ICC looks to build consensus on Zimbabwe
As the debate over Zimbabwe's cricketing future continues, the International Cricket Council (ICC) is hoping to reach a consensus rather than go to a vote on the issue.
England and South Africa have cut their ties with the political violence under president Robert Mugabe's regime showing no sign of abating, but much will depend on India, the moneybags of the sport. They hold the key to any decision.
Speaking to me from Dubai, ICC president Ray Mali said: "It is not easy to suspend or ban an organisation from the ICC. Our rules are very complicated. I would like to avoid a vote and reach a consensus.
"I would like to hear what the member countries have to say. I am a supporter of Zimbabwe cricket but not a supporter of the regime in Zimbabwe."
Mali's comments follow the British government's statement on Wednesday that it would like the ICC to arrive at a "positive outcome" on the issue of Zimbabwe - meaning it wants the country to be excluded from cricket's world governing body.
Earlier this week, Mali told me that he had endorsed Cricket South Africa's decision to cut its ties with Zimbabwe.
And on Thursday, he told me: "The South African decision was taken because the situation in Zimbabwe has changed and, as the leader of the world body for cricket, it is my intention to resolve the issue."
These new comments from Mali suggest there may be some sort of compromise whereby Zimbabwe are excluded from all international competition on the grounds that their teams - in all forms of the game - are simply not good enough.
I also understand that the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) will make a strong case for the decision being taken on sporting grounds, while also arguing that the broadcasters of next year's ICC World Twenty20, to be held in England, will not want Zimbabwe to participate.
But, as is so often the case when it comes to cricket politics, India's stance will be vital.
The Indian Cricket Board (BCCI) has always held the view that governments should not dictate matters in cricket.
I understand that BCCI president Shard Pawar is strongly of this view and has made this clear to his fellow board members at the ICC. Interestingly, Pawar himself is a minister in the Indian government's cabinet.
But - unlike the boards of Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh - the Indian government plays no role in the running of cricket in the country. The BCCI is elected by its constituent member associations, whereas the governments in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh play a major role in deciding who runs their country's cricket.
So a decision on cricketing grounds - that the present situation has meant Zimbabwe is incapable of competing internationally - may be more acceptable to the Indians.
And here the advice of South Africa, appointed by the ICC to guide Zimbabwean cricket, could well be crucial.
Pawar has been in London and met ECB president Giles Clarke on Wednesday to have a lengthy discussion about the issue of Zimbabwe.
It is possible that any Indian decision to support the ECB in trying to achieve the "positive outcome" on Zimbabwe that the British government wants may involve a deal on the issue of county players playing for the rebel Indian Cricket League (ICL).
The BCCI do not want these players to be involved in the Twenty20 Champions Trophy matches planned for later this year.
Ironically, Wednesday night saw the Long Room at Lord's host a celebration dinner to mark the 25th anniversary of India winning the World Cup in 1983 with several rebel ICL players present.
The most prominent of them was Kapil Dev, the captain of the 1983 team but now a leading light of ICL. He sat at the same table as Pawar and made the major speech of the evening.
This was a night of celebration for Indian cricket and Zimbabwe was far from everyone's thoughts. However, my impression was that India have been impressed by South Africa's decision to cut ties with Zimbabwe and may take their lead from them.
The other Asian countries are likely to follow India's lead, and the West Indies could follow suit.
They are also likely to be influenced by former South Africa president Nelson Mandela's condemnation of events in Zimbabwe.
The ICC record in dealing with Zimbabwe is not impressive. As I have chronicled in my blog for the last year, there has been much debate and anguish about Zimbabwe cricket's accounts leading to a major split between former chief executive Malcolm Speed and Mali.
At that time Mali and South Africa were seen as supporters of Zimbabwe; now Mali appears to have changed his position.
But even still, finding a solution that pleases the British government and carries the support of Mali's fellow board members will be difficult.
Mihir Bose's blog is no longer being updated. You can read recent entries about BBC Sport's coverage and insights into the latest issues on the 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~19~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mihir
We all know that the political situation is terrible in Zimbabwe. So, why do the politicians not stand up and ban all sporting/cultural contact with Zimbabwe? Why do they expect sporting bodies to take the decisions?
Surely, sporting bodies should only be responsible for sporting decisions and political bodies (read government/parliament) exist to take political decisions
Why is every journalist holding ICC responsible when the actual responsibility should lie with parliament/government of the countries involved?
