Daily Telepgraph
by: David Coltart
The decision of the International Cricket Council (ICC) on December 19 to allow Zimbabwe to host World Cup matches has aroused fierce debate in Britain. A similar debate has raged within Zimbabwe for several months, and has threatened to split the cricketing fraternity. As a passionate supporter of Zimbabwean cricket, I have agonised over what stance I should take.
There are some compelling arguments why the matches should go ahead. The situation in Zimbabwe is not analogous to that which prevailed during apartheid in South Africa in certain important respects.
Unlike in South Africa, where boycotts of sporting events hurt the people supporting the apartheid regime, namely white spectators and players, the vast majority of Zimbabwean players and supporters detest the Zanu-PF regime just as much, if not more, than Britons.
Robert Mugabe and his cronies do not care much for the game. Aside from losing the political capital they could have made out of the matches, they would not be hurt by a boycott. Paradoxically, holding the matches in Zimbabwe opens up a tiny piece of democratic space for those fighting tyranny.
The mere prospect of the matches and the eventual presence of several hundred reporters, albeit cricket reporters, in Zimbabwe for a very short time, has restrained the human rights excesses of the regime. If no matches take place, there will be no further reason for the regime to behave better.
Against this is the fact that the Zanu-PF regime itself is desperate for the World Cup to be held in Zimbabwe because it is a wonderful opportunity to present to the world a facade of normality without having troublesome journalists in the country too long to scratch beneath the surface.
If the situation in Zimbabwe were improving – or at least stabilising – this would not be too bad. Tragically, however, the situation is worsening, and Zimbabwe is in the throes of a catastrophe largely the fault of the regime.
The ICC faced this dilemma in making its decision. The Zimbabwe Cricket Union (ZCU) pressed to be allowed to host the World Cup for entirely sporting reasons. Both the ICC and the ZCU made the mistake of believing that sport could be separated from politics and, in making that mistake, played into Mr Mugabe’s hands.
They must have known that their decision would be unpalatable to the governments and sporting publics of Australia, England and Holland. Having made that decision, there is now a real danger that only these “white” cricket-playing nations (although that is a misnomer, as virtually the entire Namibian team is white) will be forced to boycott.
If that happens, it will be a godsend to Mr Mugabe, who will proclaim it as further proof that his is a just battle against racists who are concerned only about the plight of white farmers. The struggle in Zimbabwe is not about race, but about tyranny, which is why it would be wrong for Australia, England and Holland to act alone.
A white boycott would offer Mugabe a double victory: he would be relieved of prying British journalists, and would still be able to present an appearance of normality to the hundreds of millions of Commonwealth cricket lovers who will watch the Indian and Pakistani matches just weeks before the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in March.
The only way out of this mess is for the ICC to revisit its original decision and consider the following.
First, while it is entirely correct to keep sport out of politics, this works both ways. In other words, the ICC should seek an assurance that the regime will not be allowed to make any direct political capital out of hosting the matches. It should demand, for example, that Mr Mugabe does not open the matches and is not introduced to any of the players. Tony Blair did not open the last World Cup, so such an undertaking should not be too onerous. If this assurance cannot be given, it must be clear that the matches are going to be used for political purposes and, in accordance with the ICC’s commitment to an apolitical World Cup, the matches should be moved to South Africa.
Second, the ICC has said that it based its decision entirely on whether the safety of players could be guaranteed. What it has not apparently considered is whether it can guarantee the safety of the thousands of cricket supporters of all the nations playing in Zimbabwe.
Just days before the ICC made its decision, Mugabe said: “The more they [European governments] work against us, the more negative we will become to their kith and kin here.” In the same week, a white Canadian woman was charged in Victoria Falls for refusing to pay a bill using Mugabe’s rate of foreign exchange.
In view of these racist hate speeches and policies directed randomly against whites in Zimbabwe, how can the ICC – or the ZCU – possibly guarantee the safety of thousands of the “Barmy Army” from attacks by war veterans and the youth militia? Unless the regime gives an undertaking that such racist hate speech will end immediately and that steps will be taken to protect spectators, I do not see how their safety can be guaranteed.
Third, if the ICC is committed to politics being kept out of sport, why did it agree to political conditions being imposed on the press corps? Only registered sporting journalists will be allowed into the country, and only to visit Harare and Bulawayo. There are cricketers (all of whom have views on cricket and other matters) living throughout Zimbabwe who would treasure the opportunity to speak to the press.
Surely by colluding in such an act of censorship the ICC has itself acted in a political manner. Unless the regime can give an undertaking that there will be unfettered access to the entire country by all bona fide journalists for the duration of the World Cup, the ICC should not be party to a political gagging of the media.
If no such undertakings are given, it is not too late to move Zimbabwe’s matches to South Africa. While such a move would prevent many cricket lovers, including me, from watching matches that we have longed for, there is no doubt that this decision would be in the interests of both cricket and democracy.