Why the hypocrisy on Zimbabwe ?

[pasag]

You agree with him on what - that PRC is also known as Taiwan or that Australia doesn't have any diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe ?

Sanz, the way you've carried ourself through this thread is unimpressive to say the least. Try not to play the man and instead tackle the actual post itself. Your ad-hominem arguments consisting of nothing but sniping are laced with hatred and anger and are unbecoming, imo. Enough is enough. Social is equally as bad and as two of the older members here, it's really, really poor.

Fwiw, I agree with Social's contention that not touring Zimbabwe and at the same time not boycotting other countries is not hypocritical at all.

 

[Langeveldt]

But doesn't going there legitimise his regime in another way? "We can'tbe that bad, the best side in the world has just toured here"......

Nobody will view Mugabe's regime as legitimate, suddenly because Australia are touring.. That won't make a shade of difference... And Mugabe will always view his regime as legitimate, against the Infidel colonialists, whether Australia tour or not..

 

[Dasa]

Fwiw, I agree with Social's contention that not touring Zimbabwe and at the same time not boycotting other countries is not hypocritical at all.

Tbh, I can't see how it's not hypocritical. Without making any judgement on whether they should boycott the tour or not, it's definitely inconsistent...not that most of the time foreign relations are consistent anyway.

 

[pup11]

Whether Australia tour Zimbabwe or not it would hardly make a difference to the Mugabe's regime, if the tour is called off ZCU would get their compensation from CA and thats what ZCU really cares about, they aren't concerned about raising the standard of the game in Zimbabwe all they are concerned about is making money.

 

[pasag]

Tbh, I can't see how it's not hypocritical. Without making any judgement on whether they should boycott the tour or not, it's definitely inconsistent...not that most of the time foreign relations are consistent anyway.

This post would be most aligned with my opinion on the matter. I don't know, it's not so clear cut really. It isn't black and white, nothing in international relations ever is. I wish it was so simple as good and bad, but it's one huge big grey area and each person and entity has to draw a line as to what is too much and when action needs to be taken.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz, the way you've carried ourself through this thread is unimpressive to say the least. Try not to play the man and instead tackle the actual post itself. Your ad-hominem arguments consisting of nothing but sniping are laced with hatred and anger and are unbecoming, imo. Enough is enough. Social is equally as bad and as two of the older members here, it's really, really poor.

Fwiw, I agree with Social's contention that not touring Zimbabwe and at the same time not boycotting other countries is not hypocritical at all.

Anger I can understand and accept, but Hatred no. I hhave no hatred for Australia, Australians or for that matter anyone. However I am not afraid to voice my opinion where I think the stance becomes hypocritical(and I am not the only one to notice that).

I was arguing properly, but then Social had to hit below the belt by bringing India into it and making incorrect assumptions about me and also make false claims on the issue, on his country's stand on the issue, bring in the race of African countries etc.

He started attacking Marsh, Sibanda etc. because their opinions are different from what he is arguing. if I want I can very well attack Flower Brothers, Olong's stand, opinion, there are enough grounds to do that, But I dont believe that it will be right to attack their opinions esp when they are just being quoted by someone on this forum

 

[Jono]

I do find it extremely ironic that Sanz and Social, two of the older and supposed to be more mature posters on CW (hence why they often partake in good discussion) are also two posters on CW who most commonly fall into personal attacks and bickering (basically just ridiculously grumpy on the board all the time) when in the midst of a genuinely intellectually stimulating discussion. I'll be keenly scrolling through the debate, and learning new things and suddenly I'll read the word 'idiot' or 'racist' or some condescending sarcasm. Just ruins it for me.

They'll probably take this as a cheap shot but I don't mean offense when I say this, more disappointment.

I agree with Pasag here, it gets tiresome after a while. And I'm not taking sides because both are at fault IMO.

 

[social]

You haven't pointed anything, so far all you have posted is incorrect and irrlevant information.

You said 'Hard Line' Stance didn't work against China, I asked you to give examples of those 'Hard-Line' Stands taken by australia against China and you ignored the post as you always do when you dont have the answer.

Sorry Sanz, but I couldnt be bothered posting examples because you ignore them anyway.

Anyway, I apologise for making such an assumption and will attempt to answer your query.

