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