New Zealand's rose tinted glasses

Richard Boock, a columnist in the New Zealand Herald, commented on how Saudi Arabia should be banned from the Olympics as it is the leader in gender apartheid (no Saudi women will be at the London games or have attended any previous games). In the article, Boock argued that New Zealand should be a major player in the push for Saudi Arabia to be banned, in part because of our history of severing sporting ties, in particular rugby ties, with the apartheid regime in South Africa. While I fully agree with his hope that Saudi Arabia should be held accountable for its treatment of women (and not just in sports), his article did highlight that New Zealanders tend to think that they played a crucial part in ending the apartheid regime. After all, in 1981, New Zealand found itself effectively split in two during the tour of the South African rugby side between those who backed the tour and those who wanted the tour to be cancelled, many of whom took to the streets in protest, leading to violent clashes with police. I would argue that the assumption of the significance of New Zealand’s role in ending apartheid has been overplayed and over-represented. In fact, the opposite could be argued that New Zealand supported the apartheid regime by continuing rugby ties with South Africa well after other countries and codes had stopped all contact.

Protestors and police clash during the 1981 Springbok tour to New Zealand.

1963 saw the start of the sports boycott on South Africa when they were suspended by FIFA and then subsequently banned by the I.O.C from competing at the 1964 Olympics. The IAAF (in charge of track and field) followed suit and suspended South Africa in 1970, the same year cricket also cut official ties with South Africa. Rugby though, and not just in New Zealand, was much slower in enforcing a total boycott on South Africa (although Australia’s last rugby test against the Australians was in 1971). This is particularly surprisingly in that rugby was the most popular sport among the white community in South Africa and the loss of international rugby, of all sports, would have had the greatest impact on the regime. The Springboks were traditionally one of the top two teams in the world (beside New Zealand's All Blacks) and were the only team to hold an edge in face to face encounters with New Zealand. The Boks were the pride of white South Africa, a potent symbol of the apartheid regime. Due to this, coloured and black communities would support the All Blacks when they were playing South Africa, including Nelson Mandela, who cheered on the All Blacks when he was serving his jail time imposed by the South African government.

Nelson Mandela supported rivals of the Springboks while in prison, before embracing the team when he saw the power that the team had to help reunify the country.

This is a tradition that continues even to this day with many non-white South Africans supporting the All Blacks over the Springboks, much to the chagrin of other South African supporters. Throughout the apartheid regime, South Africa remained as a member of the IRB (International Rugby Board) but was banned from competing in the 1987 and 1991 World Cups. However, as well as the Springboks touring New Zealand in that divisive 1981 tour, there were tours of South Africa by the British Lions and France in 1980, by Ireland in 1981 and by England in 1984. New Zealand was even going to tour South Africa in 1985 until the New Zealand High Court stopped the tour (however, in 1986, the New Zealand Cavaliers, which included 28 out of the 30 originally selected All Blacks, toured South Africa).

The NZ Cavaliers toured South Africa in 1986 as a rebel team after the New Zealand High Court stopped the All Blacks from touring the Republic in 1985.

These tours in the 1980s came after the Gleneagles agreement in 1977 where the countries of the Commonwealth had agreed that “the urgent duty of each of their Governments vigorously to combat the evil of apartheid by withholding any form of support for, and by taking every practical step to discourage contact or competition by their nationals with sporting organisations, teams or sportsmen from South Africa or from any other country where sports are organised on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin.” The Gleneagles agreement came from the actions of the All Blacks who toured South Africa in 1976, an action that led directly to 25 African countries boycotting the 1976 Montreal Olympics.

New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon (centre) attended the Gleneagles conference but then disregarded the agreement in 1981.

Clearly, New Zealand valued its rugby relationship with apartheid South Africa so much that it would allow this slur on New Zealand’s name, enough that for several tours of South Africa (in 1928, 1949 and 1960), the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) followed their South African counterparts lead and refused to allow Maori or other non-white players tour South Africa, enough to endanger the health of members of police, security, tour supporters and protestors alike during the 1981 tour. Given New Zealand's rugby history of not wanting to cut contact with South Africa, either by touring that country or by allowing the Springboks to tour here, it would be hard to argue that the NZRU actively sought an end of the apartheid regime  (a Springbok tour was stopped by the New Zealand government in 1973). At best, they can be portrayed as neutral political observers, at worst uncaring of people oppressed by apartheid. The New Zealand players who toured with the Cavaliers tried to justify it by either saying that sport and politics don’t mix, that they were doing good by touring a white-dominant country with a multi-racial team ignoring the fact that most of them had gone to claim the large player payments on offer (rugby at this time was officially an amateur sport). So I’m not sure if New Zealand has a positive legacy on opposing sporting contacts with oppressive regimes. This isn’t to say that New Zealand can’t be a world leader, just like in their no-nuclear stance. It’s just pointing out that New Zealand didn’t do as much as it could to bring apartheid to an end.