Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: No related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click here for a list of items relevant to this topic, from the Echo's Year 2003 VCE file (Sept 2002 to current).
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
2003/06: Politics and sport: Should the Australian cricket team have played in Zimbabwe??
What they said ...
'When you know that people have been tortured with burning plastic, locked in steel containers and had electrodes attached to their genitals for wanting democratic governance, then cricket doesn't really seem appropriate, does it?'
Cathy Buckle, Marondera, Zimbabwe
'Sport is all about providing opportunities for all, particularly for the younger generations. Boycotts have no part in this generation building'
Kevan Gosper, the vice-president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
The issue at a glance
On February 24, 2003, the Australian Cricket Team played the only game of the current World Cup series it will have to play against Zimbabwe at home. The game is played at Bulawayo and passed without apparent incident.
The issue of whether Australian cricketers should play in Zimbabwe has been hotly debated. In March 2002, Australia cancel their scheduled tour of Zimbabwe citing safety concerns following the controversial re-election of Zimbabwe's President Mugabe.
There have been serious concerns expressed about electoral irregularities and frequent accusations that the Zimbabwe regime uses torture and intimidation to suppress its opponents. In this context Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth in March 2002.
The Australian Government strongly urged the Australian Cricket Board to cancel the 2003 tour to Zimbabwe both because it was concerned about the safety of players and spectators and because it did not wish the game to appear to give tacit support to President Mugabe's regime.
The English Cricket Board decided that the English team would not go to Zimbabwe because it was concerned for the team's safety. This position had been strongly urged by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
The question remains as to whether Australia's visit was appropriate and whether there should be further visits.
Background
February 2001
The International Cricket Council (ICC) approves outline plans for the format of the 2003 World Cup, which includes matches to be played in Zimbabwe.
October 2001
The tour goes ahead despite the worsening crisis in Zimbabwe, which is already leading to food shortages.
England's 5-0 win takes to 16 matches the losing streak of a Zimbabwe side already demoralised by what it sees as political interference in team selection.
Former captain Alistair Campbell is given a suspended ban and subsequently dropped from the team after saying the team has been "torn apart" by race issues.
World Cup organisers announce a 54-match fixture-list, with Zimbabwe set to host six teams in the preliminary round of the tournament.
March 2002
Australia cancel their scheduled tour of Zimbabwe citing safety concerns following the controversial re-election of Mugabe.
A Zimbabwe government spokesman says the decision is political after Australian Prime Minister John Howard is a key mover in Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth.
August 2002
Zimbabwe's political situation could prevent it hosting matches, says World Cup director Ali Bacher. "We have to be pragmatic. We must have a back-up plan."
The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) along with other major nations, signs a Participating Nations Agreement with the ICC.
The contracts commit the ECB to sending a full-strength team to fulfil all World Cup fixtures.
Australia calls off October tour of Pakistan after grenade attack on missionary hospital near Islamabad. Pakistan captain Waqar Younis commented, "It's not very good back home so I don't think anybody can blame the Australians for not coming."
Zimbabwe willing to go to Pakistan for a one-day series in October after Australian refusal. The Zimbabwe sports minister notes, "We feel for Pakistan after Australia's refusal to go there for the Test series. We support them completely because we have suffered ourselves."
September 2002
Amidst ongoing concern, the ICC decides to send a delegation made up of representatives of the countries set to play in Zimbabwe to decide whether the country is safe.
The ICC insists that only safety, rather than political, concerns will be taken into account.
Zimbabwe captain Heath Streak urges teams not to boycott World Cup matches. "Security is fine and our families are there at the moment."
Zimbabwe coach Geoff Marsh, former Australian international batsman, claims, "I've been living there full-time for the past 12 months and living in Harare has been no problem.... Harare is a great spot."
November 2002
Pakistan complete a tour to Zimbabwe, the first international matches since England's trip 12 months previously.
