ICC is in news again. Unfortunately, it is so for the wrong reasons. In its recent executive committee meeting in Singapore, they have rejected the candidature of Mr John Howard as its Vice President. If he became the Vice president, he would have become its President in 2 years.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/howard-dismissed-by-a-low-full-toss-20100630-zmtk.html
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/howard-veto-may-force-icc-change-20100701-zqpd.html
This is a wrong decision and is creating a wrong precedent.
John Howard is an eminent person and is one of the world leaders. He is of course the ex PM of Australia.
ICC has a tradition and protocol. This has been agreed by ICC. There is no need to disregard that protocol. ICC has a rotational system for Vice President who later becomes President.
The protocol is about who gets a turn to nominate its candidate for Vice President. This year, it was Oceania’s turn. Australia and NZ [Oceania] had a robust selection process and Mr Howard was the winner of that process.
I believe that ICC members should respect that process and approve Mr Howard as its Vice President. To reject his candidature is wrong and is in breach of the protocol. It is establishing a wrong precedent. Don’t forget that ICC had not advanced any reason for their decision while rejecting Mr Howard’s candidature. Not good, at all!
Mr Howard was a great Prime Minister of Australia and ran the Gov for 11 years. His personal integrity is beyond question. I didn’t agree with every thing his Gov did but it is irrelevant. What he did as the OZ PM is not of any relevance to ICC. He is now retired. His views on Mr Mugabe are not wrong. I do not agree with what was done by his Gov to Dr Haneef but again, it is not relevant. Again, even though it is irrelevant for this discussion, he was lot more pro-India , at least in the later part of his Gov, than one would like to accept. It was he who decided to sell Uranium to India. It was he who decided to strengthen strategic relations with India. Both of these policies were later reversed by the ALP Gov led by Mr Kevin Rudd.
The issue is about his competence to run ICC as VP initially with Mr Sharad Pawar as the president and later as President when Mr Pawar finished his term. There is no doubt that he would be a great candidate for both roles.
The second issue is whether it was the turn of Oceania to nominate its candidate for VP and whether there is a protocol to accept the nominee from the region whose turn it was currently. The answers to both questions are in affirmative.
I also believe that Mr Howard would be a great VP/President as he would do cleansing and bring transparency in that body. ICC needs it.
I am pleased that PM Julia Gillard is supporting Mr Howard. I believe that Australia and NZ should stand with Mr Howard and not allow the nonsense from the ICC delegates from Africa and Asia to succeed. Oceania should not endorse any one else as that would embolden the architects of the nonsense in ICC.
Give Mr Howard a “Fair Go”!
Yadu Singh/Sydney/2nd July, 2010
Yadu Singh's Blog 
Pingback: World Wide News Flash
Pingback: Tweets that mention John Howard is a perfect candidate for ICC. « Yadu Singh's Blog -- Topsy.com
I respect your opinion, but do not agree with it.
ICC is a cricketing body, and John Howard has done nothing for the cricket except from watching matches.
And his nomination was opposed by 6 countries from Asia & Africa in a democratic process and on the basis that John Howard do not have any experience in cricket administration.
So, there was no ‘nonsense’ involved in it.
Plus, John Howard was famous for his comments and decision to stop the refugee-boat in the ocean for several days which eventually resulted in refugee deaths onboard. He won an election only on that basis and his views were considered ‘biased’ by humanitarian groups.
Don’t forget that it was John Howard who initially supported and included racist Pauline Hanson in his Liberal Party and later deserted her as per his political conveniece. Then chinese-origin Liberal MP also resigned over John Howard’s support to Pauline Hanson in 1990s.
And now when his nomination is rejected, they have made it a prestige issue after realising the growing dominance of India and other Asian countries in the cricket world. But, don’t forget it was ICC’s then President (from oceania) who reinstated & supported controversial umpire Daryl Hair and they have taken many such decisions which had hurt the Asian cricket fans.
Don’t forget Srilankan cricketer Murlidharan was continously targeted and humiliated by calling ‘chakar’ by Australian media and cricket authorities. Arjuna Ranatunga once walked off and boycotted the matched with Australia over the issue.
Also they seeked to ban Harbhajan Singh for couple of matches after his controversy with Symonds and it was only when BCCI and Sharad Pawar took a bold step and threathened to call off the entire tour of Australia, they tried to underplay the incident.
So, its all about ‘dominance’ and the reality is that these people just can’t take ‘non-white’ dominance over the whites, and thats the reason that they are supporting John Howard.
Anyways, rejecting John Howard is not going to make any difference for Indo-Australian diplomatic ties, so there is no need to support John Howard.
And it is a fair decision considering his overall past, history, past comments and lack of cricket admin-experience.
regards
Harprit
LikeLike
Pingback: Cricket News and Reviews | Cricket Pads and Gloves » Howard blocked, cricket shamed