Srikrishna Gutta
Complain about this comment
The situation in Zimbabwe is so bad it is beyond politics.
That country should be totally isolated until the current situation is resolved and until that happens we wont get a body to run cricket or anything else in that country.
Its impossible to recognise any body in that country under the current situation.
its like South Africa before.
Complain about this comment
The ICC has been, unintentionally but nevertheless with blind disregard, funnelling money into the pockets of Zanu PF.
Everyone knows the ZCU get millions each year from the ICC.
Everyone knows that cricket in Zimbabwe does not see that money.
Why has it taken the ICC three years or more to reach this point?
Whether or not Zimbabwe can play cricket is immaterial. What is ESSENTIAL is that the ICC pay not a penny to Zimbabwe until they can deomnstrate it is used on CRICKET.
We have been funding a vicious regime for years. Can the ICC say, categorically, that that money was not spent on repression? The cannot, because they do not know (and their own auditors admit that) where the money has gone.
The ICC should hang its head in shame, for that reason only.
Complain about this comment
If the ICC fail to ban Zimbabwe then all right-minded countries should simply withdraw their membership of the ICC.
They are a pretty useless organisation, who made a complete hash of the ODI World Cup last year.
Since the advent of the IPL we hardly need them. Certainly we do not want to be a part of an organisation that condones Mugabe.
Complain about this comment
Another waffly boring blog, where you just try and show us all how clever and connected you are.
I thought blogs were about expressing one's opinion to spark debate, not waffling, dense "it's really complicated" "aren't I clever" stodgy prose.
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Complain about this comment
As sports fans (or journalists) diplomacy and international politics are perhaps not our forte, but there is a consensus emerging.
We put daily challenges or troubles aside to share in a joyous unreality that what matters in the moment is the grace, guile, skill or gritty determination of 22 players. We admire great play and see in its exponents’ endeavours a guiding metaphor for our selves individually and as nations.
On the pitch, at its best, cricket demonstrates values — in its fair play, equality of opportunity, and collective effort toward a common end — and qualities that at times can be elusive in our daily lives.
Sporting contact between peoples helps us learn about each other, and learn to respect and admire the nuances of different cultural characters through its players. Even in troubled times a nation can set aside its own problems to pull together a representative team who may briefly stand for the best qualities of its peoples. These players can, perhaps unwittingly, reflect their peoples’ aspirations for a calm equitable stasis that allows reasonable freedom of self-expression. They can also help nations meet to start to reconcile their differences; that said there needs to be some stable common ground upon which relationships can be built. Regrettably, the lack of political order in Zimbabwe has left it in such an appalling mess that even the cultural diplomacy benefits of cricket are negated.
It is useful to have a nation independent organisation to protect and promote the spirit of the game, but they have to exercise this responsibility. Teams should be suspended if its clear that their nation cannot produce a representative team that might preserve the spirit of the game or offer its peoples opportunities to participate at grass-roots level and to develop and progress on merit. Zimbabwe has reached this point, and its got nothing to do with its national teams’ ability to compete.
Complain about this comment
zimbabwe is a country in shambles. they were due to come in england next year to play a few one day internationals and the 20/20 world cup. england have a lot of matches to cover at that time.
so for england to unload some of the matches they looked at lowly placed zimbabwe to clear their schedule. fair enough zim were not playing good in test and they decided to suspend themselves.
so they were left with one day internationals which meant they were going to come and play in the uk.
but this was not going well with the british. well they can refuse zim visas to come and play one day internatonals but they cant refuse them to play 20/20 which menas it will have to be moved to another counrty and they dont want that.
so they are doing everything they can so zimbabwe can be banned from all competitions.
this is a shame because this was started by england trying to clear some of the fixtures for 2009 and the situation in zim has come to thier advantage.
i wonder this will be happening for the olympics.
Complain about this comment
If Zimbabwe are not downgraded to associate status next week, the ECB should withdraw and resign from the ICC until such a time as the situation is resolved to the satisfaction of the ECB and British government, at which point they can rejoin.
It seems pointless to remain a voting member of an organisation where the democratic process of one member one vote has broken down and all members bar a couple look to the BCCI for guidance.
This is not a democratic process - it's a dictatorship by one country, much the same as it happens as the political system in Zimbabwe.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the only viable solution.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS