England last played in Zimbabwe in October
2001
| The ZIMBABWE Situation | Our
thoughts and prayers are with Zimbabwe - may peace, truth and justice prevail. |
The decision on whether to play the match in Harare on 13 February was taken unanimously by the ECB management board, despite intense political pressure on them to approve a boycott.
|
|
Chief executive Tim Lamb said: "The ECB has always found it perverse and inequitable that we have been asked to make an isolated and purely symbolic gesture by withdrawing from this match.
"Sport, sadly, is once again being used as a political tool to fill the policy vacuum that seemingly exists."
A news conference to announce the decision had to be delayed after placard-carrying protesters infiltrated Lord's for the second day running.
The group included former parliamentary candidate Peter Tatchell, a well-known campaigner and a long-standing critic of Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe.
|
The ECB's decision is to be welcomed - cricket is not
qualified to do the job of politicians Ali Bacher WC executive director |
"People are being tortured and raped by the Mugabe regime. That is not cricket and that's why the England team should not go," said Tatchell, who claimed he had been punched by ECB security staff.
Lamb said he understood the depth of feeling surrounding the issue and the ECB did not condone or endorse the activities of the Mugabe regime.
He added: "We hope the World Cup will be an uplifting occasion and a source of pleasure and pride for many Zimbabweans.
"Sport alone does not have the ability to solve political problems, but it can sometimes help to bring people together."
Government disappointed
But a spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport described the decision as "disappointing".
"Of course this was a tough call for the ECB to make, but we still believe the government's position was the right one, " he said.
England players are expected to make a statement on the decision when they meet in Adelaide on Wednesday.
Cricket's governing body, the ICC, meanwhile, continues to monitor the security situation in Zimbabwe following riots last weekend.
And it has admitted that the six games scheduled to be played there could still moved to South Africa at short notice should the country be judged unsafe.
If England's game does go ahead, however, the team will not shake hands with president Mugabe if he decides to attend.
Lamb said: "We will not take part in any ceremonial activities that could imply any support for the regime, or be used as a propaganda platform."
Australia, Pakistan, India, Namibia and The Netherlands will also play first round matches in Harare and Bulawayo.
| Tuesday, 14 January, 2003, 16:19 GMT
The ECB explanation
Tim Lamb confirms that England will play in
Zimbabwe Excerpts from the statement by ECB chief executive Tim
Lamb.
"The ECB management board have been confronted with an extremely difficult situation - not of their own making. "The position has been totally clear and consistent. We are not a political body and don't take decisions on that basis. "We're not immune to, or unaware of what's happening in the wider world - but that is not to say we don't care about these issues. "We're fully aware of what's happening in Zimbabwe and don't condone or endorse the actions of the current political regime in that country.
"However we don't believe the cancellation of one cricket match will make any difference to the Mugabe regime. "The ECB has always found it perverse and inequitable that we have been asked to make an isolated and purely symbolic gesture by withdrawing from this match "Sport sadly is being used as a political tool to fill the policy vacuum that exists. "There are over 300 British companies trading in and with Zimbabwe, British Airways flies to Harare twice a week.
"There are no wholesale economic or trading sanctions against Zimbabwe and no universal sporting sanctions have been applied - unlike in the case of South Africa in the past. "Britain still maintains diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe and no decision has been taken, to date, to expel Zimbabwe from the commonwealth. "Despite all this cricket and the ECB in particular is still being asked to make a unique and unilateral sacrifice. 'Unanimous decision' "We have not been elected to take decisions of a political nature. "Our responsibility is to safeguard the future of cricket in England and Wales and in the wider world. That of course Includes Zimbabwe where the national cricket union is a fully multi-racial and a-political organisation. "Therefore the ECB management board this morning unanimously decided that we are going to honour our commitment to play in Harare on February 13."
|
|
The ECB announces that England's controversial World Cup
match in Zimbabwe will go ahead.
Do you support the decision?
The ECB claim they cannot afford to boycott the match as the England team would stand to lose up to £11m in revenue. But the protestors who infiltrated Lord's on Tuesday echoed the view of many; that it would be morally wrong for the contest to take place. Violence in Zimbabwe has also escalated in recent weeks, raising safety concerns for both England players and fans. So is the ECB right to ignore boycott calls? And will you support England when they play in Zimbabwe?
As we all know English cricket is not what it should be, and a loss of £11m would shatter the last five years of work in grass roots development. We all want our national team to be better, and this costs money. Had the government footed the bill I think the ECB would have jumped at the chance of a boycott. But without that compensation they cannot, as their first priority is the continued development of cricket. Why are people not pouring pressure on the government to do something about the Zimbabwe problems? It should not be down to a team of sportsmen to make such a political statement.
I hope that all the team go there with their morals intact, they have nothing
to be ashamed of, they are doing this for the love of their sport and their
nation. I hope they do us proud. If the government wanted England to not play in Zimbabwe, they should have let their feelings known in November when England were asked by the ICC to play in Zimbabwe, not leave it until a month before the match. I think they are quite right to play, particularly as the government will not
compensate them if they do not play. It's not fair from the government to put such pressure on a non-political
organisation. If the government is so worried about Zimbabwe's human rights
record then why doesn't it impose economic sanctions on them? Sport and Politics
should never mix. It's an absolute disgrace. Putting forward the sport v politics argument is a
smokescreen and a cop out. The cricketing authorities have shown themselves to
be morally bankrupt. Now that they have decided to go, I hope Nasser Hussain and the players have
the guts to refuse to shake hands with the Zimbabwean ministers, including
Mugabe. I would even suggest that they turn their backs on them in protest.
A true kick in the teeth to the £6m people Mugabe is starving in his own
country. The only thing more pathetic than the ECB is the stance of the British
government. No doubt when things go wrong it will be the UK taxpayer who'll have
to sort the mess out.