A series without incident off the field of play convinces an ICC delegation to give the green light for World Cup matches to go ahead.
December 2002
ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, visiting Zimbabwe to make a security assessment, says,"It is not our function to evaluate the political regime of any country."
The British government gradually increases pressure on English cricket authorities to pull out of the match, fearing that it will be seen as a message of support for Mugabe.
English cricket captain, Nasser Hussain, says British Government must make the decision. Hussain claims it is "faintly ridiculous" to expect players to make an informed political judgement.
However, British Prime Minister Tony Blair stresses that the government has no power to force a boycott.
Cricket boards in the other five nations say they will play in Zimbabwe if it is considered safe, the Australian Cricket Board going against government advice.
Zimbabwe government spokesman Jonathan Moyo accuses Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, and Britain's Tony Blair of wanting to keep cricket "as a white and colonial sport".
January 2003
After riots in Harare, the ICC constitutes a standing committee to monitor the situation, admitting that the possibility of moving matches to South Africa remains.
The British government confirms that no compensation will be paid to the ECB if they withdraw from the game in Harare.
The ECB announces England's World Cup match in Zimbabwe will take place.
Protestors delay the press conference for almost three hours after storming the building.
February 2003
Two Zimbabwean cricketers, Andy Flower and Henry Olonga, wore black armbands in their country's first World Series game against Namibia on February 10. They issued a statement regretting the 'death of democracy' in their country.
The ECB reverses its decision and decides to forfeit England's game against Zimbabwe that was to have been played at Harare on February 13. This decision is taken after the English team receives a death threat.
On February 24 Australia played the only game of the series it will have to play against Zimbabwe at home. The game was played at Bulawayo and passed without apparent incident.
Internet information
Amnesty International is a worldwide campaigning movement that works to promote internationally recognized human rights. It claims to be impartial and independent of any government, political persuasion or religious creed. Its work is financed largely by subscriptions and donations from its worldwide membership.
Amnesty International's online document archive currently lists more than thirty articles dealing with human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. The index to this archive can be found at http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-zwe/index
On March 26, 2003, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a media release outlining the Australian Government's reaction to a round of assault and torture of political opponents that had recently occurred in Zimbabwe.
This media release can be found at thttp://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2003/fa034_03.html
On March 27, 2002, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a media release outlining the Australian Government's supportive reaction the Australian Cricket Board's decision not to tour Zimbabwe in April of that year.
This media release can be found at http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2002/fa040_02.html
On January 14, 2003, BBC Sport online published a chronology of the cricket crisis surrounding Zimbabwe. It covers the period from February 2001 to January 2003.
Information from this source was used to produce the 'Background' section of this issue outline. This chronology can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/2654669.stm
On February 7, 2003, the cricket information site, CricInfo News, published another chronology of the cricket crisis surrounding Zimbabwe. March 2002 to February 7 2003. Information from this source was used to produce the 'Background' section of this issue outline. This chronology can be found at http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/FEB/135595_REUTERS_07FEB2003.html
On December 30 2002, The Guardian Unlimited produced a timeline tracing sporting boycotts imposed on different nations. It covers the period from 1956 to 2003. It is very interesting reading and places the current issue in a broader context. The timeline can be found at http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,10069,866670,00.html
The full text of Zimbabwean cricketers, Andy Flower and Henry Olonga's, public statement criticising their country's government can be found at http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/FEB/137464_ET_11FEB2003.html
It was published on CricInfo News on February 11, 2003.
