Editorial: Sporting boycott a fitting sanction

Sporting bodies usually jib at banning a country's athletes from international events. Many continue to cling to the ideal that sport is sport and that the harsh realities of the outside world should never intrude. In truth, of course, sport has always been a political weapon, never more so than in the last two decades of the 20th century.

Bans and boycotts abounded, proving to be a surprisingly potent way of engaging a rogue nation's attention. Thus, it has not taken long for the first sporting ban of the new century to be proposed, and for the sporting body involved to take evasive action.

The proposal, to ban Zimbabwe from this year's Commonwealth Games after that country's suspension from the Commonwealth, comes from Foreign Affairs Minister Phil Goff. He is seeking the support of other Commonwealth countries. Intent on dodging torpedoes is the Commonwealth Games Federation, headed by a New Zealander, Mike Hooper.

Mr Hooper says Zimbabwe will be invited to compete at Manchester because the country's one-year suspension is only from the councils of the Commonwealth, not from the Commonwealth itself.

"Zimbabwe remains a member of the Commonwealth and, as a Commonwealth nation, they are invited to participate," he says.

In the narrowest of senses, Mr Hooper may be right. The parameters of the suspension were carefully crafted, as befits an action designed as much to protect Commonwealth credibility as to punish Robert Mugabe's fraudulent re-election. And the games federation may not even have the power, under its constitution, to eject Zimbabwe.

On any other level, however, Mr Hooper is whistling in the wind. The suspension will mean nothing if it does not encompass the exclusion of Zimbabwe from an event that celebrates Commonwealth values. And, of course, the Commonwealth is a political grouping. To take a stand that disavows this is to fail to recognise the nature of the beast.

Clearly, it will fall to Commonwealth Governments to organise Zimbabwe's expulsion. Hopefully, Mr Goff will not find support hard to come by. And, hopefully, New Zealand will extend its action to embrace all sporting contacts with Zimbabwe.

It, and other Commonwealth countries, need not look far to see the impact of sporting isolation. South Africans, excluded for a long period from the Commonwealth Games, have acknowledged sport's important role in the international campaign against apartheid.

And sporting bans have an added benefit. They impose no physical suffering, a key factor in a country where Government ineptitude has spawned poverty and malnutrition.

Commonwealth Governments should also be spurred by Mr Mugabe's arrogance since his "re-election". This reached a peak when he ignored the presidents of South Africa and Nigeria, who sought to persuade him to work with his rival, Morgan Tsvangirai, in a government of national unity.

Mr Mugabe's intransigence backfired when Thabo Mbeki, previously loath to exercise South Africa's regional influence, acceded to the view that Zimbabwe must be suspended. Mr Mugabe appears unabashed. Now, Mr Tsvangirai has been summoned to face what is almost certainly a trumped-up treason charge.

The limited Commonwealth suspension appears designed to give Mr Mugabe time to respond to international concerns. Allied with sanctions imposed by the United States and European nations, it will have an impact, notably in the area of development aid. But it seems doubtful that will be enough to pressure Mr Mugabe into restoring the rule of law, legitimising opposition parties and, ultimately, holding free and fair elections.

A sporting ban, including Zimbabwe's exclusion from the Commonwealth Games, might not sway Mr Mugabe, either. But it would add considerably to the international condemnation. And a Commonwealth sporting festival would not be tarnished by a country flouting that grouping's essential values.