Australia was one of the primary architects behind the raft of political and economic sanctions imposed upon China by a considerable no. of western countries following the Tiananmen Square massace in '89.

These sanctions remained in place for 3 - 4 years.

Unfortunately, these measures were deemed a failure, i.e. resulted in no improvement in human rights within China, and largely removed by most (including Australia)

During this time, Aus had maintained dialogue with the Chinese (largely on the advice of other south-east asian countries who argued that sanctions were not the way to go) and as a result, were the first western country allowed to conduct human rights conditions inspections in '94.

Given that Australia appeared to be one of the few western voices that China respected, the UN felt it appropriate to appoint Aus as co-author of its' report into human rights conditions in China in '94.

Australia held this position for 6 years

Every year they criticised China

Every year they imposed sanctions either on their own or as part of the international community

Every year the result was the same - sanctions dont work

In summary, Australia has had as much experience with sanctions against China as almost anybody

 

[social]

Anger I can understand and accept, but Hatred no. I hhave no hatred for Australia, Australians or for that matter anyone. However I am not afraid to voice my opinion where I think the stance becomes hypocritical(and I am not the only one to notice that).

I was arguing properly, but then Social had to hit below the belt by bringing India into it and making incorrect assumptions about me and also make false claims on the issue, on his country's stand on the issue, bring in the race of African countries etc.

He started attacking Marsh, Sibanda etc. because their opinions are different from what he is arguing. if I want I can very well attack Flower Brothers, Olong's stand, opinion, there are enough grounds to do that, But I dont believe that it will be right to attack their opinions esp when they are just being quoted by someone on this forum

Sanz, unfortunately you have ignored reality on this issue.

A no. of countries have openly stated that actions against Zimbabwe are useless without the support of black Africa

Black Africa does not support actions against Zim

Hence, those with power to veto actions do so because they realise they'll be fruitless

Sibanda calls for Australia to tour yet wont actually live in the Zim - surely that tells you something about conditions and his credibility

Geoff Marsh IS a prime example of Australian hypocrisy - dont bite the hand that feeds you what a friggin gutless attitude

Flower, Olonga etc ARE the most reliable sources we have because they've risked their lives and sacrificed their livelihoods for the sake of their country

As for India, "people in glass houses ...."

 

[Sanz]

Sorry Sanz, but I couldnt be bothered posting examples because you ignore them anyway.

Anyway, I apologise for making such an assumption and will attempt to answer your query.

Australia was one of the primary architects behind the raft of political and economic sanctions imposed upon China by a considerable no. of western countries following the Tiananmen Square massace in '89.

These sanctions remained in place for 3 - 4 years.

Unfortunately, these measures were deemed a failure, i.e. resulted in no improvement in human rights within China, and largely removed by most (including Australia)

During this time, Aus had maintained dialogue with the Chinese (largely on the advice of other south-east asian countries who argued that sanctions were not the way to go) and as a result, were the first western country allowed to conduct human rights conditions inspections in '94.

Given that Australia appeared to be one of the few western voices that China respected, the UN felt it appropriate to appoint Aus as co-author of its' report into human rights conditions in China in '94.

Australia held this position for 6 years

Every year they criticised China

Every year they imposed sanctions either on their own or as part of the international community

Every year the result was the same - sanctions dont work

In summary, Australia has had as much experience with sanctions against China as almost anybody

like your political science, you history is also incorrect. If anything Australia is one of major western allies of China pre/post Tiananman. All Aussie actions have been symbolic and can hardly be called HARD-LINE Stance.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz, unfortunately you have ignored reality on this issue.

A no. of countries have openly stated that actions against Zimbabwe are useless without the support of black Africa

Black Africa does not support actions against Zim

Hence, those with power to veto actions do so because they realise they'll be fruitless

Sibanda calls for Australia to tour yet wont actually live in the Zim - surely that tells you something about conditions and his credibility

Geoff Marsh IS a prime example of Australian hypocrisy - dont bite the hand that feeds you what a friggin gutless attitude

Flower, Olonga etc ARE the most reliable sources we have because they've risked their lives and sacrificed their livelihoods for the sake of their country

As for India, "people in glass houses ...."

Marsh is no more the coach of the Zimbabwe, I dont see how he can be accused of hypocrisy now, same is true with Sibanda, he doesn't live in Zimbabwe to be under pressure to make any such statement.

