For more specific information, look at the 1968 rugby test scheduled between a New Zealand side including several Samoan players and the South African national team, or the D’Oliveira affair of the same time period. Or I can send you a copy of my undergraduate thesis on the positive impact of cricket development in apartheid South Africa.

Sorry to go off topic, but as a CVT my focus has been on the 2012 Olympics. Despite England’s excellent record on animal welfare, the Olympic committee in London began demolition activities for the Olympics – with a feral cat colony living inside the buildings. They were fully aware of these animals as they demolished the buildings, leaving some to starve inside the rubble and crushing many others. They would not cooperate with an animal rescue group who begged to come at night and remove the cats, although the group eventually gained some access.

The point is, I’ve been hearing cries of “Boycott the 2012 Olympics” or even “Boycott England”! How exactly does one boycott an entire nation? The only people who can make an impact are athletes, and it would be a minor event unless many athletes dropped out. Those of us just watching it on TV, how can we even make a dent boycotting the sponsors, when they’re so huge that they can afford to advertise on such a huge event? Protests seem futile for such a large event, and too fleeting.

Although I think China may make connections with some nations this way, if they’ve been this stubborn in keeping with their lousy human rights record, any change may be temporary and hollow. I guess the good news is that much more frequent sports events between nations may be a way to open negotiations, if only we could make those events popular.

To take the opposite view from your piece above, I’m not sure if the recent Pakistan-India cricket matches brought a temporary cooling in the violent rhetoric between the two sides; Max Schmeling vs. Joe Louis didn’t help relieve the tension building into WWII.