Jim Eagles: Why a Zimbabwe cricket boycott would be futile

You can't help feeling sorry for the people of Zimbabwe. The man who guided the nation to independence 25 years ago has now led most of them into starvation, misery and powerlessness. And there doesn't seem to be anything they can do about it.

I went there for a holiday four years ago in the early days of Robert Mugabe's land redistribution programme. It was a marvellous time to visit because tourists were staying away in droves so we had our pick of tours and accommodation at great prices.

But for locals things were already dire - failing crops, empty shop shelves, sporadic deliveries of petrol, mass unemployment and growing violence - and since then conditions have become much worse.

What was once one of the richest countries in Africa has been transformed by Mugabe's lust for power into a disaster area. The Johannesburg-based Famine Early Warning System Network has estimated that of a population of around 11 million, half are at risk of starvation and 3.5 million have already fled abroad. The attitude of most locals was typified by one of our guides, Sophie, once an enthusiastic Mugabe supporter, who said, "I wish that old man would get on and die".

That wish is presumably because it is hard to see any other way to achieve change. The Opposition has been beaten into submission, the judicial system is a mockery, the Army has been bought and the electoral system has been manipulated to ensure the perpetual success of Mugabe's Zanu-PF. Despite widespread opposition his party has just won another election, this time with a big enough majority to change the constitution if it wishes.

But if Zimbabweans are helpless to do anything, what about the outside world? Doesn't it have a responsibility to save them from tyranny?

It was for exactly that reason I supported the invasion of Iraq. I'm sure it's very much a minority view, but I still believe it provided a salutory lesson that dictators are not invulnerable. And, incidentally, appalling though the invasion and its aftermath may have been, it is still less bloody than Saddam Hussein's regime.

But no one is talking about invading Zimbabwe - not least because South African President Thabo Mbeki remains blindly supportive of his fellow freedom fighter. So what else might be done?

Greens co-leader Rod Donald has suggested a sporting boycott and, in particular, cancellation of the New Zealand cricket team's tour this year. That's not a silly idea because we know that sporting boycotts can be effective.

The thousands of ordinary New Zealanders who turned out in 1981 to protest against the Springbok tour definitely played a part in overturning apartheid. Many of us were rugby lovers and reluctant protesters. In fact, after demonstrating outside Eden Park during the final test I raced back to a friend's house in time to cheer as Allan Hewson kicked the penalty which gave the All Blacks victory. Beating the 'Boks and apartheid made it a real win-win exercise.

But interfering with the right of sports people to play against whoever they wish or preventing them from fulfilling their contractual obligations should not be done lightly. It should happen only when the cause is overwhelming and there is a real prospect of making a difference.

The sporting boycott against South Africa was justified because apartheid was a particularly odious doctrine and because in the circumstances of South Africa it was an effective way to hurt the oppressors without also harming the oppressed.

The blacks and coloureds weren't bothered by the dearth of rugby tours. But the whites certainly were. I believe it was when the rugby-loving Afrikaners found that even their mates in New Zealand, Australia and England didn't want anything to do with them that they realised the game was up.

But do the same factors apply in Zimbabwe? The regime is certainly appalling, although it lacks the special horror of being based on a racist philosophy. However, it is not at all clear that cancelling a cricket tour will have any impact.

During my visit in 2000 I managed to see a one-day cricket international between the Black Caps and Zimbabwe at the Harare Sports Club.

From memory, there were two black players in the Zimbabwe team; in front of the stand was a group of black schoolboys with crisp white shirts and natty blue blazers; a few rows from us sat an attractive black family seemingly showing off a gawky white son-in-law; and there were a lot of young black men selling snacks.

But other than that the ground was a sea of white. "This is a real social occasion," a spectator behind us commented. "The entire white community of Harare is here."

That, of course, is pretty much what you might have expected at a rugby match in South Africa 20 years ago. The difference being that in South Africa the whites were the oppressors, they had the power; in Zimbabwe, however, the whites are just as powerless as the black Opposition.

All power lies with Mugabe, whose presidential palace is not far from the sports ground in a street sealed off by trigger-happy armed guards, and he does not come across as a man whose life is ruled by sport.

Zimbabwe's leader has shown himself impervious to what the rest of the world thinks. This is a man who simply ignores a European Union travel ban, attended a Franco-African summit in Paris last year, and was at the funeral of Pope John Paul ll. Is he really going to worry if the white folks miss out on a bit of cricket?

Unfortunately, a sporting boycott of Zimbabwe runs the same risk as imposing across-the-board economic sanctions: the only people likely to be hurt are those it is intended to help.

Responding to the boycott call Black Caps captain Stephen Fleming said: "If the information that I read suggests that it's probably not wise to go and that it will make a difference then that's something I'll consider." That goes right to the heart of the issue. Would a boycott really make a difference? Almost certainly not.