I am appalled, disgusted even. I was born and lived in Zimbabwe for 27 years so I know what I am talking about. This whole issue boils down to one thing and one thing only - money. The ECB are only interested in the money deals. This has absolutely nothing
to do with sport. England's cricket team isn't up to much anyway. It will be a
huge waste of time them even being there. How typical that once again this comes down to money and to hell with the horrors that are occurring against humanity. The ECB talk about sport being singled out but surely this is an area that can highlight the tragedies occurring in Zimbabwe to a bigger audience than the government. Shame on them - I certainly won't be supporting England in the cricket any
more. I am ashamed to be English, surely the moral issues raised here are more
important than money! All parties have been forced into corners over this matter and, in truth, everybody (except Robert Mugabe) is right and everybody (especially Mugabe) is wrong. There should be a boycott of Zimbabwe by England's cricketers and those of the other countries due to play there. Nevertheless, English cricket should not have to suffer - either financially or in terms of World Cup group points. However, I fully understand the British government's position. Until they implement a boycott of Zimbabwe and institute trade sanctions, they cannot order anybody not to go there. The only possible reason the sanctions are not in place is because it would exacerbate the situation, which is good enough for me. The government recommends that Britons do not visit the country but there is no embargo and there are still flights to Harare.
Until the embargo is in place and/or flights are withdrawn, it is up to individuals' consciences. Robert Mugabe is evil, his dictatorship is wrong, and he should be stopped. But it is not for England's cricketers (or any nation's) to take the lead in this and simply refuse to play in that country because there will be major repercussions for world cricket. I just hope that everybody who goes to the games, players and fans, are safe.
This is not a certainty and for that reason, the whole Zimbabwe section of
fixtures should be moved out of the country. While I feel sorry for Nasser and the boys after the way the government and the ECB have behaved, I nevertheless feel that Nasser and the boys are still grown-ups who should have their own problems with playing in Zimbabwe. I would like to think that the players have enough moral fibre as human
beings to know that playing in Zimbabwe is wrong and therefore refuse to play.
Why were Zimbabwe chosen to co-host the tournament in the first place? As much as everybody is horrified by Mugabe's regime, England must go. Whoever made the point that other businesses are still active in the country and 'why single out cricket' is correct. Let's go in, win the game and get out. Haven't Nasser's boys had enough this winter without being vilified for something that is effectively beyond their control. They are cricketers, I'm a cricket fan and I want to see Hussain lifting that
World Cup at the end of it. Zimbabwe is a country in the grip of a harsh dictator, there is no doubting that. However, until there is a complete boycott of all relations with Zimbabwe, including diplomatic, there is no way the government can expect our cricketers to boycott these matches. Indeed it will be the ordinary Zimbabweans who suffer as they will be denied the opportunity to watch the world's best cricket teams compete in their country. I firmly believe that the ICC was wrong in scheduling games in Zimbabwe given
the current political climate. No way should we visit a country that has such a man in power, the cricketers
should use the time to coach our younger players instead. If the British Government will not take any action to isolate or boycott
Zimbabwe, the England cricket team should play there.
I reckon Nasser's men should play in Zimbabwe because if we pull out they may
not want to come over in the summer. I think it is abhorrent that any team plays in Zimbabwe. The situation in
Zimbabwe is even worse than the South African regime that was boycotted for
years. But money talks and the money men will triumph over morals I feel.
The government obviously feel that the financial consequences of imposing a
ban are too high. Therefore they have made a decision on this matter. It is a
cricketer¿s job to play cricket and not make political decisions. Without any
prevention from the government, they should play to win and good luck to
them. I am a Zimbabwean who left that country eight months ago and I would like to say that it is too late for any team pull out now. I think the ICC made a big mistake in allowing the World Cup to take place in Zimbabwe. With the petrol crisis worsening and food shortages, it may cause riots. Will the England commentators be allowed to cover the England game? I doubt
it. Unfortunately the matches will have to take place with some matches having
an empty ground. Mugabe has made it known that Britain is an enemy of his. Would you step foot
or send your children to ones house who has called you an enemy? Let sanctions
be sanctions. I say no cricket in Zimbabwe. The England players should refuse to shake hands and take part in
photo-calls. This will deny Mugabe the publicity he desires. But it is not the
place of the British Government to tell the English cricket team who they can
and cannot play, especially when to pull out would incur heavy costs which the
government would not help to pay.
When Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister in the 1930s, the England
football team played Germany in Germany and were told to give the Nazi salute as
the German anthem was played, which they did. If the British cricket team plays
in Zimbabwe, we will have reached a similar low. I think it would be a better idea to stay back in England rather than losing
to Zimbabwe. I don't think England cricket fans fancy watching England losing to
Zimbabwe. So stay back and cover it up with some political scenario.
Since the government refuses to cover the ECB then the ECB should go. However
the national team should not do anything that will promote the Mugabe
government, this includes shaking hands with any government minister. Our
cricket team is not good enough to forfeit games and the points, we must aim to
win has many games has we can. To play or not play in Zimbabwe is a question for the ICC. They must evaluate the safety and logistical issues that relate to a country with no fuel, severe shortages of basic foodstuffs and a political climate that is very hostile to the countries of two of the teams playing in Harare. The ICC must decide if playing the Cricket World Cup in Harare in 2003 is beneficial for the game and that the safety and wellbeing of the players and supporters is assured. If the ICC say "play" then Nasser and his team should play. Remember those
who play and support cricket in Zimbabwe are generally not those who support
Mugabe. If Hussain is the captain and encourages his team to pull out, this is a
political act, not a sportsman's act. He is picked to play cricket. If he wants
to be political, then he must resign and take up politics.
Nasser Hussain accuses politicians and ECB executives of 'faffing about'.
Maybe they are, but to him this should be irrelevant. If he has a moral
conscience, and can display his own free will, then he should not go, because he
will be at risk of making an innocent but serious contribution to Mugabe's
propaganda activities. It is an invalid argument to justify going by saying that
many other British businesses operate in Zimbabwe. The fact that they are
morally bankrupt does not mean more should follow their example. The government should be bold and stop the team playing in Zimbabwe. They should be ready to compensate ECB for any loss, after all it was the government which dithered until the last minute. It is no good passing the buck to the ECB who in turn are trying to pass it
on to the players. It is just not cricket ! Either way I hope that whether the teams do play there or not, Zimbabwe
deserves the greatest press coverage possible to show the rest of the word what
a bleak situation this once prosperous country is in. The English cricket team is representing the country of England. The
political leadership of England has decided that Mugabe's government is not
doing anything untoward, otherwise they would have imposed economic and
political sanctions, wouldn't they? If the government hasn't boycotted trade
with Zimbabwe, why should they expect the cricket team to boycott cricket there?
