Zimbabwe crisis rumbles on
The resolution of the Zimbabwe cricket crisis, keeping Zimbabwe out of the World Twenty20 in England, comes as no surprise.
This was exactly the fudge I anticipated last Friday in my blog.
I did not think Zimbabwe would be thrown out of the International Cricket Council but a solution would be found to keep them out of the World Twenty20.
As I said there were never enough votes on throwing Zimbabwe out, more so as India, the richest and most important cricket playing country, was supporting Zimbabwe.
Until Thursday evening even such a fudge looked difficult.
But then late into the night - and this week has been full of late-night meetings in the corridors of Dubai hotels - England got together with South Africa and India and this led to the Indian Board president Sharad Pawar persuading Zimbabwe to withdraw from the competition.
This is the first time in a year that a decision against Zimbabwe has been reached by the ICC. In Zimbabwe's case you could say it has a story of three strikes and finally out. The two previous strikes have concerned the financial shenanigans of Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC).
Readers of my blog will recall that just about a year ago I revealed the damning findings of an ICC internal investigation into Zimbabwe's accounts.
This report said: "It is clear that the accounts of ZC have been deliberately falsified to mask various transactions from the auditors and from the government of Zimbabwe."
The report also went onto say: "It may be difficult to establish the correct financial position of ZC as it may not be possible to rely on the authenticity of its balance sheet."
Despite the findings of the report being on my blog for a year, that report remains confidential.
The ICC appointed KPMG South Africa to carry out a forensic audit, a report which was also critical of Zimbabwean accounts. As I reported at the time, when the ICC met in March in Dubai, after much debate and no amount of disagreement, no action was taken against Zimbabwe. That report was also not made public.
By then Zimbabwe had taken such a toll of the ICC that the then chief executive Malcolm Speed was not talking to Ray Mali, the South African head of the ICC. I am told they did not speak to each other for months. Indeed Zimbabwe was one reason why Speed left his job some months before he was due to retire. This led to the curious situation that the Dubai annual meeting, which has just ended, saw David Richards perform as acting chief executive before a new one takes over.
So what has changed now? The answer is: South Africa.
Crucial to both previous decisions was the support of South Africa.
But South African cricket's decision to abandon Zimbabwe cricket, prompted by Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela's condemnation of the Mugabe regime, meant the power structure within ICC changed.
So much so that during Thursday's meeting in Dubai of the ICC executive board there was a stand-up row between Peter Chingoka, head of Zimbabwean cricket, and Norman Arendse, head of South African Cricket.
They had been on the same side in March when ICC discussed Zimbabwean accounts.
Now Arendse asked Chingoka how many Movement for Democratic Change members are on the Zimbabwean Cricket Board? Answer? None, proving how it is a Robert Mugabe regime operation.
South Africa's decision to cut its cricket links with Zimbabwe also meant Mugabe's cricket team no longer had the solid support of seven members: the four Asian countries led by India, South Africa, West Indies and its own vote.
The figure seven is crucial because according to ICC rules seven of the 10 Test paying countries must agree for a decision to be made.
Once South Africa had seen the light England could play what may be called its nuclear option against Zimbabwe.
This was that even if the ICC did nothing against Zimbabwe that country could still be kept out of England for the World Twenty20.
All English cricket had to do was tell the ICC that British government would not be giving visas to Zimbabwean cricketers and its officials.
In theory the ICC could retaliate by taking the World Twenty20 away from England. But to do that seven members would have to agree. With South Africa supporting England, and they would also have the support of Australia, New Zealand and West Indies, Zimbabwe could never get the necessary seven votes.
In the late-night discussions in Dubai this new ICC arithmetic was made very clear to Zimbabwe.
It is significant that in its withdrawal statement Zimbabwe's reason was it was not getting visas to Britain.
Remember this year's annual meeting is not being held at Lord's as it has always been but in Dubai because the British government made it clear it would give Chingoka a visa. It had asked the ICC for the damming audit reports and had not got them. The ICC retaliated by moving the conference from Lord's to Dubai.
