In The Australian, Malcolm Conn says that John Howard’s offer to pay any fine levied by the ICC should Australia refuse to tour Zimbabwe is not the solution:

A government ban would solve all of CA's problems but with it would come a Pandora's box. Should there also be a ban on touring Pakistan next year, given it is a military dictatorship? Should Australia ban its Olympic team from competing in Beijing given China's human rights record?

But he also has a go at the game itself:

The fundamental problem is that the Zimbabwean crisis proves how rotten world cricket administration is at the top.

In its broadest, philosophical sense cricket's weeping sore is a continuation of the fight against colonialism which takes deeply held loyalties to the ICC, regardless of the consequences.

During the dark days of white supremacist rule in South Africa and Zimbabwe, India was a strong ally of the freedom fighters in southern Africa.

Only last month, that nexus was graphically highlighted again when India walked away from an agreement with Australia to play three one-day matches in Ireland next month.

India will now play South Africa in a meaningless match worth millions in television rights. Why? Because Australia is supporting England chairman David Morgan to take over as president of the ICC as part of the proper rotation of the position. South Africa decided to support Indian board chief Sharad Pawar, a government minister.