This is not a dictatorship and the government has given clear advice. The England cricketers are adults and should stop going on about being naive when it comes to politics. They have a duty to make up their own minds and it's a simple moral choice.
They should not go and they should not fudge the issue and try to make us, the
taxpayer, foot the bill. Cricket is just sport. Nasser is a cricketer, not a politician. If Tony Blair has not the backbone
to stop England playing in Zimbabwe then he should not expect sportsmen to do
his dirty work for him. It seems to be to be a very simple matter. The individual cricketers need to decide whether, on balance, the regime in Zimbabwe is "good" or "bad". If, like most fair-minded people, they conclude the latter then they should decide what comes first, their selfish concern with playing a game, or making a statement on behalf of the suffering and starving people of Zimbabwe. To hide behind complexities, governments, ruling bodies, etc is
reprehensible. What ever happened to a sense of right and wrong and honour in
this country?
Put cleanly cricketers play cricket, politician play politics. However, if the politicians do not want to act in this matter, then what should be done? It is clearly a moral question, which needs an individual like Nasser and may I add Duncan Fletcher to weigh up the situation. Ask yourself these questions: 1) What would I want to happen if it were my family's farm which had been appropriated illegitimately? 2) What would I want to happen, if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt, through an independent organisation like the UN that the government of Zimbabwe was deliberately starving half of its population to death and in amongst that number was your mother, father, wife and children? 3) What if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt through an independent organisation that the government of Zimbabwe was involved the suppression of democratically held tenants of governance and expression? 4) Finally, if I knew beyond any doubt that this same Zimbabwe government is not legitimate, meaning there is no basis to meeting and entertaining an illegitimate patron of the Zimbabwe Cricket Board? The answer to all these questions is based on your own moral judgement. Being
a leader sometimes involves making these kinds of calls. The Government should make the final decision on the matter and if they say
no then we shouldn't go. How can you make the England team make a decision, they
have been on tour All Winter in Australia. They should have been, told about
this earlier. There surely can be no question of England playing in Zimbabwe; to
participate would only endorse Mugabe's dreadful regime. Sometimes we have to
have the moral courage to do what is right, however much it costs - to play is
just another form of appeasement.
Now that the government has appointed Nasser Hussain as the country's moral compass, do you think we can ask him for his point of view on Iraq? Does he think we should impose sanctions against Pakistan and India for their proliferation of nuclear weapons? Would he care to comment on the US's refusal to sign the Kyoto accord? I think this is a wonderful! Our government, which has give up all moral
responsibility, has appointed this decent, intelligent and sensitive man as the
country's voice of conscience. I only wish they'd take this to the logical
conclusion and give him the authority that goes with this responsibility. I'd
vote for Nasser before Tony Blair any day! Of course England should travel. Sport and politics are separate entities. If
it's OK for English football teams to play Israeli sides in European
competition, then its OK to play cricket in Zimbabwe. Mugabe never played cricket and does not know the rules, but he is the
cricket patron in Zimbabwe. Was Chingoka not mixing politics with sport? Nasser
come and play the game with Mugabe. Should Jesse Owens have boycotted the Berlin Olympics? No, he went and showed
up Hitler. They should go and play, but refuse to join in the ceremonies and
hand-shaking. They can warm-up while all that is going on. It's hypocritical for
the Government to expect the ECB to enforce their political opinions for them.
Yes Mugabe is a bad man, however if this government does not want his regime
to win a propaganda victory then they need to put their hands in their pockets
and find £10M. A drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money they are
desperate to spend killing innocents in Iraq. Why should the game we love suffer
to keep warmonger Blair and his cronies happy. Why, why, why are cricket and rugby always the targets for the politicians to use as scapegoats? If it were the England football team going, no-one would turn a hair. Just like they didn't when Zimbabwe sent a team here to the Commonwealth Games, where they came 22nd, picking up one gold and one silver medal. If the politicians wish to make a point then it is up to them - but this lot
seem to lack any fibre. Of course, if the cricketers don't go and there is a
backlash of some sort, President Blair and his cronies will be holding their
hands up and saying "it's not our fault - we didn't tell them not to go!"
Why should England boycott? the British government has not imposed any
sanctions or cut off ties with Zimbabwe, so why are they expecting the cricket
team to? it does not make any sense. Put political considerations aside for one moment and consider the safety of
our cricketers. There is nothing Mugabe would like better than a spontaneous
display of bottle throwing that targets the English team, thus humiliating the
country he most despises, and rants and raves against on a regular basis. I feel
sure that his plans for such a spontaneous display are well in hand in
preparation for the arrival of the English cricketers. How can the government justify leaning on the ECB not to play in the world
cup in Zimbabwe but not propose or enforce any other sanctions against Mugabe?
England, morally, should not play in Zimbabwe under the present regime however,
the government stance is highly hypocritical. For this reason, my opinion is
that the ECB should proceed as intended. It's a bit hard to take all this debate so seriously - we ALL know the
cricketers shouldn't go. Everyone. It's just a question of who will be brave
enough to make the decision, and suffer the consequences - financial, political,
or simply in terms of publicity. Who's responsible? We ALL are - the public, the
ICC, the ECB, the Government, Nasser Hussain, the other players... Who's got the
(cricket) balls to tell the simple truth? At the moment, it seems like no-one
has... Unless the cricketing nations in the World Cup jointly take an eleventh hour stand to boycott games in Zimbabwe it seems inevitable that England must honour their contractual commitment to play there. If they do go, the England party, players and officials, must make sure they completely boycott any related ceremonial or other direct contact events that will provide Mugabe and his henchmen with any favourable publicity. The government's stance on compensation is the correct one. Were they to pay
up on this one, how many claims would follow from other commercial or sporting
organisations in the period ahead. Cricket is being used as an easy target. Blair is too concerned with his
popularity to risk losing support by banning companies from trading with
Zimbabwe, but he is happy to tell the cricketers they shouldn't. He doesn't even
have the bottle to make a decision, but throws the responsibility at someone
else for them to take the flack.
