Despatching the spin on Howard’s ICC rejection
|
Already the spin is in – John Howard got knocked back for the ICC job because he opposed the Zimbabwean Government. ABC’s AM asked the former Prime Minister this morning: So what forces do you think were at play? Howard answered:
Sadly, it is much more complicated than that. Personally yesterday was a bizarre day full of extraordinary coincidences – bombarded with emails delighted because Howard lost while just finishing reading Christopher Hitchens’ biography (Hitch 22), and belatedly starting Ian Buruma’s book (Murder in Amsterdam) about the murder of Theo van Gogh – in which all the Howard ICC issues suddenly seemed to me to be in a meta-context. Together the two books and the event bring together all the arguments about cultural relativity; why the Right decided to finally co-opt the Enlightenment, which they had opposed for so many centuries, to their cause; why some on the Left have been willing to ignore Enlightenment values in the interests of supporting their enemies enemies; cricket politics; cricket history; why what one’s most visceral responses tell us might be wrong; why some and, how all that gets spun. So – some hypotheses:
Why Hitchens and Buruma? Like the situation with Howard – however much you dislike an old Trotskyite like Hitchens for going to such literary extents to repudiate and re-write his past- there are regimes, as he says, about which you cannot practise cultural relativism. Mugabe is one of them. There are also important issues about what you tolerate and what you don’t. Cultural relativity is no justification for murdering Theo van Gogh or Pim Fortuyn. Hitchens, in his biography — and what is probably his first really badly written book — twists and turns to explain his attitude to Islam (with lots of retrospective tidying up about what he did really think at various times and who he f….d) but has some important things to say about how you choose which side you should be on when faced with culturally relative claims. On the other hand Buruma considers why the Right has adopted the Enlightenment values (converting them into universal ones) and used them to hammer multi-culturalism. John Howard probably hated Hitchens until he supported Bush on Iraq and, being charitable, he may not have read anything of Buruma’s other than his novel about the Indian cricketer, Ranjishinji. But, in the next few days Howard supporters, Howard haters, cricket people and stacks of others will try to frame the Howard rejection in many different ways. The only defence against this is to realise that they are framing it thus for their own reasons and that the real reasons are much more complicated. When Alexander Downer holds forth on why the Enlightenment values are absolute and universal, when Tony Abbott tells us how awful Mugabe is, and when Cardinal Pell unexpectedly gets involved — deconstruct the spin, ask the fundamental question cui bono? , don’t believe any of it and see what they say of NZ’s John Anderson and why he should have been the first choice. RITUAL DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The author has had various cricket authorities and organisations as clients and is an old Trot. |
|
|
|
44 Comments
any moral authority John Howard might have had about Enlightenment values about human rights were thrown overboard long ago
I thought they rejected him because he was blatantly racist and who was he anyway to cricket when there was a more deserving man (John Anderson) out there? Not a cricket fan but I know when people are being rolled and Australia looked like they were doing the rolling.
Terrific analysis by Noel Turnbull! John Anderson, not John Howard, should have had the job and I suspect subtle New Zealand diplomacy might have influenced the vote: New Zealand had to formally back the Howard nomination so as not to look like bad losers [which, and I am biased here, New Zealand rarely is] while also happy to see his prospects scuttled. While one can never underestimate Howard’s ability to make a comeback it would be Enlightenment-influenced justice if John Anderson belatedly got the job he richly deserves. An alternative analysis though might be that voting delegates saw the globally-available u tube coverage of Howard’s bowling action and decided that this was not a cricketing style suited to the head of the ICC.
Could it just possibly be that John Howard is to modern cricket what Tony Abbott is to modern politics?
@Skink - pure poetry.
I saw his face on the TV again last night, and had to listen to that drawl this morning on the radio, and I remembered (how could I forget) All The Things I Hate About John Howard - the greatest movie never made.
Maybe, just maybe, the other cricketing nations remembered what he did to asylum seekers, what he didn’t do to stop Pauline Hanson and One Nation, what he didn’t apologise for… Well, they may not have, but I do.
A rejection like this couldn’t have happened to a nicer bloke. Bugger off, John, you’ve had your time in the sun.
