Why the hypocrisy on Zimbabwe ?

[social]

So In short, it didn't mean anything, if at all it made the matter worse.


QUOTE]


So, you would have preferred the Commonwealth to do nothing?

 

[social]

Clutching Straws ? The above BS is not same as not having diplomatic/trade relationship with Zimbabwe.So, Does Australia maintain a DIPLOMATIC relation with ZIMBABWE ? YES

Technically, Australia maintains diplomatic relations.

The reality is otherwise - in short, it's impossible to conduct a relationship when one party has a policy of not talking to the other

It's so typical of you to blame 'Black African Nations' for the failure if Security council motions. Can you please name these 'Black African Nations' that are the member of the Security council and have the authority to VETO a Security Council motion passed by the majority ?[/

QUOTE]

Whilst no black African country has the right to veto a security council resolution, UN resolutions against Zimbabwe have generally failed because certain countries are unwilling to support motions that do not carry the support of black neighbouring countries e.g. South Africa, Ghana, etc

In some instances, there is a genuine concern that to do so would risk upsetting the balance in Africa.

Others use it as a crutch for making a decision which, in effect, is borne of ulterior motives e.g. sticking the boot into America

 

[Sanz]

So your country goes to war over the rights of another people, loses and yet is somehow morally bankrupt for attempting to find another means of resolution?

And you think India's Stand on Tibet is same as it was in 1962 ? I am proud of our stand on Tibet in 1960s but not anymore, Govt today has accepted Tibet as an automous part of China.

You obviously favour the "beating your head against a brick wall approach."

No I favor consistency.

 

[Sanz]

Technically, Australia maintains diplomatic relations.

Thank You.

The reality is otherwise - in short, it's impossible to conduct a relationship when one party has a policy of not talking to the other

I dont need to know the reality from someone like you. You dont have the credibility to educate me on that.

Whilst no black African country has the right to veto a security council resolution, UN resolutions against Zimbabwe have generally failed because certain countries are unwilling to support motions that do not carry the support of black neighbouring countries e.g. South Africa, Ghana, etc

Fact is 'Black African Nations' aren't in the majority, Fact is they dont have any power if the majority decides to pass a resolution against Zimbabwe. They are unwilling to support security council reloutios, but these reolutions dont fail because of these 'Black African Nations' which you claimed in your previous posts.

In some instances, there is a genuine concern that to do so would risk upsetting the balance in Africa.

Others use it as a crutch for making a decision which, in effect, is borne of ulterior motives e.g. sticking the boot into America

Whatever..it is not same as 'Black African Nations' vetoing Security council resolutions against Zimbabwe.

Get your Facts right, before you make allegations and claims about any particular group.

 

[Sanz]

So, you would have preferred the Commonwealth to do nothing?

No, Commonwealth did the right thing, but it had no effect on Zimbabwe like China. Just because some things dont have any effect on China, doesn't mean one should not take a stand against them as you have been suggesting all along.

 

[social]

And you think India's Stand on Tibet is same as it was in 1962 ? I am proud of our stand on Tibet in 1960s but not anymore, Govt today has accepted Tibet as an automous part of China.



No I favor consistency.

Same thing

 

[social]

Thank You.



I dont need to know the reality from someone like you. You dont have the credibility to educate me on that.



Fact is 'Black African Nations' aren't in the majority, Fact is they dont have any power if the majority decides to pass a resolution against Zimbabwe. They are unwilling to support security council reloutios, but these reolutions dont fail because of these 'Black African Nations' which you claimed in your previous posts.



Whatever..it is not same as 'Black African Nations' vetoing Security council resolutions against Zimbabwe.

Get your Facts right, before you make allegations and claims about any particular group.

Fact is that there are 3 black African nations currently sitting on the UN Security Council

Fact is that not one supports the applications of Australia and New Zealand, amongst others

Fact is that those having right of veto have massive economic investments in Africa and will undoubtedly listen to the "concerns" of the black African countries

That's reality I'm afraid

 

[social]

No, Commonwealth did the right thing, but it had no effect on Zimbabwe like China. Just because some things dont have any effect on China, doesn't mean one should not take a stand against them as you have been suggesting all along.

It doesnt just have zero effect on China, it has the potential to have a massive negative impact upon the nation taking the action - it's unbelievable that you fail to grasp such a simple concept

 

[Athlai]

Where did the cricket go?

 

[SJS]

Where did the cricket go?

Where indeed ?

 

[Sanz]

Fact is that there are 3 black African nations currently sitting on the UN Security Council

3 out of 15 isn't majority.

Fact is that not one supports the applications of Australia and New Zealand, amongst others

Why should they support Aus/NZ's hypocritical stand, at one hand they continue to maintain diplomatic/trade relationship with Zimbabwe, invite Zimbabwe to play cricket in their own country and earn their share of revenue, but when it is their turn to tour Zimbabwe they pick the 'Morality' Flag.

