Things have certainly taken an interesting turn lately & here is my assessment of recent events. This will not be short as I try to walk thru' the scenario - as much for my own understanding as for anyone else's opinion. (Apologies in advance Rik).
As I understand the situation NZ requested a transfer of venue to SA as a result of further security information received that indicated active terrorist cells in Kenya & a risk scenario involving foreign nationals of other nations. IMO this is then a reasonable request based upon the high profile of the WC as a potential target.
At this stage let me say that I think there is a very big difference in risk assessment when considering threat potential to tourists, as opposed to any organisation. The tourists may be able to go umolested, whereas the organistaion may not, particularly if they were a respresentaion of that Nation (and of their Govt by extension of name), even if they were the same individual people in both groups!
While the countries involved in matches in Kenya may not be obvious targets (as opposed to the USA for example), the venue / forum is high profile and an ideal world platform on which to make a statement. The WC has 2 of the most voiciferous supporters of US policy re Iraq etc in England & Australia. Any terrorist wanting to make a statement to the USA & their supporters do not have to hit those 3 targets specifically.
In regard to the Kenyan situation with the previous targets being US & Israeli, if these 'targets' are removed from the field as a result of their respective Govts warnings, NZ is then possibly elevated in potential target status as the 'next best thing available', yet at the same time the risk assessment of NZ as a specific target remains low.
It has been suggested in the other thread on this topic that NZ have been 'in the wrong place at the wong time' on the 3 previous occaisions the touring NZ cricket team has witnessed acts of terrorism. IMO this is bunkum as the same can be said of any and every 'civilian' casualty in any armed conflict, be it an act of terrorism or of war - they are called collateral damage and acceptable losses etc.
More importantly 2 of the 3 attacks took place outside the team's hotel, and in 2 different countries! This to me is not all together random in target selection especially as the majority of victims killed in the most recent attack in Pakistan were foreign nationals - they may not be specifically targeting NZ, but they sure have been conveniently in 'the wrong place at the wrong time'. It could be suggested that NZ has been selected as 'collateral damage' on previous occaisions because no one really has a grudge against them - hence the risk assessment is seen as being negligable and therefore a 'soft' target, whereas the English or Aussies teams would have a higher profile and tighter security net.
Next there is the question of conflict of interest & trust. Specifically the conflict between the objectives of the organisers and, the trust the NZers have in them not to put their interests above the potential well being of others in downplaying the potential risks. I realise that this is a fairly inflamatory call, and I do not mean to imply that the organisers would deliberately put anyone at risk by ignoring a specific threat.
What I am implying is as follows:
* No other cricketing team has been witness to such acts of violence on foreign soil as NZ - regarless of whether it has been a case of 'being in the wrong place at the wrong time' or not;
* The last attack in Sri Lanka outside the NZ hotel saw NZ comply with the wishes of the ICC & Sri Lanka to remain to complete the tour. The consequences of that action led to the premature end to player's careers and the desintegration of both the national team and national body - NZ cricket was left in turmoil for some years in rebuilding their game;
* it was pointed out to me in an earlier thread that NZ was basically forced to undertake their recent tour of Pakistan thru pressure brought to bear by India, presumably thru the ICC. NZ undertook the tour against their better judgement and the subsequent attack proved they were right and the others were wrong;
* As such NZ became pawns to the game of cricket & the powers that be. I doubt that any of the 'major' cricketing nations would have been placed in these situations.
* As a consequence there must be a certain reluctance by NZ to trust those 'powers' implicitly in this situation.
It must be the right of any individual or team to be able to make their own decisions regarding their bests interests in any potential situation such as this. At the same time they must be aware of and prepared to accept the potential consequences of their actions, but should not be coerced at either National or International levels into any undertaking they are not in agreement with.
In this instance I totally agree with the actions of Martin Sneddon and the NZ cricket board for calling it as they see it, an in then having the guts to back it up by taking a stand. I have no idea if this action has been prompted by the players or if the board have acted on their own accord. Regardless of this I applaud their decision and, even if there were to be no subsequent disruptions of any kind due to any attacks, I would wish for them to have the strength of character to do the same again, particularly in regard to the recent Pakistan Tour scenario.
Finally let me say that I am still disappointed at the lack of action taken at Govt levels re the WC situatiion regarding Zimbabwe & Kenya. I find it distasteful that the respective national cricketing boards have been hung out by their Govts to do their dirty work for them when they (the boards) and the ICC are primarily in a 'no win' situation.
