Opinion 
 Blogs 
 National Comment 
 The rules have changed and safety cannot be guaranteed 

The rules have changed and safety cannot be guaranteed

SAD to say it, tragic even, but the rules have changed. There was no Geneva convention-style pact to cover sportsfolk on tour in dangerous places anyway, but since the 1972 Munich Olympics there has been a kind of tacit understanding that terrorists would not target them, for fear of an even more severe backlash.

When Sri Lanka agreed to tour Pakistan in place of India, which had been ordered by Indian Government not to go after the bombings perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists in Mumbai last November, this unspoken understanding was its only guarantee. No team had been to Pakistan for 14 months.

But, increasingly, terrorists have shown no respect for understandings, explicit or implicit. The attack in Lahore yesterday marks a turning point. Thankfully, no cricketer died (though six security staff and two bystanders were killed). None the less, from today, new understandings come into force.

One is that Pakistan is off-limits for the forseeable future, which probably will include the 2011 World Cup. Even Geoff Lawson, formerly Pakistan's coach and guarantor of its security, agrees. So, with heavy heart, does former Pakistan captain Inzamam ul Haq.

Pakistani great Javed Miandad says this will deliver victory to the terrorists. But this is not about victory and defeat, which are sportsground concepts, too easily tripping off the tongue now. This is about life. And about death. A cricketer is obliged to risk injury, even embarrassment, but not martyrdom.

Is this too hysterical? When Australia begged off their tour of Pakistan in 2007 because of violence associated with terror, it was condemned by some here as feeble-minded, timid. The likelihood of being caught innocently in a terrorist attack was infinitesimally small, it was argued. But it takes only one exception to invalidate that rule. New Zealand's cricket team almost became collateral damage in Karachi in 1992 when all the windows of their hotel were blown out by nearby bomb one morning. The memory of what they saw that day haunts some still.

Nor is this simply Western demonisation of Asia. When killer bombs exploded in London while Australia was touring in 2005, all were jittery, especially those with family on tour, and contingency plans to fly home were made. Neither the Karachi bomb, nor the London bombs, were meant for the cricketers. The gunshots and grenades in Lahore yesterday were. The rules have changed.

Another new understanding is that cricketers - all sportspeople - must be allowed to make their own decisions, without prejudice for their futures. They are ambassadors, not soldiers, constrained to behave with dignity and observe cultural niceties, but not to compromise their lives or beliefs. In Australia, this is well understood; Stuart MacGill once refused to tour Zimbabwe on grounds of conscience and was respected for it. But now the temperature has gone up. Next month, the second season of the IPL begins in India. Doubtlessly, some imported players will have new qualms. Indian cricket chief Lalit Modi moved quickly last night to reassure the world that India was safe.

But the attacks in Mumbai in November showed that it is impossible to pledge certainty. In semi-anarchic Asia, this is inescapable. There were cricket officials in the Taj Palace that night and four days later, there would have been cricketers, including Shane Warne and all the Victorian team.

Next month, Australia is scheduled to play a series of one-day matches against Pakistan, originally scheduled for Pakistan, long since transferred to Abu Dhabi and Dubai. Doubtlessly, some Australians will feel uncomfortable to play Pakistan anywhere.

Those who chose to stay home must be respected, as those who choose to go.

The rules have changed. The idea that sportsfolk were protected by their celebrity was only ever a construct, true only until the first time it was shown not to be true, after which it could never be true again. That time is now.

Sportspeople have a role to play in international relations, but it is not in the front line, not as decoys. That rule has not changed.

Greg Baum is a chief sports columnist for The Age.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Well what a whine. What makes sport people so special they must be exempt? Where was the outrage when Israel slaughtered hundreds of babies and children. Why aren't they exempt?
Posted by Marilyn, 4/03/2009 3:06:51 PM
Marilyn sport should be about the possiblity of battling for peace thru' understanding. Even in WW II some Germans could respect Xmas to have a game of football with the enemy. Sometimes I've felt the same way as you because so many childeren get killed before they are allowed to be born. Life is precious and unique. Nobody should be considered more human dan another. Still I know what it's like to fight for your life so I hope those needing help get all the support they need.Maryanne
Posted by Maryanne, 5/03/2009 6:05:33 PM
National Comment
Here is the place for you to vent on any national or world news and lifestyle stories on the YourGuide websites. If there is anything you see or hear that you like or don't like, tell us. Don't keep it to yourself!
From left to right: Kumar Sangakkara (lead), Tharanga Paranavitana, Ajantha Mendis, Paul Farbrace, Mahela Jayawardene, Chaminda Vaas and Thilan Samaraweera.
From left to right: Kumar Sangakkara (lead), Tharanga Paranavitana, Ajantha Mendis, Paul Farbrace, Mahela Jayawardene, Chaminda Vaas and Thilan Samaraweera.

Most popular articles

LJ Hooker CIty



The Canberra Times







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...