But then South Africa was with Zimbabwe. Not so now.
That means the British government can refuse visas and the World Twenty20 is safe.
This decision confirms what we have long known about the ICC.
The ICC for its posturing is not a world governing body in the way Fifa and IOC are. It is more a gathering of national cricket bodies.
Historically England ruled the ICC. Indeed for much of its existence the ICC was the international department of the MCC. England's allies were Australia and then white South Africa and it was run like a cosy white man's club. It record on white South African cricket was appalling compared to the robust stand Fifa and IOC took.
Now India is the biggest beast in the ICC jungle and its record on Zimbabwe is no better.
It occasionally gives in to government pressure as it has done now but seldom shows a capacity for making independent decisions as governing bodies are meant to.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mihir
If financial shenanigans are the real reason for Zimbabwe's ouster, then how accountable are Indian and Pakistani cricket boards? You mention the question of how many MDC members are on Zimbabwean cricket board? Have you ever considered how many opposition members are on Indian cricket board which is run by a politican?
If Zimbabwean political situation is the reason, then I do not think ICC is the right forum. It is up to the governments (British or any other) to decide if the Zimbabwean situation warrants sporting ban or complete withdrawal of relationships. ICC is a sporting body and should not be making political decisions.
Barclays has a significant interest in Zimbabwe and there is no pressure on them to suspend their operations or withdraw from that country. Yet, cricketers are not allowed to play a game. Are you telling me that cricketers contribute more to Zimbabwe than Barclays?
Please don't tell me government cannot ask Barclays to pull out. There are rules in place which require british firms not to trade in certain sectors with terrorist or black-listed countries. Surely zimbabwe can be added to a similar list!
Anyway, why is Cricket being singled out? Zimbabwean tennis players are happily playing in Wimbledon. So, why can't their cricketers play Twenty20 world cup?
Sri
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This has the unseemly smell of a "classic compromise"!
The worldwide cricketing public still have no idea how the ICC feel.
I would guess that most people would like the ICC to make things clear, but are prevaricating so they are not seen to be taking a lead.
So, do the ICC want governments to make their decisions for them, or are they content to still "talk the non-commital talk"?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
hypocrites the lot of them. ECB and the Uk govt especially.
There are a couple of british companies that are operating in Zimbabwe. Are we quiet on that because the companies and the Uk govt want a return on the capital they invested.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4251787.ece
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't be surprised if those said british companies also involve themselves in clever accounting. The reason being they are trying to survive in a high inflationary environment
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
There is a political content to this "blog", however this is a SPORTS site.
As far as I am concerned, "Keep Politics Out of Sports"!
Unfortunately, this subject has political connotations, but IF the ICC came out and said something meaningful, then we (as cricket lovers) would be able to hold our heads up high and say, perhaps, we (as cricket lovers) have helped to change the world for the better!
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the good summary, but there is a key question not answered in all of this.
Will the ICC continue to give funding to Zim?
I suspect so. In which case, nothing has been achieved. (Except that Eng keeps its Twenty20 comp.) Very disappointing. I was hoping (but not expecting) that somehow the ICC funds to Zim would be cut, or at least that they wouldn't go to Mugabe's cronies.
Complain about this comment
I have to say how dissapointed I am with this blog entry which
reads as a 'Sun readers' guide to the ineptitude of ICC decision
making.
I'd like to suggest that Mr Bose actually takes a few minutes to
read through the ICC's 'Full Member Requirements' pdf as shown on
their website under "Rules and Regulations". You'll see in there
that zimbabwe don't even come close on about 75% of those Full
membership requirements and they certainly don't qualify under the
requirement to have '...and accurate and efficient accounting
system", going on their utter refusal to allow the Auditors report
on their accounts to be released for general consumption.
So why wasn't their full membership of the ICC argued on Cricketing
grounds alone? According to the Full member requirements, they also
have to be playing Test Cricket, something they haven't done since
2005.