Interesting co-incidence, I am reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book ‘Infidel’. Ayaan was Theo Van Go’s collaborater on the film ‘submission’, and i’m about to start ‘Hitch 22’. On top of that, Hitchens begins chemo for throat cancer.
Howard confuses sport with politics. A sabble rattling parochial vicar. His attitude towards cricket players from other countries has been publicly acknowledged. [Moderator- this comment has been moderated. Let’s stick to non-defamatory language please]
And this is precisely what I am have been trying to explain to some people on this blog (John) . We have to be a bit smarter on international arena; both in sports and politics..
Is there any reason we cannot play footy internationally?
So, “we’d” support Mgabe’s nomination, after Howard’s had his turn?
Howard and his bloody WMD’s - “Words of My Doing”!
And surely there’s a difference between “articulating” (for self-benefit) and “actually adopting” (for the broader benefit) - see “non-core promises”!
“But, in the next few days Howard supporters, Howard haters, cricket people and stacks of others will try to frame the Howard rejection in many different ways. The only defence against this is to realise that they are framing it thus for their own reasons and that the real reasons are much more complicated.”
And so are you.
I happened to see Peter Roebuck’s whinge in the Herald. Best laugh I’ve had all week. This is a much more insightful and realistic interpretation.
He got rolled because of the corruption in Indian cricket. Make of it what you will, Indian cricket is corrupt and they hold the balance of power in World Cricket these days.
It has little to do with the Mugabe regime being bad or Murali being a chucker, we all know that in both cases.
Howzat!
So the redoubtable John Howard
Has proved himself no coward.
He’s stepped up to the wicket
To seek a role in worldwide cricket.
When first it looked as if he’d win
We saw again that old familar grin.
Now he’s sounding sad and sour
On hearing he’ll not get the power
To control an international game
In spite of his domestic fame.
Perhaps that is the very reason
He’s not selected for this season.
Surely the ICC would not choose a
Man as leader, now famous as a loser
In cricket’s happiest home, Australia.
There association with the idea of failure
Means Howard’s name has lost its magic.
Now another loss. He is indeed a cricket tragic.
NZ were reluctant supporters of Howard, because that was the way it turned out, not because NZ Cricket wanted Howard.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10655636
I suspect as was pointed out earlier, behind the scenes NZC would hardly be enthusiastic about Howard but did the good neighbourly thing and voted for him. A lesson perhaps to the Australian Board. What on earth were they nominating Howard for in the first place? Howard said on the ABC and Sky News he was head hunted by the Australian Board, he did not seek the nomination…….If you say so John.
Incidently John from PlanetSomewhere…Any proof of your claim? Perhaps they received a good deal of support from 6 other countries, appears so in the voting. Can’t see India telling SthAfrica what to do for starters. No love lost between, Sri Lanka - Pakistan and India either.
John Howard’s record should give any international organisation pause to think:
1. Making racism a respectable part of a national debate
2. Employing racism and a malignant form of xenophobia for personal political gain
3. Contempt for the idea of public proberty
4. Dismantling mechanisms of oversight in decision making processes
5. Trying to disenfranchise people who might not agree with his political ambitions
6. Opposition to indigenous land rights and contempt for other cultures
7. Use of public moneys to fund a political PR service
8. Defence of racist political movements and the Christian religious right
9. Toleration of official conflicts of interest
10. Bailing out a family member using taxpayers’ money
11. Usurping the role of the titular head of state
12. Politicising sporting events
13. Abuse of publicly funded facilities
14. Support of sporting ties with the Apartheid regime in South Africa
15. Elitism
16. Demonising small numbers of helpless refugees for political gain
Malcolm Speed says this is “…..a disgrace and an insult to Australia and New Zealand…”
No Mal, it’s a disgrace and an insult to Australia and New Zealand that you chose John Howard in the first place.
I don’t imagine Zimbabwe was a big factor, but if it was, there would have been others as well.
For such an astute politician, Howard would be the last person to realise that Pauline Hanson would cast such a long shadow, despite all the warnings about the damage she was doing to our international reputation back in the 1990’s. Race was a total blind spot for him.
He was on the wrong side of every race issue for 30 years, including apartheid, native title, Asian immigration and Cronulla. To think this would not be a factor in seeking endorsement from people from the Asian subcontinent and Africa, is either wilfully arrogant or mind-bogglingly naive on his part.