Nasser, you have my every sympathy. I find it hard to believe that the
Government, ECB and ICB are all so weak-kneed, spineless, yellow-bellied and
pathetic that they have to defer the decision to you. In these circumstances I
support WHATEVER you decide because you've been put in an impossible position.
Good luck.
Why should England boycott playing in Zimbabwe? isn't a major event like the
cricket World Cup supposed to bring people together? Let's just play the game in
Zimbabwe and just forget, for a few hours the trouble which is being caused. If
they boycott playing in Zimbabwe then when they are asked to play in England
they are going to say no and whose fault is that going to be? Before the politicians start having a go at a dozen guys hitting a ball around a park perhaps they would like to consider the fact that 400 UK companies still do business with Zimbabwe and UK investment there is more than £100m. That is what I call supporting Mugabe's regime. Cricket is the easy target when they just want to pay lip service to this big morality thing. Mugabe is not going to stand or fall on a cricket match, it's the state of the economy that will bring him down. Britain is happy to trade with any number of dictatorships, ship arms to any
number of unstable regions and mine diamonds from the cheapest source. When the
major hypocrisies have been cleared up, then they can start fiddling about on
the periphery. Are we to assume that if Zimbabwe had reached the world cup finals and been
drawn against England we would have refused to play them ? The government does not appear to realise that the money that is in question
is used to fund cricket from grassroots to the top level. The state of cricket
in England is already in a perilous state before depriving the game of much
needed money. If England were to boycott the game in Zimbabwe, not be
compensated by the government and then do well in the World Cup they should then
boycott any efforts by 10 Downing Street to cash in on this success.
There would be no consistency in pulling out of Zimbabwe. After all, the English football team will be playing Turkey in Turkey, who are responsible for the suffering of 1000's of Kurds, English athletes will participate at Olympics in China in 2008 and Israel remain a member of UEFA, and so the list goes on. What I understand from this is that the death of tens of white farmers in
Zimbabwe is worse than the death of 1000's of Kurds, Tibetans and Palestinians.
The fact is, they are all equally terrible, so let's be consistent, either
boycott the majority of sporting events, or treat sport as something separate to
politics.
I'm a little confused on why there is such a big fuss on who should fork out the compensation. Surely in all this war of words the supporters have been forgotten - those that have saved up to follow and support their team through the world cup. The amount that they will lose will surpass the amount being debated here. Also on this issue all I have heard regarding security and safety is of 16
players and their entourage, what about the thousands of supporters who will in
Zimbabwe - or are they not important is this whole event? Yes, Government should pay for Zimbabwe boycott. If Nasser Hussain shakes Mugabe's hand it will be used as a political act by
Mugabe. It will bolster an evil regime. However, both parties are to blame. The
ECB knew about this problem a long time ago as well as the government. The
suggestion that cricket will go bankrupt because England miss one 1-day
international is laughable. If the game goes ahead shame on Nasser, any player
who goes, the ECB and the government. How can you not play cricket when UK banks and other business are operating
all over Zimbabwe? Tessa Jowell referred to "the deteriorating security
situation" - yet that has stayed the same, only the government's need to appear
"ethical" in its foreign policy to legitimise Iraq needs the matches to be
cancelled. The Government is happy to sell Hawk jets to Indonesia and still
trade in Zimbabwe - why deny people the chance to pay and watch cricket?
At what price do we support the atrocities of Zimbabwe - £10 million is how
cheaply a nations suffering can be bought, but then it is only Zimbabwe, they
have no oil, little gold, few diamonds. Whilst Nasser fiddles with his bat,
Harare burns. Perhaps it is time to stand up and be counted. With the lack of
moral courage being shown today, England insults it's own past and heritage.
Why there is even a question as to whether we should play in Zimbabwe
astounds me, Mugabe is a dictator and should not be further financed by England
cricketers! Can Blair not get off his fence for once and make a decision for
this country or will he have to phone the White House first! Remember the original meeting between Wilson and Smith at GIB. The agreement
was yes you can go and we [the British Government] will pay you ex Pounds. All
that money has not been paid. So if England go. Mugabe could in theory hold our
cricketers hostage. Until such monies are paid. A humble message to Nasser Hussain. Let the politician's boycott whatever
regime they please but you don't have to Nasser because all the cricket players
(any nationality) are brothers. Go there and try to win the world cup!
|
The Daily News reports that the Zimbabwe Cricket Union is limiting tickets for the world cup to 2 per person.
The ZCU does not have an intelligent reason as to why they are doing this. And we believe that you should get to the bottom of it. Some points for you to consider:
Just who exactly is benefiting from these 6 world cup matches in Zimbabwe?
We need more transparency regarding the sale and the allocation of tickets.
Also the Zimbabwe Cricket Union and the ICC continually reiterate that ordinary Zimbabweans are going to benefit from the world cup cricket in Zimbabwe YET
The points that we raise further illustrate that the ZCU is entirely self-serving in their role as potential host of world cup cricket in Zimbabwe.