Fact is that those having right of veto have massive economic investments in Africa and will undoubtedly listen to the "concerns" of the black African countries

That's reality I'm afraid

So according to your reality, its not really the 'Black Countries' that have stopped the Aussie resolution, but the Super Powers protecting their interests and money. Good way to prove yourself wrong.

 

[social]

3 out of 15 isn't majority.



Why should they support Aus/NZ's hypocritical stand, at one hand they continue to maintain diplomatic/trade relationship with Zimbabwe, invite Zimbabwe to play cricket in their own country and earn their share of revenue, but when it is their turn to tour Zimbabwe they pick the 'Morality' Flag.



So according to your reality, its not really the 'Black Countries' that have stopped the Aussie resolution, but the Super Powers protecting their interests and money. Good way to prove yourself wrong.

1. Several western governments (US, Britain, France - all members of the security council) have called on African nations to put pressure on Mugabe to resign as it is generally recognised that without their support, such calls are doomed to failure.

As yet, those calls have gone unheeded so the west (including the UN) is taking no real action

2. a. ACB makes no money out of Zimbabwe tours, quite the opposite in fact

b. are willing to pay a fine of $2 million to ensure that Zimbabwe doesnt lose anything from their stand

c. Australia is unwilling to implement trade sanctions as they recognise that the average Zimbabwean is impoverished in any event and such actions would only add to the hardship

d. You and I have more of a diplomatic relationship than current regime in Zimbabwe shares with Australia

3. Why would the west shoot themselves in the foot when Africans dont care enough about themselves to help on the Mugabe situation

 

[Smudge]

How many journalists to they hold in prison? Is it something like 36?

Should be more, IMO.

 

[social]

Hmmm, wonder who has more credibility on this issue, Sanz or .....

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/zimvaus/content/current/story/293675.html

 

[Poker Boy]

3 out of 15 isn't majority.



Why should they support Aus/NZ's hypocritical stand, at one hand they continue to maintain diplomatic/trade relationship with Zimbabwe, invite Zimbabwe to play cricket in their own country and earn their share of revenue, but when it is their turn to tour Zimbabwe they pick the 'Morality' Flag.



So according to your reality, its not really the 'Black Countries' that have stopped the Aussie resolution, but the Super Powers protecting their interests and money. Good way to prove yourself wrong.

Actually NZ's government refused to issue the Zimbabwean team with visas, so their last scheduled NZ tour (late 2005) never happened.

 

[pasag]

Looks like the govt are looking for legal avenues to bar the tour now, even if it means introducing new laws to stop it.

 

[Sanz]

3. Why would the west shoot themselves in the foot when Africans dont care enough about themselves to help on the Mugabe situation

MORALITY..which is what Aussie players, Board and govt are citing as their reason to boycott the tour. Although all this morality talk goes in the trash when we talk about CHINA.

 

[Sanz]

1. Several western governments (US, Britain, France - all members of the security council) have called on African nations to put pressure on Mugabe to resign as it is generally recognised that without their support, such calls are doomed to failure.

As yet, those calls have gone unheeded so the west (including the UN) is taking no real action [/quote]

That may very well be true but that's not what you claimed. .

2. a. ACB makes no money out of Zimbabwe tours, quite the opposite in fact

Says Who ?

b. are willing to pay a fine of $2 million to ensure that Zimbabwe doesnt lose anything from their stand

Why 2 Million, They must pay whatever fine ICC imposes on them.

c. Australia is unwilling to implement trade sanctions as they recognise that the average Zimbabwean is impoverished in any event and such actions would only add to the hardship

BS, Australia will do whatever suits its interest.

d. You and I have more of a diplomatic relationship than current regime in Zimbabwe shares with Australia

So Zimbabwe and Australian politicians talk to each other on an Internet Forum ?

 

[Sanz]

Hmmm, wonder who has more credibility on this issue, Sanz or .....

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/zimvaus/content/current/story/293675.html

And the point is ? That's a useless link, here is a rebuttal for that - http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/zimbabwe/content/story/293271.html

That said, I am not debating whether Australia tours Zimbabwe or not, but just pointing out the Hypocrisy which you are defending and while doing so posting mostly incorrect information.

 

[social]

As yet, those calls have gone unheeded so the west (including the UN) is taking no real action

That may very well be true but that's not what you claimed. .



Says Who ?



Why 2 Million, They must pay whatever fine ICC imposes on them.



BS, Australia will do whatever suits its interest.



So Zimbabwe and Australian politicians talk to each other on an Internet Forum ?[/QUOTE]

OK Sanz, you've convinced me

Despite all evidence to the contrary, Zimbabwe and China are the same and any approach to them must be "consistent."

It's irrelevant that one or both of these strategies is doomed to certain failure because "consistency" is what's important

It's irrelevant that Australia will bear most of the negative impact from these strategies because "consistency" is what's important

I'm really glad you cleared that up because being consistent is so much easier than actually being part of the solution