On February14, 2003, the editor of Zimbabwe Cricket news, John Ward, published his views on the English Cricket Union's decision not to play in Zimbabwe. Though ostensibly apolitical, Mr Ward makes it plain that he disagrees with the decision and id suspicious of the motives behind it. He also suggests a number of other ways in which he believes countries such as England might help Zimbabwe and Zimbabwean cricket. His views can be found at http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/FEB/140496_ZCO_14FEB2003.html
On January 9, 2003, BBC Sport online published an overview of arguments for and against the English Cricket Team visiting Zimbabwe as part of the World Cup. These arguments can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/2641647.stm
On Febrauary 3, 2003, The Age newspaper published an article titled, 'No evidence of cricket terror threat, says Downer'
This can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/03/1044122308084.html
A cached version of this piece can be found on Google at http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:GKSD5mAOZdoC:www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/03/1044122308084.html+%2B%22No+evidence+of+cricket+terror+threat%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
On February 12, 2003, The Age newspaper published an opinion piece by Peter Roebuck titled 'England must paly for the sake of the game'
This gives a number of arguments as to why England should have played its World Cup match in Zimbabwe. A number of these also apply to the Australian team.
The text of this comment can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/02/11/1044927598970.htm
A cached version of this piece can be found on Google at http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:d-L0aulpky0C:www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/02/11/1044927598970.htm+%2B%22England+must+play+for+the+sake+of+the+game%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
England must play for the sake of the game
Date: February 12 2003
By Peter Roebuck
Arguments in favour of the Australian cricket team playing in Zimbabwe
1. There should be no connection between politics and sport
It is often argued that sport and politics are separate areas of human endeavour and should remain so. According to this line of argument one of the great advantages of sport is that it operates beyond considerations of race and politics and so can build bridges between groups who otherwise might not meet. This is one of the reasons given for conducting the Olympic Games.
In this instance it has been argued that cricketers and cricket's administrative bodies should not have to make decisions as to which nation is or is not worthy of participating in international competition. Kevan Gosper, the vice-president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has opposed a boycott being placed on Zimbabwe. Mr Gosper has stated, 'Sport is all about providing opportunities for all, particularly for the younger generations. Boycotts have no part in this generation building.'
It is further argued that sport should not be used as a branch of politics so that governments promote their international policy positions by giving orders to their nations' sporting bodies. Thus, though the Australian Government has made it plain it would prefer Australian cricketers did not play in Zimbabwe, it has also made it plain that it is not attempting to dictate against whom they will compete.
2. Zimbabwe is not the only country with questionable policies against which Australia plays cricket
This point has been made by Greg Baum in an article published in The Age on December 31, 2002. Mr Baum writes, 'India has institutionalised poverty, Pakistan is belligerent about nuclear weapons, Sri Lanka is unsteady about human rights ... Pakistan has at least as cavalier an attitude to democracy as contemporary Zimbabwe. Yet these are all major cricket playing countries Australia hosts and visits without compunction.' Mr Baum further notes that even Australia could have its human rights record criticised. He is presumably referring to issues such as Aboriginal reconciliation and the detention of supposed illegal immigrants.
Malcolm Speed, the head of the International Cricket Council, has made a similar point. Mr Speed has indicated that if the humanitarian problems, human rights records and political contradictions of the 84 member countries who make up the Council were closely examined with a view to imposing boycotts, there would be few who would pass.
3. The security risks in Zimbabwe have been exaggerated
In February, 2003, the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Alexander Downer, acknowledged that he had no evidence of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda operating in Zimbabwe.
'I've checked as best I possible can ... but I so far have no evidence of an al-Qaeda network operating in Zimbabwe or an al-Qaeda threat in Zimbabwe.'
It has further been claimed that the supposed 'death threats' which precipitated the decision of the English cricket team not to compete in Zimbabwe may have been exaggerated. There was, apparently, one threatening letter received and Tim Lamb of the English Cricket Board considered it a hoax. Mr Lamb stated, 'I am as convinced as I can be that this is a hoax, a crank letter.'
4. Political and economic sanctions applied by governments are more effective than sanctions applied by sporting bodies
It has been claimed that sporting boycotts are at best symbolic, that is, that they indicate opposition or disapproval, but have no practical impact on the regime against which they are directed.
