It is understandable that as the ICC demonstrates the hollowness of its fine-sounding claims to govern in the interests of the global game by setting out on a course designed to maximise the Full members’ profits regardless of the consequences, some despairing voices should call for the 95 Associate and Affiliate members to secede from an organisation in which they are utterly powerless and form their own.

I’m reminded of a cartoon from the early 1990s, during a meeting of the G7 group. It showed the world’s leaders sitting round a table, with Boris Yeltsin holding a gun to the head of a pathetic-looking bear. ‘Give me money now,’ Yeltsin was shouting, ‘ or the bear gets it!’

The difference, of course, was that the leaders of the G7 did actually recognise that a financial meltdown of Russia would create a global crisis, and they therefore acted to meet some of Yeltsin’s demands. Whereas the implosion of Associate and Affiliate cricket would not even register on the consciousness of the greedy, complacent and sometimes corrupt men who run Full member cricket. There is, in other words, no bear.

The fact is that even the most successful of the Associates and Affiliates – however that is to be measured – are utterly dependent on ICC funding for their progress, both on and off the field. And that means that the 95 members who lack Full status not only lack political clout; they have virtually no bargaining power either.

Secession is not an option, because it would cut off the funding which the Full members see fit to let fall from their overloaded table, and because they would always be able to ensure that a few key Associates were sufficiently addicted to the gravy train to stay on board.

Does that mean that nothing can be done to resist the unscrupulous regime of the BCCI, its supporters on the Board, and their all-powerful media allies? Almost, but perhaps not quite.

One thing that four of the Associates can do, of course, is prove their mettle in next year’s World Cup, beating as many Full members as possible and, even when they lose, demonstrating the wealth of talent that the ICC is so determined to exclude from future tournaments.

But even that is a two-edged sword: as the response to Ireland’s achievements in the Caribbean in 2007 illustrates, the Full members don’t appreciate any challenge to their hegemony, and it seems that the more vulnerable they become to defeat by their supposed inferiors, they more determined they are to exercise their raw power to protect themselves. It’s a game you can’t win, even when you do.

With the cards so heavily stacked against them, the Associates have just one platform they can use.

That’s the Development Committee, the only global organ of the ICC in which the majority have a majority. Its remit is ‘to review and monitor all policy matters relating to the structure and delivery of the ICC Global Development Program with particular reference to:
• long and medium term strategic objectives both globally and regionally
• annual operational plans both globally and regionally
• the role of the Full Members, regional associations and general governance principles
• funding issues.’

Until now it has had a fairly straightforward task, since the thrust of ICC policy has been towards the furtherance of global development, through World Cup qualification, the World Cricket League and the Intercontinental Cup. Some of its decisions may have been questionable, but it has been able to go about its business with some confidence that it had the support of the Board and its key members. It does not seem that that is any longer the case.

So the tactical question is how the Committee’s members should respond to the challenge posed to development by the post-13 October New World Order and the ICC’s preparation of its next Strategic Plan.

There will, no doubt, be a strong inclination to use the conventional methods of lobbying and persuasion. But all the evidence of the past few weeks is that that doesn’t work: the crucial decisions have all been taken, and gentlemanly argument behind the scenes is likely to have little or no effect on the outcome. We undoubtedly need something more dramatic if the vital interests of the 95 Associate and Affiliate members are to be defended.

Sharad Pawar and his cronies aren’t stupid: by referring much of the detail to the Governance Review Committee (on which, of course, they again have a majority), they have seemed to keep the ball in play, delaying the final decision on issues like qualification for the World Cup and making it impossible for the Associates and Affiliates to speak out in the meantime for fear of bringing down even worse disasters upon their heads.

The Development Committee, however, is in an interesting position. It has an official place in the structure, and a remit which gives it a clear interest in the current debate about the organisation of international cricket. Its members should therefore insist on meeting – I don’t know when its next scheduled meeting is – and adopt a clear statement on the needs of the Associates and Affiliates in the proposed new situation.

That should include: a genuine World Cup qualification process involving the lower-ranked Full members and the leading Associates and Affiliates; continuation of High Performance and Global Development funding at at least the promised levels; continuation of the World Cricket League and Intercontinental Cup; and guarantees of increased opportunities for the HPP countries to play against teams from the Full members. Arguably, the ‘price’ of a ten-team World Cup should include a significant increase in High Performance funding to enable those countries to develop more rapidly and compete more effectively on the world stage.

And all of this should be done in the open, published in advance of the Governance Review Committee’s meeting so that everyone in the world of cricket can see what the majority are asking of the Big Ten, and so that their response can be judged adequately.

No doubt such a course would not be greeted with great enthusiasm by the chairman of the Development Committee, who happens to be CEO Haroon Lorgat. But if its Associate and Affiliate members – Roger Knight (Europe), Binaya Raj Pandey (Asia), Geoff Tamblyn (East Asia Pacific), Theo Cuffy (Americas), AK Sebbelae (Africa), Neil Speight (Associates representative), and Andrew Armitage (Affiliates representative) – were to get together and stand firm, he would have little choice. And in the final analysis, in these days of electronic media, a physical meeting would scarcely be necessary for an agreed statement to be prepared and published.

It could make a huge difference. Secrecy is the oxygen of bad decision-making. Let’s see the Associate and Affiliate members of the ICC issuing a public challenge to the Full members to act in the true interests of the global game. It’s time their glossy rhetoric was put to the test.