Organised Resistance
|
BBC - have your say about ECB decision
Having been born in and lived in the "Rhodesias" I feel a great sadness about what is happening in the region. It is a humanitarian issue - and goes beyond simple politics. This is why the English cricket team should not be persuaded by any political pressures, but simply by their own individual consciences. To lend any kind of international credibility to Zimbabwe's state machinery is immoral and unethical. Each cricketer should base his decision to play there not on what others may
or may not believe to be correct, but on how he feels his decision will reflect
on his own moral and ethical standards. Ali USA says "Let sanctions be sanctions". There are no sanctions! The UK
still trade with Zimbabwe, so why should the cricket team be a special case? The
ICC should never have let the matches be played there, but England making a
stand now will do nothing. The ECB decision is the right one. It has nothing whatsoever to do with
politics. Why on earth should professional sportsmen be asked to sacrifice
personal income and sporting achievement to satisfy a UK government without the
backbone to impose trading sanctions on the corrupt Zimbabwe regime or to expel
them from the Commonwealth? I hope Blair and Hain feel utterly embarrassed
tonight. And if Iraq played cricket? How wayward and dictatorial does the government
of a country have to be before we stop playing the virtuous game of cricket
there?
I don't see how the British government or the British people can object to England playing cricket in Zimbabwe. Do we really expect that the ECB should take the lead against Zimbabwe, when the government refuses to? Political and economic sanctions should be introduced before we can ask our
cricket team to boycott the match, especially if no financial compensation is on
offer. I definitely think that the fans should stay away. The leadership shown not only by the ECB but also Westminster is nothing short of gutless and pathetic. I think that individual players also need to look at themselves and maybe
take a stand individually and collectively to stay away from Zimbabwe. Hope that
the members of the ECB will sleep well on this cop out!!! I initially believed that the cricket team should not play in Zimbabwe. However, the ECB have highlighted a lack in consistency in government policy towards the regime. It is up to the government to enforce a more uniform trade/sporting sanctions policy if that's what they want. OK go and play, it might draw the world's attention back to how badly Mugabe
is treating his people. I feel that the comments (unreported here) made by the ECB in the full eight-minute statement raise some important issues. The ECB were in the unique position of being asked to not play these matches, and leave themselves liable for unlimited financial damages. There are 300 UK companies operating in Zimbabwe and 2 British Airways flights per week. There are no political, financial or economic sanctions indicating Zimbabwe's position in the world, and they are still a full member of the Commonwealth (their sportsmen and women were represented last year in Manchester in the Commonwealth Games). The government have asked the cricketers to make a stand they are not prepared to make themselves. It may not be the right decision, but it was the only one they could make. If the government ask a company to break a contract for the moral stance of the nation, they should be responsible for financing this from the public purse.
The government cannot ask individuals to make a stance they will not back, or financially support, so the game must go ahead. The only hope for this government is that the ICC thinks it's too dangerous,
and moves the games on the basis of safety. Fans should certainly boycott the match. The ECB were put in a very difficult position by a government that appears to be incapable of taking a real lead on any issue. Nevertheless, the ECB could still have had the moral courage to make the decision themselves. Now it's left to the players, who cannot be blamed if they put their own livelihood first, although they too should be capable of taking a moral stand. If Nasser Hussain takes a lead himself by refusing to play in Zimbabwe, he
will have shown Tony Blair a thing or two about leadership. How should the fans react? By a complete and unanimous absence! If the board
hasn't got any backbone but only sees things in pounds and pence, at least the
fans can register their disapproval. The gold award for hypocrisy in this fiasco must go to Mike Gatting. He suggests that the England cricket team should boycott the World Cup. This from the man who led two rebel tours to apartheid-stricken South Africa.
Oh, sorry it was for money. Okay, that's alright then. Pah! This is a different type of issue to people who are not cricket fans. It is easier to answer no when the sport means nothing to you. Cricket needs exposure and financial backing so it reaches the grass roots in as many countries as possible. If the UK government has no sanctions against Zimbabwe then we must play. The MPs are telling the cricket team in all the papers not to go but they do not want the costs that go with cancellation. The ECB have taken the correct decision and I back them all the way. They are
making decisions not just for the next game but the future of cricket.
Excellent decision. Glad the authorities have clarified that politics and
sport are totally different streams and I'm glad it wasn't mixed. Will be very
pleased if even the people who were against this decision to come forward and
back it and enjoy the game. I am getting increasingly desperate with the lack of strongly held political opinions the UK government has. The government has had a moral obligation for many years to lead the demand for action against the Mugabe regime. Instead, the government have taken the opportunity to pretend they are being firm over the murder and mutilation taking place in Zimbabwe but at the same time putting the onus of action on a sporting agency. The government should be ashamed that they have abdicated their
responsibility and tried to leave the blame with the cricket board. When will
principles return to politics? I wrote into this site some time ago on this issue, to state that I strongly objected to the England cricket team going to Zimbabwe for the obvious reason that the situation in that country is abhorrent. However, having recently spoken to relatives who live there and been given the view on the ground, I get the impression that no matter what happened, Mugabe would be able to make political capital out of it. So, for the morale of the people, we should honour our obligation to play,
but should be seen to refute any attempts by the Zim government to use us for
their political benefit. The fans should stay away from the game. If the ECB can't make a stand then
it is down to the fans to make a point. I still have no idea, why when England
players were able to lead a rebel tour to South Africa in the 80s, the
individual players are not able to rebel and stay away from the tournament.
Neither the England team nor the fans should be making the trip to Zimbabwe. Where has everyone's sense of morality gone? I am appalled at the comments of Mike Gatting saying one match won't make a difference! I guess the tortures and political murders going on less than a mile away don't make a difference. And imagine the Barmy Army emerging merry from the gates of Harare Sports Club after a predictable victory only to be confronted by Mugabe's guards outside his house across the road. Has nobody realised England will be playing and supporting cricket in a
cricket ground only a few yards from the house of one of the most brutal leaders
of this century? As we all know English cricket is not what it should be, and a loss of £11m would shatter the last five years of work in grass roots development. We all want our national team to be better, and this costs money. Had the government footed the bill I think the ECB would have jumped at the chance of a boycott. But without that compensation they cannot, as their first priority is the continued development of cricket. Why are people not pouring pressure on the government to do something about the Zimbabwe problems? It should not be down to a team of sportsmen to make such a political statement.
I hope that all the team go there with their morals intact, they have nothing
to be ashamed of, they are doing this for the love of their sport and their
nation. I hope they do us proud. If the government wanted England to not play in Zimbabwe, they should have let their feelings known in November when England were asked by the ICC to play in Zimbabwe, not leave it until a month before the match. I think they are quite right to play, particularly as the government will not
compensate them if they do not play. It's not fair from the government to put such pressure on a non-political
organisation. If the government is so worried about Zimbabwe's human rights
record then why doesn't it impose economic sanctions on them? Sport and Politics
should never mix. It's an absolute disgrace. Putting forward the sport v politics argument is a
smokescreen and a cop out. The cricketing authorities have shown themselves to
be morally bankrupt. Now that they have decided to go, I hope Nasser Hussain and the players have
the guts to refuse to shake hands with the Zimbabwean ministers, including
Mugabe. I would even suggest that they turn their backs on them in protest.
A true kick in the teeth to the £6m people Mugabe is starving in his own
country. The only thing more pathetic than the ECB is the stance of the British
government. No doubt when things go wrong it will be the UK taxpayer who'll have
to sort the mess out.
I am appalled, disgusted even. I was born and lived in Zimbabwe for 27 years so I know what I am talking about. This whole issue boils down to one thing and one thing only - money. The ECB are only interested in the money deals. This has absolutely nothing
to do with sport. England's cricket team isn't up to much anyway. It will be a
huge waste of time them even being there. How typical that once again this comes down to money and to hell with the horrors that are occurring against humanity. The ECB talk about sport being singled out but surely this is an area that can highlight the tragedies occurring in Zimbabwe to a bigger audience than the government. Shame on them - I certainly won't be supporting England in the cricket any
more. I am ashamed to be English, surely the moral issues raised here are more
important than money! All parties have been forced into corners over this matter and, in truth, everybody (except Robert Mugabe) is right and everybody (especially Mugabe) is wrong. There should be a boycott of Zimbabwe by England's cricketers and those of the other countries due to play there. Nevertheless, English cricket should not have to suffer - either financially or in terms of World Cup group points. However, I fully understand the British government's position. Until they implement a boycott of Zimbabwe and institute trade sanctions, they cannot order anybody not to go there. The only possible reason the sanctions are not in place is because it would exacerbate the situation, which is good enough for me. The government recommends that Britons do not visit the country but there is no embargo and there are still flights to Harare.
Until the embargo is in place and/or flights are withdrawn, it is up to individuals' consciences. Robert Mugabe is evil, his dictatorship is wrong, and he should be stopped. But it is not for England's cricketers (or any nation's) to take the lead in this and simply refuse to play in that country because there will be major repercussions for world cricket. I just hope that everybody who goes to the games, players and fans, are safe.
This is not a certainty and for that reason, the whole Zimbabwe section of
fixtures should be moved out of the country. While I feel sorry for Nasser and the boys after the way the government and the ECB have behaved, I nevertheless feel that Nasser and the boys are still grown-ups who should have their own problems with playing in Zimbabwe. I would like to think that the players have enough moral fibre as human
beings to know that playing in Zimbabwe is wrong and therefore refuse to play.
Why were Zimbabwe chosen to co-host the tournament in the first place? As much as everybody is horrified by Mugabe's regime, England must go. Whoever made the point that other businesses are still active in the country and 'why single out cricket' is correct. Let's go in, win the game and get out. Haven't Nasser's boys had enough this winter without being vilified for something that is effectively beyond their control. They are cricketers, I'm a cricket fan and I want to see Hussain lifting that
World Cup at the end of it. Zimbabwe is a country in the grip of a harsh dictator, there is no doubting that. However, until there is a complete boycott of all relations with Zimbabwe, including diplomatic, there is no way the government can expect our cricketers to boycott these matches. Indeed it will be the ordinary Zimbabweans who suffer as they will be denied the opportunity to watch the world's best cricket teams compete in their country. I firmly believe that the ICC was wrong in scheduling games in Zimbabwe given
the current political climate. No way should we visit a country that has such a man in power, the cricketers
should use the time to coach our younger players instead. If the British Government will not take any action to isolate or boycott
Zimbabwe, the England cricket team should play there.
I reckon Nasser's men should play in Zimbabwe because if we pull out they may
not want to come over in the summer. I think it is abhorrent that any team plays in Zimbabwe. The situation in
Zimbabwe is even worse than the South African regime that was boycotted for
years. But money talks and the money men will triumph over morals I feel.
The government obviously feel that the financial consequences of imposing a
ban are too high. Therefore they have made a decision on this matter. It is a
cricketer¿s job to play cricket and not make political decisions. Without any
prevention from the government, they should play to win and good luck to
them. I am a Zimbabwean who left that country eight months ago and I would like to say that it is too late for any team pull out now. I think the ICC made a big mistake in allowing the World Cup to take place in Zimbabwe. With the petrol crisis worsening and food shortages, it may cause riots. Will the England commentators be allowed to cover the England game? I doubt
it. Unfortunately the matches will have to take place with some matches having
an empty ground. Mugabe has made it known that Britain is an enemy of his. Would you step foot
or send your children to ones house who has called you an enemy? Let sanctions
be sanctions. I say no cricket in Zimbabwe. The England players should refuse to shake hands and take part in
photo-calls. This will deny Mugabe the publicity he desires. But it is not the
place of the British Government to tell the English cricket team who they can
and cannot play, especially when to pull out would incur heavy costs which the
government would not help to pay.
When Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister in the 1930s, the England
football team played Germany in Germany and were told to give the Nazi salute as
the German anthem was played, which they did. If the British cricket team plays
in Zimbabwe, we will have reached a similar low. I think it would be a better idea to stay back in England rather than losing
to Zimbabwe. I don't think England cricket fans fancy watching England losing to
Zimbabwe. So stay back and cover it up with some political scenario.
