Zimbabwe's Future?

[Richard]

Zaire no longer exists TBH.

Haha, really? Shows how much attention I've been paying to sub-Saharan African politics in recent years.

Is it "Congo" again now then?

 

[Precambrian]

I don't understand this tyranny talk and stuff. Nobody pressed for Pakistan's suspension when Gen.Musharaf took over the reins there. Not even when Pakistan was suspended from the commonwealth.

Or when Indira Gandhi made a mockery of the democratic structure of the constitution and declared emergency and delayed elections and ruled for another 2 years in the 80s.

I still believe Zimbabwe be expelled from member status, if and only if, it has failed in its duties as a member nation. i.e, if the ICC finds that the 11 million dollars it gives it to the Zimbabwe board has been fraudulently utilised, or misappropriated. etc.

The world is often not as England government sees it, (Iraq Wmd). Hence talking of moral reasons to ban Zimbabwe is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Richard]

Matthew Engel put it best.

I could have a decent stab at writing a powerful newspaper column arguing the moral case against playing cricket in any place you care to name, however innocuous it may sound. (Even New Zealand has dirty little secrets you know. The UK certainly has.) But somewhere in the dust, by no means easy to find, is a line no decent human-being should cross. And I believe the wretched tyranny that is Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is now accross that line and that no team should tour there.

Anyone trying to compare the situations in Pakistan or pretty much anywhere else to Zimbabwe simply doesn't know what they're on about. Zimbabwe is far worse than most things have ever been.

 

[Marius]

Is it "Congo" again now then?

Since about 1997, when Kabila took over. The country was renamed the Democratic Republic of Congo, not to be confused with the Republic of Congo.

 

[TT Boy]

Matthew Engel put it best. Anyone trying to compare the situations in Pakistan or pretty much anywhere else to Zimbabwe simply doesn't know what they're on about. Zimbabwe is far worse than most things have ever been.

Says who? Pakistan until 9/11 was public enemy number one of the Western world and its media (like with Zimbabwe now) took great pleasure in showing how corrupt the country is whilst espousing the cause of individuals who are just as corrupt and are apart of the same hypocrisy.
Pakistan is a military dictatorship, Bangladesh is a military dictatorship (where a gust of wind usually causes a state of emergency to be declared) whilst Sri Lanka has been involved in a bloody civil war for over twenty years. Yet, Zimbabwe is the only country where the ICC should get involved in on humanitarian grounds? The ICC itself is based in Dubai, a place where democracy does not exist and human rights mean nothing.
So why just pick on Zimbabwe?

 

[open365]

Matthew Engel put it best. Anyone trying to compare the situations in Pakistan or pretty much anywhere else to Zimbabwe simply doesn't know what they're on about. Zimbabwe is far worse than most things have ever been.

I agree

So why just pick on Zimbabwe?

Because Zimbabwe are awful at cricket and add absolutely nothing the the international game except discussions over their political state?

Zimbabwe should have been obliterated from the international schedule a long time ago, if the ICC takes the oppurtunity now to do so for political reasons, can anyone really say we've lost anything by them not playing international cricket?

 

[Richard]

Says who? Pakistan until 9/11 was public enemy number one of the Western world and its media (like with Zimbabwe now) took great pleasure in showing how corrupt the country is whilst espousing the cause of individuals who are just as corrupt and are apart of the same hypocrisy.
Pakistan is a military dictatorship, Bangladesh is a military dictatorship (where a gust of wind usually causes a state of emergency to be declared) whilst Sri Lanka has been involved in a bloody civil war for over twenty years. Yet, Zimbabwe is the only country where the ICC should get involved in on humanitarian grounds? The ICC itself is based in Dubai, a place where democracy does not exist and human rights mean nothing.
So why just pick on Zimbabwe?

Umm... because Zimbabwe is far more than a dictatorship, it's a dictatorship that sponsors genocide and destruction before it does just about anything else. Yes?

