THE PRESS FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 1982. The Gleneagles obligation

Press, 12 March 1982, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 1982. The Gleneagles obligation

The letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Cooper, to the New Zealand Rugby Union this week may be the firmest expression of official displeasure that the union has received. The Rugby Union appears to have learnt nothing from the disastrous South African tour of New Zealand last year. It appears to be as indifferent or as stubbornly perverse as ever about the effects of rugby’s contacts with South Africa on the well-being of New Zealand and, especially, on the prospects for international competition by other sports.

The chairman of the Rugby Union, Mr Blazey, and his colleagues are not likely to be deterred from visiting South Africa by Mr Cooper’s latest expression of disapproval. For all that, it was important that the Government should make its views known in the strongest possible terms. As a signatory of the Gleneagles Agreement, New Zealand is obliged to seek the active participation of national sporting organisations and authorities in discouraging sporting contacts with countries that practise racial discrimination.

When some Commonwealth countries are considering action against New Zealand’s participation in the Commonwealth Games at Brisbane, the Government has an obligation to demonstrate unambiguously the country’s opposition to South African policies, whatever impression the rugby tour last year may have given, especially among black African States. The unhappy events’ that followed the invitation by the Rugby Union to the South Africans in 1980 suggest that the Government should have acted earlier and more vigorously to meet the obligations it assumed when the Prime Minister signed the Gleneagles Agreement in 1977. Once that invitation had been made, the Rugby Union held the initiative. The Government found it was attempting to shut a stable door after the horse of sports contact with South Africa was already out and galloping. The wise, if belated, step now would be for the Government to approach all sports organisations in New Zealand to point out directly, individually, and firmly the implications of the Gleneagles undertaking, and to ask them to commit themselyes against official contact with their South African counterparts. Reasonably, the letter would be from the Minister of Recreation and Sport, Mr Highet, supported perhaps by Mr Cooper. The letter would not be as blunt as that which Mr Cooper has just sent to Mr Blazey. Most other sports codes have not offended against Gleneagles, and probably have no wish to do so. For the sake of New Zealand’s place in international competition in all sports, it is essential that there be no more breaches of Gleneagles from this country. For the sake of the Commonwealth Games, and all other competitions beyond that, the Government needs to be seen by the rest of the world to be leaving no ambiguity about its attitude to Gleneagles. Firm, polite advice, accompanied by a

copy of the Gleneagles Agreement, needs to be sent to each national sports authority. Replies might take time to appear; some would probably be equivocal; some might even continue to refuse to give an undertaking to have no contact with South Africa. Replies that were less than damning of a South African connection might be misunderstood abroad. The exercise would still be valuable as a demonstration that the Government takes its Gleneagles responsibilities seriously. The replies would establish the extent to which the Government, .and all sporting codes, can expect to see Gleneagles upheld. Sooner or later, the attitudes of'the sports bodies on their own policies must be made clear.

Areas of uncertainty would still persist. The New Zealand Government, like its British counterpart, would be most unlikely to refuse passports to sports players who wanted to travel abroad, even if it were clear that players were making a private visit to South Africa as competitors, in the manner of the British cricketers in that country at present. If a South African team, in any sport, were invited to New Zealand, the Government would have to consider again whether to reverse the policy adopted towards the rugby tourists last year and thus deny entry visas. The Government is most, unlikely to reverse its view on this, but it must always be ready to consider the consequences of an entry that it deems damaging to the country. This requires no change of policy. By asking sports organisations to make clear their attitudes to Gleneagles, and by leaving them in no doubt about the implications of that agreement, the Government might go a long way towards reducing the disapproval being expressed towards New Zealand elsewhere at present. With the wisdom of hindsight, many more New Zealanders than a year ago probably do not want further sports contacts with South Africa while .that country continues its policies of segregation. It may seem unjust to try to require of other sporting codes an undertaking that was not sought until too late from the Rugby Union. The consequences of the rugby tour suggest that the matter has become pressing. It is surely no longer in the interests of any New Zealand sport to continue competition against South Africa. The Government acceded to this when it approved the Gleneagles agreement. The effects on all sports are too damaging. Even the Rugby Union might not be insensitive to an overwhelming expression of distaste for competition against South Africa from other sporting codes. The Government should give sportspeople an opportunity to express that distaste in a manner that will be unmistakeabie to the rest of the world. In doing this, the Government will merely be acting on words in the agreement about which there is no ambiguity at all: it will be “discouraging” sports contact with South Afria as it has promised to do, and doing so in accord with the normal rules.