Cricket Australia (CA) has called off its ODI series with Afghanistan citing the Taliban’s restrictions on women.
The decision has prompted condemnation from, among others, Afghanistan’s male cricketers who accused CA of politicising the sport, with global superstar Rashid Khan hinting he may no longer feature in the Big Bash League.
Cricket Australia chief executive Nick Hockley responded by saying “basic human rights is not politics”.
But human rights very much is, and should be, the essence of politics, especially in liberal democracies such as Australia, given that absolute egalitarianism is the founding principle of democracy. In this regard, for believers in equality, there are few causes greater than countering the Taliban’s gory persecution of Afghan minorities and women, including the religious ban on female sports.
However, not only does CA’s boycott not provide any actual support to Afghan women, it is also likely to be detrimental to any progress on human rights.
Radical Islamists crave nothing more than lazy virtue-signalling and hollow gesticulation, especially from Western powers, which can sustain their opportunistic victimhood narratives and allow jihadist outfits to pose as freedom fighters. CA has provided the Taliban with just that, at the cost of a mere 30 ICC ODI Super League points, which would have no bearing on the team’s qualification for the ODI World Cup this year.
Australia didn’t forfeit the World T20 game against Afghanistan in November and is unlikely to do the same in India later this year — apparently the importance of Afghan women’s rights falls somewhere between a redundant bilateral series and qualifying for the World Cup knockout stages.
Upholders of moral egalitarianism are bound to ask here if Australia would consider boycotting the World Cup in India over its repressive policies in Kashmir, or forgo multimillion-dollar contracts in the Indian Premier League, which breaches ICC codes to exclusively disqualify Pakistani cricketers. Australian cricketers looked on when the Indian team took to the field in an ODI wearing army caps in 2019, while it was engaged in an aerial dogfight along the Line of Control with Pakistan.
Australia also visited Pakistan in March, 24 years after its last tour to the country, and six months after the Pakistani state facilitated the Taliban regime’s rise for its own jihadist plots. In addition to a wide array of human rights abuses in Pakistan, the country at the time was led by Imran Khan, whose grotesque Islamic sexism contributes to Pakistani women’s plight, and who is ideologically inclined with the Taliban whose suppression of women’s rights Khan has defended.
If Afghanistan as a whole merits a cricketing boycott, surely a political leader such as Khan, who derives almost the entirety of his recognition from cricket, deserved at least a comment from Australia? In South Asia alone, even the likes of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have human rights struggles.
Cricket Australia’s convenient tokenism on Afghanistan, without paying any actual cost, is no different from the Western football nations that chose political sloganeering in Qatar without sitting out the event or taking a stand.
The Western nations using sports for self-serving messaging are also reminded of their own past and present, which isn’t devoid of human rights concerns — especially regarding violations overseas. Both the next World T20 and FIFA World Cup would be co-hosted by the US, and relevant Australian sporting bodies can pick any American newspaper of their choice to find a range of reasons to boycott the country.
This is not to create any false equivalence between states that fall at contrasting levels on the human rights scale. Just that any sporting boycotts will inevitably be selective, and often a corollary of political alliances outside the sport.
Western nations have banned Russia in sports not because of war in Ukraine, but because it is Moscow waging that war — otherwise the world is brimming over with wars, many of them exacerbated, if not initiated, by the West.
Notwithstanding token diplomatic gibberish, no sports team actually boycotted the Beijing Winter Olympics last year, despite China’s concentration camps, annexations, neocolonial expansionism, or human rights subjugation.
And now mighty Australia has opened a new front against minnows Afghanistan. It is likely to be followed by others who, likewise, cannot take a stand against the richer, more powerful violators of human rights — or against their own self-aggrandising exhibitionism.
Does Cricket Australia’s boycott strike you as principled or virtue-signalling? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Sports boycotts are recognised as a significant (obviously not exclusive) factor in the ending of apartheid in South Africa.
Soft diplomacy e.g. through sports is a valid way to put pressure on governments and while you might argue about how effective Australia’s solo and inconsistent boycott is, the fact remains that it’s a powerful symbol that can help create change.
Sport was very central in SA. I don’t think it is in Afghanistan. I’m not saying the cricket ban shouldn’t go ahead, but it’s pretty insignificant amidst all the other bans and sanctions on Afghanistan.
Not to mention they are experiencing a far greater humanitarian crisis than Ukraine is by far and, of course, receiving very little assistance from the Western nation’s that caused the problem.
The leadership of Afghanistan have proven every one of its critics correct, and none of the examples you highlighted approach the quite frankly mediaeval treatment of women there.
Yes other countries do bad (very bad) thing, but this what-aboutism doesn’t hold up when Afghanistan is the worst of the worst.
Bad faith arguments and a how-to on “what-about-isms”. What is this sort of nonsense doing in Crikey?
Perhaps one person’s ‘what-about-isms’ are another person’s ‘hypocrisy’. Not that either accusation sustains an argument for or against an action.
Yes… This is complex. I’d like to hear what Afghan women think of the cricketing ban before I accept either side of the argument. Mind you, I have to admit personal bias; the Adelaide Strikers have gone downhill since Rashid Khan left for his other gig, and as a South Australian I’d like to see his return before the team gets any lower in the rankings.
It would be interesting and relevant to hear the women’s view, but the conundrum may be that they probably can’t express it. It would also be interesting to ascertain the attitude of the Afghan men’s team towards the Taliban treatment of women; your favourite, Rashid Khan, is against the boycott, according to the writer, but there’s no indication in the article of his attitude towards women.
Khan does not like the Taliban or their oppressive dictates, according to most articles I’ve read about him. I take your point on the women’s inability to express their views inside Afghanistan, but outside, they’re very vocal. I give to the Malala fund semi-regularly.
Actually I heard the views of some Afghan women on Al Jazeera and they criticized the ban by CA. They claimed it will only make things worse for women.
Is that even possible???
Yes. Strange but apparently people in Afghanistan would rather have food and medical treatment to alleviate their suffering rather than esoteric Western concepts such as “rights” that don’t do much for them in these areas. Rights don’t put food in their stomachs or provide medical treatment for children.
Its called priorities. Rights are a luxury in some parts of the world.
The West has much to answer for.
Go a step further. We banned SA and Zimbabwe from international cricket because of human rights abuses, why should Afghanistan be any different?
As long as we’re consistent. The author fairly criticises inconsistent, empty and unfulfilled commitments.