It's patently obvious to everyone that if Zimbabwe applied for full
membership today, they wouldn't qualify, so what kind of message is
this sending out to the existing Associate Countries, many of which
have a far better claim to full membership that Zimbawe currently
do?
We all know the two reasons why Zimbabwe don't want to be demoted
to Associate status, one the 11 million US dollars of hard foriegn
currency they recieve for doing absolutely nothing and two the vote
support they can give to the BCCI. Are they two strong cricketing
reasons for Zimbabwe to remain a full member?
Perhaps Mr Bose might like to have a look at the ICC Mission
Statement, also easily found on their website. There's plenty of
relevant examples there but this one caught my eye -
"We care for cricket. Everything we do and every decision we make
is motivated by a desire to serve the game better."
This rather pronpts the question, how can retaining Zimbabwe as a
full member of the ICC 'serve the game better' when they don't play
Test Cricket, they won't be playing in the T20 World
Championships,when they do play ODI cricket they invariably get
thrashed and most importantly of all, no Full member country wants
to play them either at home or away, despite Peter Chingoka's
insistence that he's looking forward to more tours with his Asian
friends. Haven't India cancelled tours with Zimbabwe in the past
because 'it's not financially profitable to do so'?
You make out the ECB have pulled off this great political
masterstroke, all they've achieved is a retention of the World T20
championships, that plenty of people in this country would have
been happy to have seen handed back to the ICC, with a thanks but
no thanks. Instead they've prostituted their own morality for the
sake of financial gain, in that sense the ECB are now no better
than the BBCI.
What I do agree with you on is that the ICC are no longer a fit and
proper organisation for administering and governing the world game.
The sooner the ECB resign from the ICC and form their own governing
body, the sooner everyone can get back to enjoying cricket again,
because as a Sky subscriber, I shan't be renewing my sports
package, I have no intention of putting any money at all into the
ECB's pockets, which in turn gets paid to the ICC which in turn
gets paid to Peter Chingoka and his Zanu-PF party.
Complain about this comment
ScottWozniak says so much that is right.
As much as I hate Politics in sport, it is plain the internal politics of cricket are definitely rearing it's ugly head.
My old village team would probably give Zimbabwe a good match, but that is only because Mugabe has done as good a job as Head of Cricket as he has done as Agriculture Minister.
You see, politics entering cricket.
I too am afraid of what the BCCI will get up to in the future - but thats another question.
This time next year (or so) we will all be asking; what has the BCCI has to do with English Cricket?
Care to comment Mr Bose?
Complain about this comment
No mention of the British government's hypocracy. Why are they targetting cricket? If nothing has changed in Zimbabwe in the next four years, will Zimbabwe be barred from the Olympics in London? No, of course they won't because the British government wouldn't want to do anything that upsets its precious Olympics, and reduces the profits of the sponsors of said Olympics.
(I note you removed my previous comment that rightly pointed out your deceptive language - oh dear, the BBC abandons honesty again)
Complain about this comment
Scottwozniak - everything you have complained about was covered in Athers column in the Times earlier this week. therefore the Boss man could hardly cut and paste it and pass it off as his blog......
However it would appear that you managed to put it into your comments...
Complain about this comment
Shame on the BCCI. In the days of apartheid India took the lead with a firm, principled stand against that regime. Now look at them, putting their pursuit of yet more $ in front of doing the right thing and stopping their support for that abhorrent Zimbabwean "government". Well done Ardense and South Africa for at last doing something positive.
India - hang your heads in shame.
Complain about this comment
Sri,
It's not quite the same with tennis players. They are individuals playing for themselves - many of them don't even live in Zimbabwe any longer.
Money won by Zimbabwe's cricketers goes directly into a institution whose President is RG Mugabe; hence the difference.
We should (and do) welcome Zimbabweans into Britain, including their cricketers, but not if they are playing as employees of the ZCU.
Complain about this comment
Mihir
I am not very happy that the Government tried to ban the cricketers threatening the competition.
Gordon Brown and the DCMS should have stayed out if it and allowed the ECB and the MCC to decide what to do then go to the ICC.