Since the government refuses to cover the ECB then the ECB should go. However
the national team should not do anything that will promote the Mugabe
government, this includes shaking hands with any government minister. Our
cricket team is not good enough to forfeit games and the points, we must aim to
win has many games has we can. To play or not play in Zimbabwe is a question for the ICC. They must evaluate the safety and logistical issues that relate to a country with no fuel, severe shortages of basic foodstuffs and a political climate that is very hostile to the countries of two of the teams playing in Harare. The ICC must decide if playing the Cricket World Cup in Harare in 2003 is beneficial for the game and that the safety and wellbeing of the players and supporters is assured. If the ICC say "play" then Nasser and his team should play. Remember those
who play and support cricket in Zimbabwe are generally not those who support
Mugabe. If Hussain is the captain and encourages his team to pull out, this is a
political act, not a sportsman's act. He is picked to play cricket. If he wants
to be political, then he must resign and take up politics.
Nasser Hussain accuses politicians and ECB executives of 'faffing about'.
Maybe they are, but to him this should be irrelevant. If he has a moral
conscience, and can display his own free will, then he should not go, because he
will be at risk of making an innocent but serious contribution to Mugabe's
propaganda activities. It is an invalid argument to justify going by saying that
many other British businesses operate in Zimbabwe. The fact that they are
morally bankrupt does not mean more should follow their example. The government should be bold and stop the team playing in Zimbabwe. They should be ready to compensate ECB for any loss, after all it was the government which dithered until the last minute. It is no good passing the buck to the ECB who in turn are trying to pass it
on to the players. It is just not cricket ! Either way I hope that whether the teams do play there or not, Zimbabwe
deserves the greatest press coverage possible to show the rest of the word what
a bleak situation this once prosperous country is in. The English cricket team is representing the country of England. The
political leadership of England has decided that Mugabe's government is not
doing anything untoward, otherwise they would have imposed economic and
political sanctions, wouldn't they? If the government hasn't boycotted trade
with Zimbabwe, why should they expect the cricket team to boycott cricket there?
This is not a dictatorship and the government has given clear advice. The England cricketers are adults and should stop going on about being naive when it comes to politics. They have a duty to make up their own minds and it's a simple moral choice.
They should not go and they should not fudge the issue and try to make us, the
taxpayer, foot the bill. Cricket is just sport. Nasser is a cricketer, not a politician. If Tony Blair has not the backbone
to stop England playing in Zimbabwe then he should not expect sportsmen to do
his dirty work for him. It seems to be to be a very simple matter. The individual cricketers need to decide whether, on balance, the regime in Zimbabwe is "good" or "bad". If, like most fair-minded people, they conclude the latter then they should decide what comes first, their selfish concern with playing a game, or making a statement on behalf of the suffering and starving people of Zimbabwe. To hide behind complexities, governments, ruling bodies, etc is
reprehensible. What ever happened to a sense of right and wrong and honour in
this country?
Put cleanly cricketers play cricket, politician play politics. However, if the politicians do not want to act in this matter, then what should be done? It is clearly a moral question, which needs an individual like Nasser and may I add Duncan Fletcher to weigh up the situation. Ask yourself these questions: 1) What would I want to happen if it were my family's farm which had been appropriated illegitimately? 2) What would I want to happen, if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt, through an independent organisation like the UN that the government of Zimbabwe was deliberately starving half of its population to death and in amongst that number was your mother, father, wife and children? 3) What if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt through an independent organisation that the government of Zimbabwe was involved the suppression of democratically held tenants of governance and expression? 4) Finally, if I knew beyond any doubt that this same Zimbabwe government is not legitimate, meaning there is no basis to meeting and entertaining an illegitimate patron of the Zimbabwe Cricket Board? The answer to all these questions is based on your own moral judgement. Being
a leader sometimes involves making these kinds of calls. The Government should make the final decision on the matter and if they say
no then we shouldn't go. How can you make the England team make a decision, they
have been on tour All Winter in Australia. They should have been, told about
this earlier. There surely can be no question of England playing in Zimbabwe; to
participate would only endorse Mugabe's dreadful regime. Sometimes we have to
have the moral courage to do what is right, however much it costs - to play is
just another form of appeasement.
Now that the government has appointed Nasser Hussain as the country's moral compass, do you think we can ask him for his point of view on Iraq? Does he think we should impose sanctions against Pakistan and India for their proliferation of nuclear weapons? Would he care to comment on the US's refusal to sign the Kyoto accord? I think this is a wonderful! Our government, which has give up all moral
responsibility, has appointed this decent, intelligent and sensitive man as the
country's voice of conscience. I only wish they'd take this to the logical
conclusion and give him the authority that goes with this responsibility. I'd
vote for Nasser before Tony Blair any day! Of course England should travel. Sport and politics are separate entities. If
it's OK for English football teams to play Israeli sides in European
competition, then its OK to play cricket in Zimbabwe. Mugabe never played cricket and does not know the rules, but he is the
cricket patron in Zimbabwe. Was Chingoka not mixing politics with sport? Nasser
come and play the game with Mugabe. Should Jesse Owens have boycotted the Berlin Olympics? No, he went and showed
up Hitler. They should go and play, but refuse to join in the ceremonies and
hand-shaking. They can warm-up while all that is going on. It's hypocritical for
the Government to expect the ECB to enforce their political opinions for them.
Yes Mugabe is a bad man, however if this government does not want his regime
to win a propaganda victory then they need to put their hands in their pockets
and find £10M. A drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money they are
desperate to spend killing innocents in Iraq. Why should the game we love suffer
to keep warmonger Blair and his cronies happy. Why, why, why are cricket and rugby always the targets for the politicians to use as scapegoats? If it were the England football team going, no-one would turn a hair. Just like they didn't when Zimbabwe sent a team here to the Commonwealth Games, where they came 22nd, picking up one gold and one silver medal. If the politicians wish to make a point then it is up to them - but this lot
seem to lack any fibre. Of course, if the cricketers don't go and there is a
backlash of some sort, President Blair and his cronies will be holding their
hands up and saying "it's not our fault - we didn't tell them not to go!"
