At the moment there's a public debate about whether the Black Caps should tour Zimbabwe. While the NZ Cricket Council is vaguely sympathetic, their hands are tied by the contract they have with the ICC, which imposes a substantial fine if they go. And while the government would definitely prefer that they do not go, they (rightly) will not ban people from travelling for political reasons, and they are unwilling to imdemnify the NZCC against the ICC's fine.
But while watching Campbell Live's piece on the issue last night, I thought of a third option: we could pay the fine ourselves. Some suitable organisation could start a public appeal to raise the money, with a promise that if it is not needed it will be given to an aid agency operating in Zimbabwe. This will hopefully have the effect of shaming the government into action.
It does however raise the troubling question of why we should be paying the ICC - a bunch of amoral, money-grubbing wankers - at all. But that really is the fault of the NZCC; hopefully they'll be a little more careful about the contracts they sign in the future.
While I support the idea of a public fund to pay the fine if it has to be paid. I'd prefer things to go like this.
ReplyDeleteICC: Go to Zimbabwe
NZ Cricket: We're not going
ICC: You owe us a lot of money
NZ Cricket: We're not paying
ICC: We're going to take you to court or do something equally as nasty.
NZ Cricket: OK, but you'll look like an ass in front of the world.
The trouble is, they will, as they did to England a while back, who eventually caved and went...
ReplyDeletethe ICC doesn't care. Sports and politics don't mix
Leave politics out.. it's sport and the profit-motive that don't mix.
ReplyDeleteI believe any contract that requires a party to violate applicable statute law is considered void in that respect - though possibly any lawyers (or law students) reading this could comment?
ReplyDeleteAssuming that to be so, what is needed is for our government to pass a law banning NZ professional sporting teams from playing in Zimbabwe. That would stop the tour and hopefully avoid the 2 million fine.
It would - but it would also be totally unacceptable from a liberal point of view. We can ban people from coming here, but we should never, ever ban them from leaving, and asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction is something we should only do in the most serious cases.
ReplyDeleteI'm not suggesting that anyone is banned from leaving NZ, going to Zimbabwe or even playing cricket there.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am suggesting is that *commercial* transactions are made illegal (as was done with the former Ian Smith regime). A professional cricket tour is a such a commercial transaction. I don't really care whether the ban applies to sport or to all trade except for humanitarian aid.
Thought you might be interested in the opinion of a Zimbabwean friend, who writes:
ReplyDelete"One thing we call all agree on is that we would all like change to occur in Zimbabwe, the question that then follows is whether the boycott of the tour is beneficial in bringing about this outcome.
Those in favour of the boycott argue that sport and politics are intertwined (a point that I can agree on), and that by refusing to participate this sends a highly visible message of our disapproval. On that front, I can’t argue with, it certainly is symbolic, but does it go beyond some vicarious moral position for New Zealanders, to actually helping Zimbabweans, which is the intent of the boycott.
The case of South Africa was raised as a precedent to effective sports boycotts. However, I would argue that the reason it was effective, was because sport, especially cricket and rugby, were the preserve of the white regime, and thus the symbolism attached struck at the core identity of apartheid South Africa. In Zimbabwe, it is claimed a similar boycott will strike at the heart of the ruling party. However, although Mugabe is the Patron of the Zimbabwe Cricket Board, this is largely a token position –and thus claims that touring Zimbabwe gives legitimacy to the regime somewhat misses the point for it is not the case that cricket and ZANU-PF are coterminous. (On the issue of the Zimbabwean cricketing population – though previously it was the preserve of the white settler regime, it has increasingly become a national sport)
Even though, in the past the MDC has called for boycotting of cricketing tours to Zimbabwe, these policies for sanctions (sporting and economic) have caused internal tensions within the party, and have often sat uncomfortably from people within their own electorate. And so I would err on the side of caution against stating that there is groundswell of internal consent for sanctions, similar to the ANC’s demands during the apartheid era.
The point is also raised that the money from the tour will feed the corruption of the regime. However, the ZCB does not operate as a parastatal, and furthermore I would add that the revenue generated in terms of television rights (which in terms of foreign currency earnt is significant for Zimbabwe), and visitors is desperately needed by our ever declining economy. Indeed, given the polarised nature of Zimbabwean society, events such as sport remain one of the few arenas in which it is possible for blacks, whites, Indians, government and opposition supporters etc. to come together.
Thus, I would argue that New Zealand should fulfil its obligations under the ICC to tour Zimbabwe. (yet it should be noted that I have no problems if individuals in the Black Caps felt for their own moral reasons they could not travel and did not put themselves up for selection)"