It has further been argued that if the international community wishes to take action to bring offending nations into line, then it has to use stronger measures than sporting boycotts. According to this line of argument, sporting sanctions by themselves will have little impact on a rogue state. What it required, it is claimed, is a combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions. These have the capacity to significantly affect the functioning of an errant state and so can alter the behaviour of its government.
This point has been made by Richard Calland, senior political analyst at the Institute for Democracy in South Africa. Mr Calland has stated, 'Sporting sanctions are always essentially symbolic, which is why they have to be part of a wider interlocking policy jigsaw that includes political and economic sanctions.'
5. Sporting competitions are a welcome diversion for the Zimbabwean people
It has been claimed that given the distress being suffered by the people of Zimbabwe an international cricket competition might provide a brief relief. This point was made by Peter Roebuck in an opinion piece published in The Age on February 12, 2003.
Mr Roebuck stated, 'Tickets for the [now cancelled England/Zimbabwe] match sold out in a couple of hours and the fixture was keenly anticipated by thousands of locals in need of light relief from their daily concerns. Dedicated coaches and students of the game yearned for an opportunity to see the Englishmen play ...'
6. International cricket competitions provide an opportunity for protest
On February 16, 2003, The Herald Sun published a report on conditions within Zimbabwe and the possible impact of international cricket matches being staged there. The author of the piece, Rebecca Fowler, concluded, 'Mugabe's opponents are beginning to see Zimbabwe's role in the World Cup as an opportunity. It may be the one brief chance they have to make themselves visible to the world in front of the international media.'
7. International cricket provides an opportunity to demonstrate solidarity with the Zimbabwean people.
This point has been made by Greg Baum in an article published in The Age on December 21, 2002. Mr Baum stated, 'Zimbabwe's sportspeople and bodies have done no wrong, but stand to lose most by a boycott... Doubtless that population would look on the World Cup as a symbol that it has not been abandoned by the world. Heath Streak, a former Zimbabwe captain who relinquished the job because of invasions of his family farm, has pleaded with the cricket playing world to come.'
8. Boycotting Zimbabwe could split international cricket into two racially based factions
Peter Roebuck made this point in an opinion piece published in The Age on February 12, 2003. Mr Roebuck stated, 'If teams stop touring, then the game will die on its feet or else split along racial lines, which is worse.'
Neil Mitchell, in an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on February 12, 2003, indicated that there was the possibility of a 'black-white split' in cricket.
Mr Mitchell noted that India was highly suspicious of any English or Australian boycott of Zimbabwe called because of opposition to that nation's government.
Indian has indicated that if Australia boycotted Zimbabwe on this basis it would not take part in the traditional Boxing Day Test and New Year Test.
Arguments against the Australian cricket team playing in Zimbabwe
1. The safety of the cricketers cannot be guaranteed
The Australian Government repeatedly urged the Australian Cricket Board to cancel all matches scheduled to be played in Zimbabwe because it cannot guarantee the safety of the players. In an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on January 1, 2003, Mr Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreigner Affairs Minister, has stated, 'Player safety is still a concern to us because the security situation in Zimbabwe is tenuous and could deteriorate at any time.'
As an indication of the potential hazard, the Department of Foreign Affairs has issued an advisory warning to all Australians in Zimbabwe of the deteriorating security situation. It has cautioned them against making openly negative comments about President Mugabe, presumably because their safety could not be assured.
The Australian, in an editorial published on February 1, 2003, stated, 'So why are we still planning to send 15 of our most high-profile sportsmen, the World Cup cricket squad, to Zimbabwe?'
2. The safety of the spectators cannot be guaranteed
Mr Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, has expressed concern that the safety of Australian spectators attending a World Series cricket match in Zimbabwe could not be guaranteed. Mr Downer has claimed that the Zimbabwe police had told the Australian High Commission they would crack down on demonstrations.
