THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1980. Against a Springbok tour

Press, 13 August 1980, Page 16

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1980. Against a Springbok tour

However much most New Zealanders might deplore the situation, few can have any doubt now that international Sporting events have political implications. Sport cannot be kept separate from political considerations. The connection was readily accepted by most New Zealanders, including many sportsmen, when withdrawal of competitors from the Moscow Olympic Games was considered as a means of protest against Soviet foreign policy. The connection between sport and politics was demonstrated by the Games themselves which were used by the Soviet Union as an opportunity to parade to its people the achievements of its political system. .

The New Zealand Rugby Union cannot expect to take shelter behind the maxim that . .sport and politics should not be mixed as it considers whether ,or not to invite a South African rugby team to tour New Zealand next year. In the interests of rugby alone the invitation would surely have been made by now. The Springboks play popular and. spectacular rugby. They would please thousands of New Zealand rugby supporters and the financial success of the tour, for the rugby union, can hardly be questioned. By delaying its decision on issuing the invitation the union indicates it is well aware of the political implications of a tour. It may be that, by delaying an announcement of an invitation as long as possible, it hopes to lessen the opportunities for protest. The union would be wise not to underestimate the ability of those opposed to the tour to make their opinions known, perhaps in unpleasant ways, once the tourists were here. The message, from a recent opinion poll that ,at least 50 per cent of New Zealanders support a Springbok tour is not an indication that active opposition to a tour would necessarily be less than in th’e past. Of more immediate concern, the Government made clear its opposition to a visit by the Springboks in a letter to the union four months ago. This opposition has since been repeated by senior .Ministers. It has the support of the Opposition.. Unless the Government is convinced that . rugby in South Africa has become a genuinely multiracial sport it is obliged by the Gleneagles Agreement to make known its opposition to a Springbok tour. On the evidence available, South African rugby has moved towards racial integration of players, at least for international events; but much participation in the sport at club level, and ..among supporters.and spectators, remains racially segregated. ■' . < ■•- : - ? The Minister ,of Foreign Affairs, Mr Taiboys, said last week that the Government would rely on the rugby union’s “good judgment and sense of responsibility” when it makes a decision about whether to issue an invitation. If such “good judgment” takes account of New Zealand’s standing in the international community, and in the Commonwealth especially, no invitation will be issued. New Zealanders will miss some fine rugby, but they will gain in international stature.

If an invitation is issued, and the Government does not succeed fairly quickly in persuading the rugby union to withdraw it, a painful problem will arise. The Government could take what

would probably be a politically damaging step and announce that visas will not be issued to the Springboks to enter New Zealand. Visas have been denied to other visitors for political reasons. To deny visas would be to apply the full force of the Gleneagles Agreement and would create a precedent which . might well be used against many other sports teams from countries which have policies abhorrent to . New Zealanders. Nevertheless, the denial would be within the laws of the country and the point that the law should be observed was recognised at the Gleneagles meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

In 1973 a South African rugby team was prevented from entering New Zealand by a decision of the Labour Government headed by the late Mr Kirk. On that occasion the tour was stopped because of the threat to law and order which seemed to be posed by the vociferous anti-tour campaigners. By seeming to submit to blackmail by a minority set on breaking the law, that Government chose the worst possible reason for stopping the tour. Eight years later the leaders of that minority are still active and give indications that they would welcome another opportunity to show off their prowess and enthusiasm for their cause. Rather than allow such a situation to arise, and rather than give in to threats of violent disruption, the Government would do better to insist early that the tour must not take place because of the damage to New Zealand’s interests elsewhere in the world, and because of the risk of boycotts against other New Zealand sports representatives at international gatherings. This is a legitimate and respectable reason for stopping the tour. Such boycotts are not necessarily certain if a South African tour takes place. Britain did not suffer at the Olympic Games this year because a South African rugby team had recently been on tour there. Special circumstances applied, however, when the host country—the Soviet Union—was endeavouring to persuade as many Western countries and sportsmen as possible to attend the Games. New Zealanders seeking to compete in future international events might not be so fortunate in having counter pressures at work.

Some might argue that the measures taken so far by South African rugby administrators to integrate their sport deserve to be rewarded by international acceptance. Others might claim that international recognition will be seen in South Africa as a sign that integration need go no further. 'Unfortunately the racial status of South African rugby is probably less important now than a general and almost universal hostility to the whole apparatus of South African racial policies in the rest of the world. However unfair it seems to many New Zealanders, this country’s interests require that New Zealand be seen to be actively opposed to those policies: For the Government to express opposition, but then allow the tour to' go ahead, would not be enough to satisfy the powerful antiSouth Africa lobby round the world or the conscience of many New Zea- , landers. : • . . ' . - '