Then again, why should we ban Zimbabwe?
We shouldnt allow its Board in as they back Mugabe but I find it very appauling that the sports stars cant play the sports.
They cant help themselves being Zimbabwean can they?
Complain about this comment
Excellent contribution from ScottWozniak, which seems to cover all the important issues and is very well documented. What are the principles and by-laws of any organisation for if it is not for them to be complied with by an member who wants to continue being one?
The "keeping politics out of sport" argument is a very old one: it is usually a cover-up for other less elegant motives and, in the case of Zimbabwe, pretty laughable. The whole of Zimbabwe's public life, just as that of any other de facto dictatorial state, is shot through with politics; it would seem that even your right to life is threatened if you are suspected of not supporting ZanuPF. The ZCU is effectively controlled by the government.
I believe that the International Olympic Association has rules preventiing government control of any national Olympic association. FIFA certainly does, and both Iraq and the recent winners of the Eurocopa had their wrists slapped when it seemed this principle was not being properly followed. The ICC almost certainly does, too.
So there should be no question of the British government objecting to the presence of Zimbabwe at the 2012 Olympics; that is the responsibilty of the International Olympic Committee if they feel that Zimbabwe or any other country is out of line.
Sometimes, though, the international sporting authorities do not do their job as is evidently and blatantly the case just now at the ICC. In such cases, governments may, reluctantly, be obliged to intervene. Noone is going to tell me that the British government rushed in to take the decision they recently did. They have been sitting on the fence over Zimbabwe for a very long time and, during that time, the situation in that sad country has gone from bad to very much worse.
It is devoutly to be hoped that the despicable Zimbabwean regime will not last much longer and that, long before 2012, the sporting community will be able to welcome Zimbabwean sportsmen and women back into the fold. I suspect that most of them will be grateful for the principled stand being taken now by just a few countries to try and ban their country from sporting events. It may only be a drop in the ocean but anything that can be done to make a public demonstration against a country whose regime has placed it beyond the pale and made it a pariah state, can only be positive.
Complain about this comment
Wow! This is a new experience for me. I have never had any of my contributions "moderated"; they usually appear on the web-site in a matter of seconds. I obviously have no objection to that at all, it is something that other sporting web-sites should follow. It seems that an unusually large number of contributions to this particular debate have been removed after moderation and I wonder why. Anyway, I am completely confident that my modest contribution will pass the test.
Complain about this comment
From reading the articles, Full Member status allows a country the right to not have to field a competitive team in any format of the game, destroy their domestic cricket structure, slump into total financial mismanagement and the ICC are willing to pump millions of pounds into this organisation for the priviledge.
It is quite disturbing that India are blamed for supporting and condoning the actions of the ZC so they can "attract" the extra vote.
Surely if the ICC are the supposed cricket admin kings, Full Member status should be given to Kenya, Bermuda or Ireland instead to benefit the game.
Or are the ICC that blind and prepared to waste the resources of the organisation to support and prop up Chingoka and his merry men.
Complain about this comment
Mihir
i have to agree with your blog, about Zimbabwe in crisis rumbles on...
Complain about this comment
Zimbabwe are doomed - cricket wise and other-
The only way for them to improve their quality is if Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe 'A', and Zimbabwe U-19 all play in the South African domestic circuit, gain more exposure and hence will get better. But now that South Africa cut off their links Zimbabwe are looking more doomed than ever.
Complain about this comment
Also It is true that some of the Associates train and play more ODI's and four day games than do Zimbabwe.
Complain about this comment
If some ICC reports show that ZC is corrupt then how do we know if money from the ICC isn't lining the coffers Zanu-PF and the government?
So paying for cricket, either by purchasing tickets, TV deals etc, we will be financially supporting the Zanu-PF. It makes the BCCI's comments that the ICC isn't a political body a joke. FIFA has rules in place which protect the independence of national football associations (and I believe Iraq were expelled for this).
It seems as though the UN will impose some sanctions on Zimbabwe - so the ICC will have to cut them off at least financially.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS