test series in zimbabwe

(this seems to fit in nicely - or nastily — with the claim the brits actually prefer the nanny state, and basically like being told what to do)

perish the thought

The ECB want the government to compensate them for the several million pounds the ICC will fine them if they don't play the Zimbabwe matches in the world cup.

well then shouldn't the ECB be attacking the ICC? why is the ICC under mugabe's thumb etc etc...

(gower also sneered at blair for being more interested in "other dragons" in the middle east than salving nasser hussein's conscience!!)

It's a tricky decision, but I think England will have to play, unless there is an immediate danger to the safety of the players. Isn't Australia in the same situation?

Coz the ICC declared it perfectly okay to play in Zimbabwe in November, and they aren't budging from this line.

then the ecb should be boycotting the icc as catspaws of tyranny, at least if it wants to have ANY high ground from which to cast glass stones from ect ect

I am confused as to why the ECB aren't petitioning the ICC as well!

yeah, it's all about the ECB not having much power in the situation. As Ricky T says they will be fined if they don't play, and this will have a major impact on the longterm health of the game. Therefore, the only three options are:

1. The ICC decides to relocate all the matches that were due to be played in Zimbabwe (unlikely)
2. The British government says categorically: you cannot go, again unlikely because of all the resulting political issues.
3. England play.

so who runs — or more to the point, pays the salaries of — the ICC and why are they suddenly the most powerful org on the planet? england and australia are surely powerful members w.clout: why don't they refuse to pay the fines?

(also: why do i have to quiz jel and rickyT abt all this, instead of getting the info from TV?)

I think the cricket people are a bit peeved that the UK in general, including the government, are not boycotting Zimbabwe, nor wanting to take responsibility (moral or financial) for making a decision to snub them here, and wanting cricket to do its work for them. I think cricket should boycott Zimbabwe, but I think the government is being thoroughly weasely about the whole thing.

why is the govt being even slightly weasely? i genuinely don't understand this
i. it has consistently criticised mugabe and taken plenty of other action against it in the course of its ordinary relations (obviously it could take more and other action, but the idea that it's taking NO action and NO position is just untrue)
ii. it has made its position clear to the ecb — ie given its advice strongly, long ago
iii. if it pays the ICC fine on behalf of the ECB, it is condoning the ICC's position
iv. if it "bans" the tour, it plays straight into mugabe's hands propaganda-wise

the ecb are totally being big babies, attempting to palm off THEIR responsibilities onto the govt (ie trying to have it both ways: "we want to boycott these matches but THEY won't let us")

best solution - ban cricket. cos its shite.

Re: The ICC, they've already had problems with Australia not playing in Pakistan post September 11th, so it could all be some sort of hardline, we've got to stop the rot approach. But, I'm not that clued up on the in's and out's of it all (bad pun not intended)

If boycotting Zimbabwe is right, why is the government only asking cricket to do this? As I said, I don't support the position of the ECB, but I think the government is asking the ECB to make its gestures for it, and has so far been unwilling to do anything more than talk.

Basically, no one is coming out of this well.

my point mark?

England should play. the regime will not collapse whatever way this will go.

if the govt had probs with it they should have talked abt it six months ago. the match could have been rescheduled (evevn NOW there's talk of it being reschedules to port elisabeth, i think) but it might be difficult. and the decision shouldn't be put to the england cricketers.

It's highly unlikely that england will win the world cup but still they would want to play. it means a lot to all players taking part, especially the older ones like caddick I suppose.

This govt still trades with zimbawe so they are not setting an example here.

its not a tour or a test series BTW: its a one day match. but zimbawe are supposed to be coming here to play a two test series and if the match doesn't go ahead then zimbawe will prob not go england.

"anything more than talk" in what sense? general economic sanctions? bombing harare? (one of the things i object to in the ecb's line is its total faux-innocent vagueness: "the govt shd be doing SOMETHING but we're not saying what" — obviously it can't make actual political suggestions as this undermines its whole position, but it still sets my teeth on edge)

if the govt enforces or even sponsors this boycott (as opposed to requesting it, as currently) then it basically removes most of its high-profile propaganda force w/i zimbabwe (mugabe would just say, "look what blair did: the ordinary english sportsman would have liked to come play but the imperialist british state brought pressure to bear")

the govt doesn't have a responsibility to bail the ecb out w. the icc just bcz the ecb wants to look good morally (in fact, if the fine was ACTUALLY the govt's to pay, its responsibility, given the line it's taking, would be NOT to pay it)

julio i think the govt made its position clear to the ecb more than a year ago

ceasing to trade with a country that is facing widespread famine possibly isn't that smart either: this is exactly where a sports boycott would come in, without merely punishing mugabe's victims, which general sanctions probably would

(i was trumping yr horrible cricket pun jel: silly point DO YOU SEE?)

''julio i think the govt made its position clear to the ecb more than a year ago''

they kept it v quiet.

OK I agree on the cease of trade. that was a bit silly. but i still don't think a sporting boycott would do much good. did it work when this applied in south africa?

and will the govt tell britain's olympic team not to go to beijing in 2008? (and hey, they better tell 'em in advance, we don't them training hard for four years for nothing).

well someone on the news last night said that the ecb had a meeting w.the govt department in question this time last year, where the govt spelled out its position directly to them

i think sports boycotts actually have disproportionate force in certain circumstances, bcz they disrupt attempts at a sense of business as normal

i expect i'd argue that china needs MORE everyday contact with outsiders, not less

(d'oh I see!)

''well someone on the news last night said that the ecb had a meeting w.the govt department in question this time last year, where the govt spelled out its position directly to them''

who said this? that's the question here. if the ECB admit that they had a meeting and that the govt told 'em not to play then the ECB are in the wrong.

''i think sports boycotts actually have disproportionate force in certain circumstances, bcz they disrupt attempts at a sense of business as normal''

so are you saying that this boycott could help the regime to fall mark. besides, I don't think cricket is the no1 sport in that country. or does it have a hold on ppl the way football has in this country, say.

''i expect i'd argue that china needs MORE everyday contact with outsiders, not less''

so do I. but if you're gonna argue for a sporting boycott in zimbawe then why not argue one for china?

i forget who said it unfortunately: i think it was a reporter rather than someone actually on one side or the other, which is why i remembered it and took it to be a fact

if i wanted to make a distinction between places where boycotts would have a strong effect and ones where they might not, i guess i'd look at the relative political meaning of isolation within that community (isolation being something which china has historically somewhat thrived on) (but to be honest i don't have very though-out opinions on china at the moment)

i don't think it's necessary to behave towards any one country exactly the way you behave towards others: democracies may be based on the idea that everyone's equal and interchangeable, in certain senses, but this assumption isn't just casually transferrable towards nations: policies towards apartheid south africa might well have been pointless when applied to albania under hoxha (even if you happened to decide that the degree of wrongness was exactly matched)

anyway: as you must have all heard England are playing there.

the only way the match could be cancelled is if the security situation deteriorates. I still think those matches can be moved to south africa.

I think the best way out of the situation for the English cricket team is for Nassar Hussein to refuse to play himself. Not to make a decision as captain, but as an individual - and also allowing his own players to do so too. This will probably end up with us effectively boycotting the game, but this would at least be reduced finally to individuals making a moral choice rather than an edict from above, as an excuse.

Zimbabwe is a very difficult subject for a lot of Labour politicians anyway, since there were always close links between the British Labour Party and Mugabe (model socialist thowing off the final jackboot of colonialism etc etc). But I really don't think it is a governments place to tell their people whether they can or cannot go anywhere. How much of a PR triumph would it be for Mugabe anyway now, with all the publicity about the decision over here. And if it used internally the fact he shook the hand of the captain of the English cricket team will not validate any internal policies in a country full of people who have stronger reasons to have opinions on Mugabe.

ANd the final issue is this handshake. Why does Nassar Hussein have to shake the hand of Mugabe. Can he not play in the country without shaking the hand of the leader (show solidarity for the people = ZImbabwe cricket team, disapproval of regime).

I'll check on this but there will be no handshakes with mugabe or any of his officials).

I see Pat Murphy has refused to cover the game in Zimbabwe for the BBC, and they've been very understanding. Now, if other broadcasters and their staff had similar ideas then maybe the ICC would start taking a different view of things maybe.

After all where does the ICC make its money? I'm all for individuals making choices like these.

Ironically cricket is quite a white (and a white farmer) game in Zim and Mugabe probably doesn't give a damn about what happens, because in a sense it will be part of the great Blair colonial conspiracy whichever way it goes. If the UK team refuse to play, Zim is the victim, and if they go, then they are going to play with largely "fellow colonialists" anyway, in his eyes.

(Although I haven't seen a list of the latest Zim XI I must admit)