on tv when they drew the host winners? Long Jump, High jump, Screaming like banshees and the topper of the evening was the Slam dunking of a fat R7000 000 CHEQUE for the two who did absolutely blow-all. That is sport,is it not?

Spanky,
No, I didn't see those guys, but you make a fair point.

I have a friend who is still in South Africa who once said to me, 'The whites had their chance to wreck South Africa. Now its the blacks turn. It's their right.'

Hi Mick V,
Your friend in South Africa is absolutely,100% on the ball, please send him my regards and say HOWZIT!!
Spanky

In today's Age, Peter Roebuck wrote another article on Zimbabwe. He should be congratulated for continuing to keep the issue in the public spotlight.

Dozer,
Unfortunately, Get ready for another ZIM, Its called SA.
Its bigger and a lot more populated than Zim, it will take a little longer than with what happened in Zim, due to there being more people in power. The cultural aspect is much larger than Zim, hence the 26 official languages in SA, which I personally think will diminish over the next few years and will probably be Xhosa and English. I would not be surprised if Port Elizabeth becomes the new trading mecca in SA in time to come, as PE has become a focal point of world trade, the advent of the Nelson Mandela statue, designed and approved for construction in PE,if it transpires the 2010 will take place in PE.
A lot is going to happen over the next 12 months...watch this space for more...
Spanky

Mick V,
You asked Dozer in one of your dicussions as to what is the relationship between South Africa and Zimbabwe? If I may comment on one of the aspects that may shed some light on this: Zimbabwe is geographically "land-locked" surrounding it are country's that are in one instance under british rule. the other side is wracked with famine, to the south is South Africa, thus making Zimbabwe one of the major gateways to reach South Africa for the arrival of 2010 and all countries North of Zim's Borders.
Spanky

Congratulations to the Australian government for banning the cricket tour to Zimbabwe. Jeers to the UN for electing Zimbabwe to head the UN commission for sustainable development. Oxymoron, anyone?