A Question of Ethics
This week, England cricket coach Duncan Fletcher announced that he was content to leave the decision regarding England's forthcoming tour to Zimbabwe to the officials of the English Cricket Board (ECB).
"I think it is very important that the ECB deals with the matter and takes it out of the players' hands", he told reporters.
Fletcher's stance is eminently sensible considering England's recent twin farces: the "optional" winter tour to India in 2001, just months after 9/11, and the decision not to play in Zimbabwe during the World Cup, an issue over which all parties concerned procrastinated until the tournament was already underway.
Ultimately, despite the many problems of infrastructure, policing and transport, it is almost certainly safe for England to tour Zimbabwe.
They will be whisked between the best hotels in the country and afforded considerable protection both on and off the cricket pitch.
To answer the question of morality, it is worth considering cricket's role beyond sport in South Africa - a country which shares a border with Zimbabwe.
Perhaps surprisingly, it was cricket more than any other sport that transcended the racial divide during the years of apartheid.
The politically motivated sacking of Heath Streak, Zimbabwe's best player and captain since 2002, has thrown the Zimbabwe Cricket Union (ZCU) into disarray and provoked a potential players' boycott.
However the crux of the moral argument revolves around human rights abuses in the country.
The debate does not end there however: in the view of the International Cricket Council (ICC) a moral stance is no reason to cancel a tour.
The former colonial nations, led by Australia, are threatening England with a year's suspension from the international game, which would cost the ECB an estimated £50 million, potentially bankrupting English Cricket.
Short of government involvement it is thus likely that England will tour Zimbabwe: the ICC (with the exception of New Zealand) senses the opportunity to back their oldest rivals into a corner.
Ironically however, the Australian spinner Stuart MacGill has stated that he will not tour Zimbabwe this summer for security reasons, forcing the Australian authorities to adopt the arbitrary policy of allowing the players to choose individually whether they tour or not.
As the former colonial power, England is the most popular visitor to any other test nation in terms of attendances at test matches.
By disregarding the effect on the other test nations the ICC displays a deplorable attitude. It seems it would rather undermine the position of the ECB at the forefront of international cricketing politics than take a moral stand against the tyranny of murder, rape, social injustice and restriction of all press freedom that is Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
The families of the countless victims of the Mugabe Government would surely be saddened to know that the value of their loved ones' lives comes a distant second to importance of the game of one-upmanship of international cricket.
I genuinely feel sorry for the professional cricketers of Zimbabwe but England should not tour the country.
29th Apr 2004