Stephen Brenkley: Players left in the morality maze

World Cup: Political inaction over Zimbabwe blurs a simple issue and leaves the game exposed

The rush for the moral high veld since England agreed to play a World Cup match in Zimbabwe would have halted a herd of wildebeest on the run. From right and from left, cricket administrators have been accused of betraying their duty by appearing to lend credence to President Robert Mugabe, whose regime is universally regarded as odious, corrupt and probably murderous.

In the absence of an official boycott, England's players are being urged to examine their consciences and withdraw from the game, and if necessary, the team and the tournament. Six matches are scheduled to take place in Harare and Bulawayo when competition begins in February – all those involving Zimbabwe in Pool A, which includes England.

The International Cricket Council finally endorsed the venues last week in the report of the safety and security delegation that visited Zimbabwe in November. The England and Wales Cricket Board, as a member of the party, put their name to the recommendation. Both bodies were well aware that they were courting controversy; neither can have envisaged the weight of opprobrium coming from so many political wings.

Any virtuous response to the notion of playing international sport in Zimbabwe should be marked only for the force of its refusal. It is not a complicated issue: Mugabe is a tyrant, the opposition party, the MDC, do not want the event. Thus, it should not be there. Straightforward, isn't it? Unfortunately not.

Take the ICC. They have maintained that they could make no political judgement and were interested solely in finding out if Zimbabwe was safe for players and officials. But the report cannot fail to touch, albeit slyly, on political issues. So it stresses that the MDC-controlled cities of Harare and Bulawayo "emphasised that the games are in the national interest and highlighted the economic boost the matches will provide".

The report quotes, doubtless selectively, a city official: "Everyone is supportive of the World Cup and the MDC are the same. The World Cup is fundamentally a good thing and we're not going to call it a bad thing and go against public opinion." This is not the line the MDC have been spreading internationally, but its condemnation has hardly been outright: "We do not want Mugabe to be able to say that because we have World Cup matches going on the situation is fine."

The white population of Zimbabwe, reduced now to 40,000 since Mugabe's war veterans began seizing land, are probably in favour of the tournament. They are living in horrible times, the World Cup would be a happy distraction. The country's cricket community is unanimous. They need the money and they fear that the game there will collapse otherwise.

The ECB have been under consistent pressure to pull out and, as things stand, forfeit the two points at stake in the game. They have no intention of doing so, and although they must recognise that the colonial legacy makes England a special case, they will go along with the ICC.

At Lord's, the feeling is that politicians have passed the buck. Neither in public nor with a private word has the Government expressed a wish for England not to go. Of course, there are nods and winks. Mike O'Brien, the junior foreign minister, told the Commons last week that he was against participation and forewarned the Culture Department he would do so. The Government do not want to get further involved, feeling they would be accused of interfering – which has hardly stopped them in other forms of British life.

"We have been clear and consistent," said John Read, the ECB's director of corporate affairs. "We have received no instruction or guidance from the Government. British business is still trading with Zimbabwe. We're not embargo-busting. The 2008 Olympics are in China; what will be said about sportspeople taking part in the biggest sporting event of all in a place with their human-rights record?"

And what are the players to make of it when they read that Mugabe, while hating the English, is now said to be acquiring all his essential supplies from London? England went to Pakistan two years ago with nary a murmur, although the military junta had just imprisoned the elected prime minister. How should we expect a 25-year-old cricketer who has only known cricket, because that's the way it is, to make a judgement on Africa?

There is another way. Andy Flower, the great Zimbabwe batsman, once mentioned that he and his mates had often wondered what they would do if the president (and patron of the Zimbabwe Cricket Union) came to be presented to them and whether they should refuse. Imagine if England's players made a quiet but strong protest in Harare. That would be the boldest move of all.