Why should England boycott? the British government has not imposed any
sanctions or cut off ties with Zimbabwe, so why are they expecting the cricket
team to? it does not make any sense. Put political considerations aside for one moment and consider the safety of
our cricketers. There is nothing Mugabe would like better than a spontaneous
display of bottle throwing that targets the English team, thus humiliating the
country he most despises, and rants and raves against on a regular basis. I feel
sure that his plans for such a spontaneous display are well in hand in
preparation for the arrival of the English cricketers. How can the government justify leaning on the ECB not to play in the world
cup in Zimbabwe but not propose or enforce any other sanctions against Mugabe?
England, morally, should not play in Zimbabwe under the present regime however,
the government stance is highly hypocritical. For this reason, my opinion is
that the ECB should proceed as intended. It's a bit hard to take all this debate so seriously - we ALL know the
cricketers shouldn't go. Everyone. It's just a question of who will be brave
enough to make the decision, and suffer the consequences - financial, political,
or simply in terms of publicity. Who's responsible? We ALL are - the public, the
ICC, the ECB, the Government, Nasser Hussain, the other players... Who's got the
(cricket) balls to tell the simple truth? At the moment, it seems like no-one
has... Unless the cricketing nations in the World Cup jointly take an eleventh hour stand to boycott games in Zimbabwe it seems inevitable that England must honour their contractual commitment to play there. If they do go, the England party, players and officials, must make sure they completely boycott any related ceremonial or other direct contact events that will provide Mugabe and his henchmen with any favourable publicity. The government's stance on compensation is the correct one. Were they to pay
up on this one, how many claims would follow from other commercial or sporting
organisations in the period ahead. Cricket is being used as an easy target. Blair is too concerned with his
popularity to risk losing support by banning companies from trading with
Zimbabwe, but he is happy to tell the cricketers they shouldn't. He doesn't even
have the bottle to make a decision, but throws the responsibility at someone
else for them to take the flack.
Nasser, you have my every sympathy. I find it hard to believe that the
Government, ECB and ICB are all so weak-kneed, spineless, yellow-bellied and
pathetic that they have to defer the decision to you. In these circumstances I
support WHATEVER you decide because you've been put in an impossible position.
Good luck.
Why should England boycott playing in Zimbabwe? isn't a major event like the
cricket World Cup supposed to bring people together? Let's just play the game in
Zimbabwe and just forget, for a few hours the trouble which is being caused. If
they boycott playing in Zimbabwe then when they are asked to play in England
they are going to say no and whose fault is that going to be? Before the politicians start having a go at a dozen guys hitting a ball around a park perhaps they would like to consider the fact that 400 UK companies still do business with Zimbabwe and UK investment there is more than £100m. That is what I call supporting Mugabe's regime. Cricket is the easy target when they just want to pay lip service to this big morality thing. Mugabe is not going to stand or fall on a cricket match, it's the state of the economy that will bring him down. Britain is happy to trade with any number of dictatorships, ship arms to any
number of unstable regions and mine diamonds from the cheapest source. When the
major hypocrisies have been cleared up, then they can start fiddling about on
the periphery. Are we to assume that if Zimbabwe had reached the world cup finals and been
drawn against England we would have refused to play them ? The government does not appear to realise that the money that is in question
is used to fund cricket from grassroots to the top level. The state of cricket
in England is already in a perilous state before depriving the game of much
needed money. If England were to boycott the game in Zimbabwe, not be
compensated by the government and then do well in the World Cup they should then
boycott any efforts by 10 Downing Street to cash in on this success.
There would be no consistency in pulling out of Zimbabwe. After all, the English football team will be playing Turkey in Turkey, who are responsible for the suffering of 1000's of Kurds, English athletes will participate at Olympics in China in 2008 and Israel remain a member of UEFA, and so the list goes on. What I understand from this is that the death of tens of white farmers in
Zimbabwe is worse than the death of 1000's of Kurds, Tibetans and Palestinians.
The fact is, they are all equally terrible, so let's be consistent, either
boycott the majority of sporting events, or treat sport as something separate to
politics.
I'm a little confused on why there is such a big fuss on who should fork out the compensation. Surely in all this war of words the supporters have been forgotten - those that have saved up to follow and support their team through the world cup. The amount that they will lose will surpass the amount being debated here. Also on this issue all I have heard regarding security and safety is of 16
players and their entourage, what about the thousands of supporters who will in
Zimbabwe - or are they not important is this whole event? Yes, Government should pay for Zimbabwe boycott. If Nasser Hussain shakes Mugabe's hand it will be used as a political act by
Mugabe. It will bolster an evil regime. However, both parties are to blame. The
ECB knew about this problem a long time ago as well as the government. The
suggestion that cricket will go bankrupt because England miss one 1-day
international is laughable. If the game goes ahead shame on Nasser, any player
who goes, the ECB and the government. How can you not play cricket when UK banks and other business are operating
all over Zimbabwe? Tessa Jowell referred to "the deteriorating security
situation" - yet that has stayed the same, only the government's need to appear
"ethical" in its foreign policy to legitimise Iraq needs the matches to be
cancelled. The Government is happy to sell Hawk jets to Indonesia and still
trade in Zimbabwe - why deny people the chance to pay and watch cricket?
At what price do we support the atrocities of Zimbabwe - £10 million is how
cheaply a nations suffering can be bought, but then it is only Zimbabwe, they
have no oil, little gold, few diamonds. Whilst Nasser fiddles with his bat,
Harare burns. Perhaps it is time to stand up and be counted. With the lack of
moral courage being shown today, England insults it's own past and heritage.
Why there is even a question as to whether we should play in Zimbabwe
astounds me, Mugabe is a dictator and should not be further financed by England
cricketers! Can Blair not get off his fence for once and make a decision for
this country or will he have to phone the White House first! Remember the original meeting between Wilson and Smith at GIB. The agreement
was yes you can go and we [the British Government] will pay you ex Pounds. All
that money has not been paid. So if England go. Mugabe could in theory hold our
cricketers hostage. Until such monies are paid. A humble message to Nasser Hussain. Let the politician's boycott whatever
regime they please but you don't have to Nasser because all the cricket players
(any nationality) are brothers. Go there and try to win the world cup!
|
The ECB has always found it perverse and inequitable that we have been
asked to make an isolated and purely symbolic gesture