Mr Downer stated, 'We've asked for an assurance from police, which we haven't been able to get, that they won't use excessive force to crack down on a demonstration thereby creating a very serious incident at a stadium that not only contains Australian cricketers but an estimated 400 Australian spectators.'
3. President Mugabe will interpret the team's presence as support for his regime
The Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Alexander Downer, has noted, 'President Mugabe would undoubtedly seize upon the cricket matches as a propaganda tool - characterising them as a demonstration to his people and others that his government maintains some degree of international respectability.'
The same point was made by John Willoughby, a former resident of Zimbabwe, in a letter published in The Age on January 13, 2003. Mr Willoughby stated, 'In a very real sense, cricket is a forum for Mugabe's ego: it is a showcase, in his view, an approving acknowledgement of his gentlemanly status and place as a legitimate world ruler.'
4. A cricket boycott would acknowledge the suffering of the Zimbabwean people
The Australian Minister for Foreign affairs, Alexander Downer, has outlined the human rights and political corruption that Zimbabweans have suffered at the hands of president Mugabe. These have included election sabotage, torture, murder, the repression of opposition, the forced seizure of land from white farmers and the starvation of non-supporters by denying them access to food aid.
Mr Downer has stated that through a cricket boycott against Zimbabwe 'Our message would be that the international community will not tolerate [Mugabe's] abuse of political processes and his disregard for human rights.'
5. A cricket boycott would support the protests of Zimbabwean cricketers
It has further been argued that the recent protests by two Zimbabwean cricketers, Andy Flower and Henry Olonga, have challenged other cricketers to follow their lead. Both players wore black armbands when playing their first World Cup match. They were lamenting the death of democracy and human rights in their country. They then issued a public statement in which they declared, 'Although we are just professional cricketers we do have a conscience and feelings. We believe that if we remain silent that it will be taken as a sign that either we do not care or we condone what is happening in Zimbabwe. We believe it is important to stand up for what is right.'
A number of commentators have suggested that the only way in which Australian cricketers can respond in good faith to the example set by Flower and Olonga is to refuse to play against Zimbabwe at home.
Neil Mitchell in an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on February 12, 2003, stated, 'Andy Flower and Henry Olonga jointly say it is important to stand up for what is right. It is time for the Australian team to stop sitting.'
6. An Australian cricket tour of Zimbabwe would worsen conditions for the people living there
A number of commentators have noted that Zimbabwe's police are likely to intensify their activities before and during any international cricket competition, as President Mugabe would not want any protest groups gaining international publicity through the foreign media there to cover the cricket.
This point has been made by Herald Sun commentator Matthew Pinkney in an article published on February 3, 2003. Mr Pinkney noted, '"Enemies of the state" are already being abducted and brutalised to ensure no disruption to Zimbabwe's home matches ... [This] means that every time Zimbabwe hosts a match, an unknown number of people will suffer horribly as a result.'
It has also been claimed that anyone who protests while the matches are in progress will suffer retribution once the foreign journalists are gone. In an editorial published in The Age on February 9, 2003, it was noted, 'Protests at World Cup games are, in the assessment of Australia's high commissioner in Zimbabwe, likely to provoke a violent crackdown.'
7. The players are put in a compromising position when playing in Zimbabwe
There have been a number of criticisms of Australian cricket players for having participated in a World Series match at home to Zimbabwe in February, 2003. Peter Oborne, the political editor of The Spectator in London, wrote an opinion piece criticising the Australian visit that was published in The Australian on February 26, 2003.
Mr Oborne wrote, 'The magnificent Australian team has forever sullied its marvellous reputation by travelling ... to Bulawayo [a Zimbabwean city] to play Zimbabwe. They have sanctioned genocide and murder ...
There was plenty of evidence, if the Australian team had wanted to find it, of what was going on ...'
It has further been noted that a number of Zimbabweans had urged the Australian team to wear black armbands as a protest against the regime ruling Zimbabwe. No Australian team member did so.
