|
The International Cricket
Council has remained firm that nine first round games in this month’s Cricket
World Cup will be played in Harare, Bulawayo and Nairobi.
The ICC was, rightly, concerned that players and spectators would be safe in these games. After all, there was a terrible terror attack on a Kenyan hotel in November and there have been many stories in the world Press predicting a total breakdown of order in Zimbabwe. So the ICC did what any rational organisation should do. First, the executive came out to Africa to have a look for themselves. Secondly, they hired top class security consultants to assess the risks and check on counter measures against these risks. Both Zimbabwe and Kenya passed the two tests with flying colours. But those wishing for the games to be moved from the two countries had a second line of attack, although they should have been honest and admitted this was their main reason all along. The British and Australian governments dislike the Zimbabwean Govern-ment and wanted a boycott on political grounds to score cheap political points. The ICC, in effect, said that this was fine, but the decision to ban games on political grounds was one for politicians to make. If the Government of a particular country did not want a sports team from that country to visit Zimbabwe it had to forbid its players to go. The ICC clearly stated that cricket administrators were not political experts and were not able to make political decisions. This attitude is rational. No one would ask any group of politicians to make new rules on bowling or umpiring in cricket, and by the same token politicians should not expect cricketers to make decisions on politics. Opponents of the ICC stance have brought up the boycotts against South Africa in the apartheid days. Those of us who actually remember these boycotts remember that they were political decisions made by politicians. Sporting associations were unable to make a boycott decision and, as now, were criticised for not making such decisions. Eventually governments stepped in and banned sporting contacts with South Africa. Many English players have expressed what they call their moral dislike of having to play in Zimbabwe. They, like anyone else, can exercise their freedom of speech. But since there are no cricket or security reasons for moving the game they either play in Zimbabwe or forfeit the match. Players are generally not allowed to decide who they play and where they play. If they were there could be total anarchy in Test cricket. Indian players might refuse to play Pakistanis, and vice versa, to take just one likely example. Now that Zimbabwe has won its case, that security will be adequate, it must obviously deliver. The practice run during the Pakistan tour gave us a foretaste of what we can expect. Admission will be by ticket only and a security cordon will be thrown around the cricket grounds. At the same time Zimbabwe needs to remember that there will be many tourists coming in to cheer on their teams and that a large number of foreign journalists will be here; we would not be surprised if every cricket journalist has been asked by his or her editor to write a general piece on Zimbabwe at the same time. So we also need to give our visitors a good impression of the country. For a start, police in the cordon can be polite as well as efficient. Ordinary Zimbabweans can show their famous hospitality. These games are important to cricket fans, but they are also important to the country as a whole. Let us show our visitors that we are not ogres but ordinary people who enjoy our sport and want others to share that enjoyment. The Mulindwas
communication group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy" |
