Two weeks ago Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, announced that his government had decided to bar the country’s cricket team from playing in Zimbabwe this year. Perhaps Howard anticipated “getting mileage” out of the fact that the Australian national team had just won the Cricket World Cup in the West Indies the previous month.
To the cricket-enthusiasts what would be the 2007-2008 tournament without the world’s finest team? To the extent that the Commonwealth constitutes the cricket-addicted world, this issue assigns a heavy responsibility to Britain. Presumably, cancellation of the world champion’s tour in Zimbabwe would re-focus Australia’s displeasure on how Robert Mugabe has abused his fellow citizens in recent years.
But did the claim stick that Australia’s action was prompted by compassion over the ‘brutal’ actions of Mugabe’s government?
By all appearances, Howard’s move actually backfired. Howard has been accused of hypocrisy; that he cares little about Mugabe treatment of the majority of Zimbabweans. His alleged preoccupation is to advance the cause of Zimbabwe’s White farmers. In short, race and racism underlie Australia’s cricket-ban exercise.
To expose Howard’s self-righteousness, critics have revisited Australia’s backyard to spotlight how his government treats its own Black citizens.
Just last month the British-based non-governmental organisation, Oxfam, released its report on Australia and it contains damning indictment of that country’s treatment of its Aboriginal minority. It shows that the life expectancy of the Aboriginals is 20 years lower than that of the national average.
The same group is also victimised by widespread and preventable diseases such as trachoma and needlessly high infant mortality rates.
The Aboriginals have the highest levels of unemployment and live in crowded ghetto conditions. Yet, Howard’s government spends 30 per cent less on healthcare of this impoverished community as compared to the national average.
Oxfam condemns Australia’s healthcare neglect of the Aboriginals as more than a national scandal. It is an international disgrace in comparison with the treatment of other indigenous populations elsewhere in the advanced countries.
“It is scandalous that a country as wealthy as Australia cannot solve the health crisis affecting less than three per cent of its population.”
Howard’s government denies that Australia’s healthcare for the Aboriginals is in crisis. Australia’s Health Minister, says the problem is in the fact that the Aboriginals live in the rural areas and are, therefore, unreachable.
The solution then is for these communities to relocate into the cities where they can be treated. Given this kind of superficial attitude of mind and Australia’s historical involvement with apartheid South Africa in sports, critics insist that Australia does not have the moral standing to point a finger at Robert Mugabe and his regime for maltreatment of Zimbabwe’s citizens, White or otherwise. There are additional reasons why Howard’s anti-Mugabe campaign has not gathered steam in Africa.
Tony Blair and George Bush have been at the same anti-Mugabe ‘holier than thou’ tirade for years. Australia’s close association with the Anglo-Saxon axis poses difficulties of perception in Africa.
To put it bluntly, the West is seen as an enemy of Africa’s aspirations. This prompts a defensive stance among Africans when one of their own is under attack.
It is reminiscent of the old cold war mentality: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is awkward for members of Global Africa to side with the West especially against a Black political leader, unless of course, he is an outright outcast of the likes of Idi Amin or Charles Taylor.
Britain, has steadfastly failed to own the most important issue of the club’s membership — anti-racism. As long as Britain turns into a roaring lion against racial injustice only when Whites are victimised by Black racism, the Anglo-Saxon world will be seen to be in duplicity.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Sphere: Related ContentOther Posts
