Australian government's principled decision on Zimbabwe shames the International Cricket Council

Our splendid game has been tarnished for years by the narrow perspective of these cricket administrators and their voracious commercial appetites. The ICC's continued intransigence on Zimbabwe has brought the game into disrepute for too long - but now the principled decision of Australian Prime Minister John Howard to ban cricketing contact with Zimbabwe has at last forced the ICC's hand.

The ICC has always put profit before principles

At the 2003 Cricket World Cup the ICC's Chief Executive Malcolm Speed attempted to put pressure on England Captain Nasser Hussain to take the England team to strife-ridden Zimbabwe to play a match. The story is well known, and I won't repeat it again, except to say that Speed treated the England captain with contempt. But that contempt for principle has been institutionalised at the ICC for years. Back in 2002 this is what Speed said about playing cricket in Zimbabwe 'The ICC is a cricket organisation, not a political institution. It makes decisions on what is in the best interests of cricket.' In response to this myopia one might just recall the words of C.L.R. James who wrote 'What do they of cricket know, who only cricket know?'

Sport is as part of politics as any other aspect of life

The Zimbabwe ambassador to Australia, Stephen Chiketa, said after the ban was announced last week that 'politics had no place in sport' - these weasel words will be familiar to the ICC which has constantly used similar formulations to justify the playing of international cricket in a country where human rights have not existed for years and where cricket is used by Mugabe's 'grubby regime' as a propaganda tool. 'Politics' is not some abstract concept that the ICC can disdainfully declare not to be part of sport. The world of politics includes the world of sport just as it includes everything else.

Sport has a social responsibility duty

The business world has for years accepted that it has a duty to apply the principles of 'Corporate Social responsibility' (CSR) to its operations and many big companies have detailed CSR reports. Simply defined CSR means the duty that institutions have to go beyond the basic legal minimum in such matters of health, safety, the environment and business ethics. Whilst businesses see the need to be socially responsible - to go beyond their duty to obey the law and do what governments tell them - this is something that has passed by the apparatchiks at the ICC. After John Howard took his decision Malcolm Speed told the BBC 'A government has prohibited their team from going. That's the clarity we've been seeking. We don't like governments expressing opinions but then leaving the political decisions to cricket administrators. For the last three years, and you have seen it pretty clearly in England, politicians have been making lots of statements about cricket in Zimbabwe and expressing very strong opinions that England should not tour. But they have fallen well short of giving a restriction or prohibition which is what we have been saying is required. We have said many times that it is not up to the cricket administrators to make political decisions.'

Playing cricket in Zimbabwe is not a 'political decision'

The ICC apparently sees the issue of playing cricket in Zimbabwe as a political one and absolves itself of any responsibility other than on 'cricketing issues'. This is nonsense - and offensive nonsense at that. Just as corporations are expected to think beyond the narrow confines of their business and consider the impact of their actions on all stakeholders so should sporting administrators. The ICC should have said many years ago that to play cricket in or with Zimbabwe whilst Mugabe's evil menace casts a shadow on everything in that country, is just plain wrong. This would not have been a political decision but simply a moral one. And the 'spirit of cricket', which the ICC hypocritically claims to uphold, would have been much enhanced if they had placed principles before profits. But that is always far too much to ask of the International Cricket Council.