These other countries are poor, no doubt. But to suggest any are even close to being on the level of Zimbabwe in terms of "amount wrong" is, well, simply wrong.

 

[TT Boy]

I agree



Because Zimbabwe are awful at cricket and add absolutely nothing the the international game
Zimbabwe should have been obliterated from the international schedule a long time ago, if the ICC takes the oppurtunity now to do so for political reasons, can anyone really say we've lost anything by them not playing international cricket?

Neither does Bangladesh...

 

[TT Boy]

Umm... because Zimbabwe is far more than a dictatorship, it's a dictatorship that sponsors genocide and destruction before it does just about anything else. Yes?

These other countries are poor, no doubt. But to suggest any are even close to being on the level of Zimbabwe in terms of "amount wrong" is, well, simply wrong.

There are plenty of Tamils who would argue that genocide has been occurring in Sri Lanka since July 1983. There is even a website on it aptly called genocide.org.uk.

 

[social]

They've already got enough evidence to suspend Zimbabwe on the basis of financial irregularities but wouldnt do so

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/04/27/sczimb127.xml

What makes anyone think that certain ICC members would give atrocities of the kind mentioned below priority over the filthy lucre?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/opinion/29kristof.html?ref=opinion

The WORLD, not just the ICC, has got a lot to be ashamed about

 

[open365]

Neither does Bangladesh...

Really?

Bangladesh are a totaly different issue to Zimbabwe. AFAICS, they have never had their status called into question because of their political state. They have an incredible ammount of support, which cannot be said of Zimbabwe, and they have all their players avalible to them, again unlike Zimbabwe.

They may not be very good, but they are no where near the massive headache that Zimbabwe is, and they have potential, Zimbabwe don't.

 

[TT Boy]

Really?

Bangladesh are a totaly different issue to Zimbabwe. AFAICS, they have never had their status called into question because of their political state. They have an incredible ammount of support, which cannot be said of Zimbabwe, and they have all their players avalible to them, again unlike Zimbabwe.

They may not be very good, but they are no where near the massive headache that Zimbabwe is, and they have potential, Zimbabwe don't.

Presumably because no one cares enough to question why Bangladesh is allowed to be a member of the ICC? For who are they to question the Bangladeshi military for continually assassinating its politicians?

 

[Richard]

There are plenty of Tamils who would argue that genocide has been occurring in Sri Lanka since July 1983. There is even a website on it aptly called genocide.org.uk.

I don't doubt that for a second. I do doubt it occurrs on anything like the scale that similar has occurred in Zimbabwe in the same time.

 

[steds]

Really?

Pffft. Goliath is overrated. Can't play spin.

 

[Precambrian]

Says who? Pakistan until 9/11 was public enemy number one of the Western world and its media (like with Zimbabwe now) took great pleasure in showing how corrupt the country is whilst espousing the cause of individuals who are just as corrupt and are apart of the same hypocrisy.
Pakistan is a military dictatorship, Bangladesh is a military dictatorship (where a gust of wind usually causes a state of emergency to be declared) whilst Sri Lanka has been involved in a bloody civil war for over twenty years. Yet, Zimbabwe is the only country where the ICC should get involved in on humanitarian grounds? The ICC itself is based in Dubai, a place where democracy does not exist and human rights mean nothing.
So why just pick on Zimbabwe?

AWTA.

I think it's kind of ironical how people talk how politicised BCCI and yet accuses it of not taking a political stand in this matter.

From what i have read in this thread so far, the general perception is that Zimbabwe is actually some sort of a dark dungeon under control of this demon Mugabe. And only a ban from the ICC's membership can teach him a lesson. Know what? He cares an ant's piss for this.

I also understand that despite the misrule of this despot, Zimbabwe cricket is trying hard to survive and flourish. That they have even held a 20 20 competition. So the ICC should stick to it's primary goal, to nurture cricket where it's got committed following. And the recent audit by ICC into Zimbabwe cricket's functioning couldn't come up with substantial evidences of misappropriation.
The combined forces of US and Uk are causing more human rights violation in places like Iraq than Mugabe.