As I said I can dig up a lot of dirt on Flower/Olonga, but I wont.

Lastly my stance has got nothing to do with India's stand on China, my opinion is not as an Indian but just as Individual. Something you dont understand and continue to make inflammatory statements.

 

[social]

like your political science, you history is also incorrect. If anything Australia is one of major western allies of China pre/post Tiananman. All Aussie actions have been symbolic and can hardly be called HARD-LINE Stance.

It's actually quite sad that some from the sub-continent lose all objectivity when discussing either Australia or their own country.

This post is a classic example - "Australia is one of major western allies of China pre/post Tiananman". Has to be amongst the greatest pieces of bs posted on this website. Do you even understand the meaning of the word "ally"?

Here's a tip - if you want to criticise Australia, there's plenty of scope (past treatment of Aborigines, detention centre conditions, refugee processing and probably 100s of other issues). Feel free but you'll have to be quick because Australians themselves will be in the queue.

And to cap it off, the hypocrisy that comes into play when someone actually points out the flaws in your own country's policies/actions. Ooooh, that's below the belt. FFS, we have an entire thread criticising one nation and it's improper to point something relevant out about another nation? Just as well I didnt highlight India's position on Zimbabwe (pretty freakin sad reading), the toys would have been thrown out of the pram quicker than I could say the word "hypocrite."

 

[social]

my opinion is not as an Indian but just as Individual. Something you dont understand and continue to make inflammatory statements.

Ok, I'll make it extremely simple for you

We know now that the Aust government has banned the team from going to Zimbabwe and that Aust will attend the Beijing Olympics.

What, in your opinion, should India do in the same circumstances?

 

[Sanz]

What, in your opinion, should India do in the same circumstances?

It has got nothing to do with this thread, but I will answer this. If India bans a tour of Zimbabwe citing Human Rights, then it should do the same with Beijing Olympics.

If Indian Government flip-flops its decision based on who it is dealing with it, it is every bit of hypocrite as the current aussie government.

Btw - Is the Aussie govt going to Pay the 2 Million Dollar to ZCU or it was just another one of Hollow statements of John Howard ?

 

[Athlai]

I believe Australia and New Zealand are both seeking a free trade agreement with China. Funny because NZ doesn't even have one with the States.

 

[Sanz]

This post is a classic example - "Australia is one of major western allies of China pre/post Tiananman". Has to be amongst the greatest pieces of bs posted on this website. Do you even understand the meaning of the word "ally"?

I do and here is what I mean or meant by the word Ally :-

ally

noun
1. a friendly nation

I know you are going to the extreme and try to convince yourself that by Ally, I mean ally as in Nazis and facists or like the comunists etc.

Now please tell me if I am wrong when I say that australia is one of the most friendly western nations with China.

 

[pasag]

Btw - Is the Aussie govt going to Pay the 2 Million Dollar to ZCU or it was just another one of Hollow statements of John Howard ?

The tour is banned by the Aus govt now, so in all likelihood CA wont be fined since the matter is out of their hands.

 

[Sanz]

It's actually quite sad that some from the sub-continent lose all objectivity when discussing either Australia or their own country.

I find it sad that you continue to attack my sub-continent background because you are unable to make any valid argument for your point and have lost in the debate..

 

[Jono]

The tour is banned by the Aus govt now, so in all likelihood CA wont be fined since the matter is out of their hands.

Yeah I just read that too. Interesting loophole, since CA aren't the ones deciding not to go.

 

[Sanz]

Here's a tip - if you want to criticise Australia, there's plenty of scope (past treatment of Aborigines, detention centre conditions, refugee processing and probably 100s of other issues). Feel free but you'll have to be quick because Australians themselves will be in the queue.

You are not very gracious in defeat, are you ?I find that very unaustralian though.

And to cap it off, the hypocrisy that comes into play when someone actually points out the flaws in your own country's policies/actions. Ooooh, that's below the belt. FFS, we have an entire thread criticising one nation and it's improper to point something relevant out about another nation? Just as well I didnt highlight India's position on Zimbabwe (pretty freakin sad reading), the toys would have been thrown out of the pram quicker than I could say the word "hypocrite."

I dont speak for others but for myself and I guess I have made my stand very clear more than once. But obviously you are clutching @ straws after you have lost this debate.