He might have done a good job at the ICC, but so what? How many public service heads did he fire on day 1 of his prime ministership, not because they were incompetent, but just because they’d been appointed by the Labor party? Answer - pretty much all of them.
Clearly the ‘spin’ is contagious.
It was Howard who supported the Apartheid regime and sporting ties with them, and that is not so long ago in wider political terms for South Africa and even Zimbabwe. This is a more likely explanation than his anti Mugabe stance.
Malcom Speed and others’ self serving comments cannot disguise the fact that it was a gross error of judgement on the part of Cricket Australia to profer John Howard for the appointment in the first place. Had they supported the much better qualified and uncontroversial NZ candidate John Anderson this would not have happened. Still what can you expect from an organisation that appointed Andrew Hilditch as chairman of selectors. Heads should roll.
Gideon Haigh, who like me was no supporter of Howard the politician, writes on Cricinfo http://es.pn/9obQQC that the ICC’s rejection of JH’s nomination without giving reasons is a “calculated insult” to both the man and his country.
Search the ICC website http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/index.php and see if you can find anything about the rejection, let alone any reasons for it. The absence of any stated or implied reasons other than that JH criticised Robert Mugabe’s regime and named a Sri Lankan bowler (who’d already been called by umpires) as a chucker has led Noel Turnbull, Eva Cox and others to try to interpret the ICC’s silence.
If as Eva Cox suggests, the South African authorities still hold JH accountable for supporting sporting ties with the apartheid regime why did they send several international and other cricket teams to Australia when JH was PM? And why did they allow the 1997 team - to get up close and personal with him by playing his eleven in Canberra? Oh, and why did India (1999 & 2004), Pakistan (2005) and West Indies (2000 & 2005) not refuse to play the PM’s XI during JH’s time in office? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister%27s_XI) .
Why would anyone be surprised by the ICC decision? Howard would have been seen, rightly or wrongly, as a racist during his years as PM. This is part of the pay back. Janette will not be amused but she was the problem - she made the bullets and Johnny fired them..
It was his bowling action that killed his chances:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGqTayhu5QM
Reading Noel’s commentary felt a bit like watching cricket. I fell asleep halfway through, and if something interesting happened I missed it.
Karma baby, karma.
The beautiful thing about this storm in a teacup is that it doesn’t matter a jot what happens next. It is a totally inconsequential matter and so anyone can say anything they like, tasteless or otherwise - so long as they don’t expect to be taken seriously. Isn’t there a saying that Pride leads to a Fall? This a perfect example and I’m afraid the ex-PM might need a Zimmer if he gets up from this one.
Robert Bruce , yes heads should roll .ALL involved in putting John Howard up. And YES Karma, Ha Ha 3 strikes and out. We should have a Howard spending tax payers money CLOCK ticking over.
Maybe they just knocked him back because they will decide who comes to be elected to the the ICC. Or maybe they did it because he has had no real connection to cricket in the past, except for wearing the track suit.
I know, CA should put forward Kevin this time.
Another reason Howard was rejected just could be , the 7 countries who voted against him were very much aware of how Australia “manipulated’ New Zealands candidate John Anderson out of the game. As he is well known to all ICC Board Members, having been a long serving Board member himself, with a wealth of cricket and business knowledge and Company Board membership, it was well known how Howard got the nod.
A read of NZ Newspapers online shows just how reluctant NZ Cricket were to have to agree with Howards nomination. For the Australian Board to re nominate Howard would be a joke and will really show them up as totally inadequate to administer the game.
As for Howard insisting he will not withdraw, there are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving recipient!
“Johnnie Overboard”.
The Indians are scared that if they let one in, then they will all want to come in
The ICC has said, ” we will decide who comes into our game, and when”
The ICC has supported Murali by doing a bit of chucking themselves.
Chucking a Johnny has joined the dummy spit as the new black
If Johnny had done it like Tiger, instead of a whole nationality at a time, he would not be in the position he is in now.
I heard an echo from somewhere inside the ICC saying, “We will decide who comes to this council and the circumstances in which they come”.
I can’t imagine one woman bedding Johnny, let alone 20 or so.
Looking at the image of Howard playing a pull-shot, it seems that he is a left-hander, but I’m sure I’ve seen him sign documents right-handed. That famous delivery was also sent from his right hand.
Looking at the forearms and the posture, I’m pretty sure his head has been pasted onto Justin Langer’s body, but can anyone say for sure?
FTR … I am happy that Howard was told to forget it by 7/10 delegates. I hope he is never told why.
Just reading Sloppy Joe’s Pollies on Twitter - Is this guy for real ? or does he think he is the new Treasurer, go back to being a stay at home Dad.
Howard’s life and career has been one entire ‘chucker’.
I don’t know if he ever did anything decent for his fellow man, but most of us only remember him with revulsion.
Suppose that it’s true that the ICC needs someone to hold them accountable for corruption but isn’t there someone more suitable for the job than John Howard out of the entire two countries NZ & OZ considering his past history with aparthied and racial issue; how is he gonna be able to command any moral authority and respect? It is easy for white Anglo Saxon to rationalise it as all about power and corruption but don’t underestimate and be impervious of the sentiments of non-whites who have been through racial oppression or felt racial hatred & discrimination against them; such feelings and memories will stick for a long time.
@ Darkp…with respect Darko if you were to cast your eye over previous contributions you will find the name of the NZ candidate John Anderson mentioned more than once.
From Wikipedia I have extracted the following relevant section of his background….
Sir John Anthony Anderson, KBE (born 2 August 1945) was the Chief Executive and Director of ANZ National Bank Limited and after retiring at the end of 2005, become the chair of Television New Zealand in April 2006.[1] He was awarded the NZ Commemoration Medal in 1990 and was knighted in 1994.
He began his career in accounting, followed by sharebroking in Melbourne. He returned to New Zealand in 1972 to help form the merchant bank South Pacific Merchant Finance (Southpac). He became Chief Executive of Southpac in 1979 and within a year of Southpac merging with the National Bank of New Zealand in 1988, he become Chief Executive of the National Bank. Anderson oversaw the National Bank’s merger with Rural Bank in 1992 and Countrywide Bank in 1998. In 2004 Lloyds TSB sold The National Bank to the ANZ bank.[2] After ANZ’s acquisition of the National Bank he was responsible for ANZ’s New Zealand businesses until his retirement at the end of 2005.
Anderson was on a number of business boards in the 1980s, including New Zealand Steel and Petrocorp, where he was Chairman.
He was on the international board of the World Wide Fund for Nature for four years as well as being the New Zealand Chairman. He was also a member of the Prime Minister’s Enterprise Council from 1990 to 1999.
He was appointed Chairman of New Zealand Cricket in 1995 and continues in this role today, as well as being New Zealand’s representative on the International Cricket Council Executive Board.
In 2005 he was the inaugural winner of the Blake Medal for demonstrated leadership in many fields – business, sport, environment and the community.[3]
In December 2007 he was appointed by the NZ Government to be the Chairman of the Capital and Coast District Health Board, responsible for medical services in the Wellington and Kapiti Coast, after a series of significant financial and operational problems.[4] In February 2008 he was appointed commissioner of the Hawkes Bay District Health Board after Health Minister, David Cunliffe, sacked the DHB board due to the minister’s dissatisfaction with their running of the DHB.[5]
This is the man the Australian Cricket Board found to be inferior to Howard and after the two countries each nominated their own man, an Australian adjudicator was brought in to decide who would go forward as the nomination. This individual, a personal friend of Howards decided to give his old mate the nod. The member countries of the ICC would be well aware of that, adding fuel to the fire.
I have no personal liking for John Howard, however were he the best man for the job, so be it. He is plainly not .
@David
Thanks for the details. Shouldn’t people be outraged that sir John Anderson got knocked back instead of John Howard? Talk about being high and mighty attitude!!!
@Dollartree:
Fair shake of the stump, mate. I heard he’s to replace Ponting. Kevin’s Eleven.
Indeed you are correct Darko, the interesting next move will come from the ACB. Will they try again with Howard and get another knockback or will they come to their senses and support Anderson? if he still wants the nomination.
Wait, is this an article about Howard being rejected by the ICC or an essay on the Enlightenment?