 

[Richard]

From what i have read in this thread so far, the general perception is that Zimbabwe is actually some sort of a dark dungeon under control of this demon Mugabe. And only a ban from the ICC's membership can teach him a lesson.

Err, no. No-one thinks that, no-one who has any idea of the situation. Zimbabwe is a dark dungeon (until very recently one that was very well fronted-up as somewhere there was little wrong) and Mugabe is a demon but no-one thinks a ban from I$C$C membership is likely to make any significant impact on that. There are many good reasons for the removal of Zimbabwe, but that is one of the least important.

The combined forces of US and Uk are causing more human rights violation in places like Iraq than Mugabe.

It might just be possible to argue that via some slant or other, but you'd need quite some brass neck to do so.

 

[Precambrian]

They've already got enough evidence to suspend Zimbabwe on the basis of financial irregularities but wouldnt do so

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/04/27/sczimb127.xml

What makes anyone think that certain ICC members would give atrocities of the kind mentioned below priority over the filthy lucre?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/opinion/29kristof.html?ref=opinion

The WORLD, not just the ICC, has got a lot to be ashamed about

Enough evidence? All i found was an extremely vague article circling around some audit conducted by a big four firm and an occasional para concocting up wonderful theories like that the IPL won't survive without a compromise with ICL! The author himself says the contents of the audit report are not disclosed.

There is a whole lot of people out there who really want to play cricket in Zimbabwe, and ICC should support them in this hour, and not listen to bigoted governmental bastards and their opportunism.

It's cricket's true charm that the game has remained apolitical, in fact, it has only served as a balm to easing political tension (India Pak series). Crowds of Mumbai cheered loud for Sohail Tanveer in the IPL finals. None thought about his nation of birth's conflict-ridden history with nation-of-employment. When you keep cricket and politics seperate, it adds to the wholesomeness, esp when the political stuff is muddy or plain garbage. Cricket is way too precious to be lost in that merger.

 

[Richard]

Nothing - and I mean nothing - is separate from politics and nor will you ever manage to get it so.

Yes, it's more enjoyable when there's no politics to interfere in it, but the old adage of "if you don't do politics, there's not much you do do" will never cease to be true.

 

[Goughy]

There is no way Mugabe lackeys should be on a 5 star hotel, expense account and business class travel on ICC and international cricket funds.

Players are being sacrificed for politically appointed administrators. People who care more for their wallet and belly than cricket.

I’m all for cricket continuing if it is independent and trying hard to beat an honest path. However, it is terminally corrupt and its positions of power and influence being used as political playthings.

Cricket, and its players, have been abandoned. The withdrawal of ICC funding may not change Mugabe or Zimbabwe. However, it will stop Mugabes men getting fat on ICC money. Frankly that is a start.

 

[Precambrian]

Err, no. No-one thinks that, no-one who has any idea of the situation. Zimbabwe is a dark dungeon (until very recently one that was very well fronted-up as somewhere there was little wrong) and Mugabe is a demon but no-one thinks a ban from I$C$C membership is likely to make any significant impact on that. There are many good reasons for the removal of Zimbabwe, but that is one of the least important.

It might just be possible to argue that via some slant or other, but you'd need quite some brass neck to do so.

I'd deliberately lose my subtlety considering the blind faith people put in western media by people here. Okay, could you please list down those many reasons for banning Zimbabwe? I have got two outlined,

1. Rule by despot Mugabe, in which case, nothing ICC can do but expect the idiot prick to die soon.

2. Financial misappropriation of the grant given by ICC due to corruption. The audit conducted by KPMG did find some dubious transactions but attributed those to human errors and mismanagement than fraud, i.e, none benefited. So that case is also not valid for a ban.

Any others than what i mentioned?