The tour that nobody wants

Whatever government we end up with this summer, it would be nice to think they might know enough about politics to play the International Cricket Council at their own game when it comes to New Zealand's 2009 tour of Zimbabwe.

In particular, this would mean a better understanding of the nudge, nudge, wink, wink routine that underpins almost every major decision made within the ICC, not to mention the code language required to free national boards (such as New Zealand Cricket) from the financial repercussions of reneging on agreed tours.

As it stands, if NZC were to withdraw from next year's tour of Zimbabwe for reasons other than security or safety issues, they would be liable for an automatic fine of US$2m, plus all liabilities suffered by the host board (television rights included) as a result. Their ICC membership status could also be questioned.

However, there is an escape clause in the agreement that waives all penalties should a team be barred from touring by government decree; an exemption that was initially prompted by the military and political stand-off between India and Pakistan at the time the Future Tours Programme was being drafted.

These days, though, it's not so much an escape route as a main highway.

The Australian government used it last year to help their national cricket team avoid a tour of Zimbabwe and the British government followed suit last month; issuing a ministerial communiqué that allowed the ECB to back out of their commitments. Far from proving controversial, both decisions received widespread support at home and abroad.

Despite this, the New Zealand government continues to baulk at taking such action, arguing that interfering with citizens' freedom of movement was an extreme and draconian measure, and that it wasn't prepared to withhold passports in order to reinforce its feelings on Zimbabwe.

Worthy sentiments perhaps, but the reality is that there'd be no need to withhold passports or take any sort of extreme measure because no-one would disagree with their move in the first place.

Certainly not NZC, who, like their Australian and English counterparts, would be more likely to turn cart-wheels at the news.

Certainly not the players, who would almost certainly be relieved as well. Nor the supporters, most of whom have already lost interest.

All that's required is the correct terminology. When the new ICC president, David Morgan, said recently that he'd seen the letter from the British government (banning next year's Zimbabwe tour) and that he believed it contained "the right wording to be acceptable for non-compliance within the Future Tours Programme", he revealed the process in its naked form: an exercise in semantics.

A request mightn't cut the mustard, perhaps, but a command was viewed as sufficient.

With that in mind, you've got to wonder what mischief the New Zealand government imagines it can see in the tea-leaves.

A simple message to NZC saying that "we cannot allow you to visit Zimbabwe" would not only lead to the cancellation of a tour that no-one wants, but also the protection of NZC.

For a government that appeared to have no qualms about placing expedience above principle when it was negotiating a free-trade agreement with China earlier this year, you wouldn't think this would be too much to ask.

But, by the sounds of things, we're instead heading for another round of finger-pointing; a never-ending debate over whether this should be an issue for NZC or the politicians; whether the government should compensate NZC for any fines incurred, and whether the players should individually boycott the tour.

A simple teacher's note and it would all go away. It's about time someone started drafting it.