8. Sporting sanctions can precipitate political change
Many commentators have noted the success of sporting sanctions against South Africa. These sanctions helped to pressure the South African government into abandoning its policy of apartheid, which discriminated against the majority black African population. This point has been made by the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer. Mr Downer has noted, 'We saw in the past how sporting bans, and other sanctions, drew international attention to the injustices of South Africa's apartheid system.'
Further implications
The fact that the Australian Cricket Team visited Zimbabwe in 2003 without apparent incident does not resolve the issue of whether a boycott should be placed on games in that country. The issue will emerge again in 2004. This time round, 2003, New Zealand and Britain both refused to play against Zimbabwe at home. Unless there is a significant change in the domestic situation in that country both these nations are likely to impose a similar boycott next year.
It would seem appropriate that the International Cricket Council review its decision on the suitability of Zimbabwe as a venue for international cricket. Toward the end of March the Mugabe regime conducted a series of violent assaults and used torture against its political opponents. In a press release issued by the Australian Foreign Affairs Department, the Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Alexander Downer, stated, 'Troops were deployed in Harare during the two-day strike. Since then, hundreds of Opposition activists, including two members of Parliament, have been arrested and in many cases tortured.
More than 250 people have been hospitalised and at least one person has died. Children have been beaten and women have been sexually assaulted by soldiers.'
This hardly appears a region in which it is appropriate to play cricket. The risks to native inhabitants and to visitors would appear to be too great.
The ICC is clearly not interested in making a political statement regarding Zimbabwe. In September 2002 it announced that only safety, rather than political, concerns would be taken into account in any decision to cancel a particular game.
The ICC seems to be particularly concerned to prevent a split in the cricket world between white western democracy on the one hand and the rest of the cricketing world on the other. There have already been sufficient accusations made about racism in cricket to make the ICC extremely wary.
Given this, if the governments of Tony Blair and John Howard want in principle opposition to be demonstrated against President Mugabe's regime they will need to convince the world community to impose economic and political sanctions. At the moment both the United States and Australia have far bigger fish to fry in their involvement in the war against Iraq. It seems unlikely that this will win them sufficient support internationally to make it ease for them to promote sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Sources (PLEASE NOTE that this list of sources is not yet complete, as we have mislaid several items used in the compilation. Please call back after the weekend.)
The Age
31/12/02 page 11 comment by Greg Baum, 'Cricket boycott would bring Zimbabwe suffering, not succour'
8/1/03 page 11 comment by Richard Calland, 'Sports's African quagmire'
13/1/03 page 12 letter to the editor, 'Players must not go into bat for Mugabe's "honour"'
13/1/03 page 12 letter to the editor, 'Anyone for cricket'
9/2/03 page 14 editorial, 'More than a game at stake'
The Australian
1/2/03 page 16 editorial, 'Zimbabwe: time to call 'Over"'
12/2/03 page 12 editorial, 'Black armbands for a sorry history'
18/2/03 page 10 editorial, 'England captain's brave declaration'
25/2/03 page 1 news item by Mike Coward and gavin du Venage, 'Black crosses hang over cricket match'
26/2/03 page 13 comment by peter Oborne, 'Disgarceful display on an easy wicket'
The Herald Sun
1/1/03 page 23 comment by Alexander Downer, 'Playing into Mugabe's hands!'
9/1/03 page 21 comment by Kevan Gosper, 'Boycott a no-ball'
31/1/03 page 20 editorial, 'Don't go to Zimbabwe'
3/2/03 page 18 comment by Matthew Pinkney, 'Cup tie just not cricket'
12/2/03 page 19 comment by Neil Mitchell, 'We must not go'
16/2/03 page 37 analysis by Rebecca Fowler, 'How can people play cricket in a country where have the population is fcaing starvation because of one man?'
25/2/03 page 17 cartoon by Mark Knight