Farce majeure

In the last year, cancellation or postponement of cricket tours has become a vexed issue. Since September 11, West Indies have cancelled a tour of Pakistan (rearranged to Sharjah), New Zealand postponed their tour of the same country, Sri Lanka attempted to arrange and then withdrew from a proposed one-day series in Pakistan and England seriously considered not touring India. Now, Australia has cancelled its schedule d tour of Zimbabwe, citing grave concerns over the safety of its players following unrest after reportedly rigged elections.

Once upon a time, this action would not have had any consequences, as Boards could arrange tours at will, frequently snubbing the lesser cricket countries. Now, the ICC's 10-year schedule means they are obliged to fulfil their obligations. If they don't, a financial penalty is supposed to be imposed, with provision made for force majeure.

Some form of penalty for spurning commitments is undoubtedly a good idea, as it serves as a disincentive to refuse to tour on spurious grounds. The difficulty lies in determining what constitutes a justified reason for declining to tour and what does not, and whether "force majeure" really applies.

New Zealand could not be blamed for refusing to tour Pakistan immediately after September 11 when the course of world events was unknown, despite the Asian Cricket Council viewing this as a sleight. Sometimes there will be legitimate reasons not to tour a country which are out of a cricket board's control. But even if some countries do refuse to play others without justification, there is still only so much the ICC can do. Obviously, it cannot be expected to influence governments, hence the provision for force majeure. It would be unfair to penalise the BCCI for refusing to play Pakistan when they have no control over the matter.

But where does the ICC draw the line? It appears that Australia will not be penalised for opting out of its tour of Zimbabwe, despite assurances from Zimbabwe that the players would be safe.

Evidently a lot has changed in the past seven days. Just last week, the Australian Cricket Board was aware of the security circumstances in Zimbabwe but still planned to go ahead with the tour, issuing a press release titled "ACB confirms Zimbabwe tour." While player safety was an ongoing concern at that time, the issue of the "appropriateness" of Australia touring following Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth was put into perspective by ACB chief executive James Sutherland:

"Cricket is a powerful force for social cohesion and given the circumstances in Zimbabwe, it is important that international cricket continues to be played in order to promote this cohesion within the community.

"Finally, abandoning the tour on these grounds will only damage the cricket loving population of Zimbabwe and have no effect on those with any capacity to change the political circumstances in the country.

"Provided our people are safe while in Zimbabwe, the ACB sees no reason to justify withdrawing from the tour."

Cancelling a cricket tour was hardly going to be a damaging blow to Robert Mugabe's presidency, so sporting sanctions should not have been an issue. So why the change now? Since Australian Prime Minister John Howard was head of the group responsible for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth, it's understandable the players might have been nervous about touring. As the last tour before the off-season, after already playing 9 Tests and 15 ODIs, they were also unlikely to be too displeased at their break arriving early.

Apparently, the reason for the cancellation is that Zimbabwe is a more dangerous place for Australians today than it was a week ago, when the ACB was fully prepared to tour despite being aware of government objections. According to one report, the Department of Foreign Affairs told the Board it could not distinguish between the Australian cricket team and Australian travellers generally, which seems just a little bizarre. Surely, the level of security afforded the Australian cricket team makes it utterly different from ordinary travellers, which must be taken into account. They are not tourists or businessmen.

However, the Board denies it was pressured by the government to cancel the tour. That may be so. But it is interesting that the view expressed by Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to the ACB, as reported by an ACB spokesman, was that touring Zimbabwe would "perhaps send the wrong kind of message." That certainly does not sound like a security concern.

The only "message" it would have sent was that Australia was prepared to stand by a fellow cricket board in its time of need. Unfortunately, that was not to be, which raises the question of whether the refusal to tour is actually, in part, a latent sports sanction. It is one thing to pay lip service to the importance of fostering cricket in Zimbabwe, but the fact Australia has met Zimbabwe in just 1 Test in their 11 years as a Test nation shows where priorities really lie. Once again, it seems to be a case of punishing the people rather than those responsible for making the political decisions.

For what it's worth, the Zimbabwe Cricket Union's head of security operations Dan Stannard was reported as saying the Australian tour would be free of trouble. "I've been travelling around the country this week to make assessments for the tour, and it's calm," Stannard was quoted as saying on the Sydney Morning Herald website. "It's very difficult to reconcile the situation as we see it, to what is being reported in the press." It is naïve to think that politics and sport are separate, but when they are not it at least should be made clear.

Although it's difficult to be convinced the ACB's decision was not in some way politically influenced, unlike India's refusal to play Pakistan it was not a case of force majeure. The ACB still made a choice, theoretically one not influenced by government. If Australia's refusal to tour Zimbabwe is attributed to force majeure, then it sets a precedent which can be used as an excuse for all rescheduled tours.

One would hope the ICC considers the safety of Zimbabwe as a cricket venue independently, and does not accept the ACB's decision at face value.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw