Stephen Vasciannie

First, the Barbados factor. I was there for a seminar on international humanitarian law organised by the International Committee of the Red Cross. One point made was that the Red Cross has developed a third symbol: so now they have the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and a Red Crystal (which looks to me like a square standing on one of its corners). These symbols are entitled to respect on humanitarian grounds whenever countries face military or other forms of turbulence, man-made or natural. To ensure this, Jamaica, for example, should restrict the use of the Red Cross to specific purposes - ambulances do not need red crosses simply because they are ambulances.

The Barbados factor, though, concerns cricket. I was in Barbados, the West Indies were playing a Test match against Pakistan, it was interestingly poised, but I could not see the cricket as it happened. I was at a reasonable hotel, and was able to watch a programme on the previous day's play every night; but there was no 'ball-by-ball' coverage. How can this be in the home of Caribbean cricket?

Is Cable able?

Well, we were told, you can get it on cable for a subscription. That, I suppose, is consistent with free market principles: If you want to watch cricket, you pay for it, the market rules, OK. But is that really decisive? To state the obvious, cricket serves to keep the Anglophone parts of the region together, across all classes, and across expanses of the Caribbean Sea, more than anything else we have. It seems shortsighted to weaken this historically-cultivated and valuable link on the altar of market orthodoxy.

Moreover, it is debatable that the cable approach is the only way to satisfy market principles. If the main television stations, or one of them in each territory, were to transmit live cricket, the viewers would pay for viewing through the usual procedure of advertising. It may even be that a properly mounted sales campaign for advertisements would bring in more revenue to the stations than revenue derived from cable subscriptions in respect of individual matches.

It should also be noted that cable penetration is still relatively limited in some parts of the Caribbean. The result of the current cable-based cricket initiatives is that many West Indians are deprived of cricket at a time when our policy-makers and experts all tell us that cricket is losing its popularity, and that this has serious implications for the future of the game here.

South Africa

On to the South African factor. I was there immediately following Barbados for a seminar on the challenges faced by landlocked countries in respect of the sea. International Seabed Authority and all that. My time there coincided with the start of the one-day internationals between the West Indies and Pakistan. And guess what? With the click of a remote, I could see live cricket - my team versus Pakistan in another country. South Africans have presumably decided that full exposure to sports from all over the world is one means of bringing their divided society together.

I am now writing this column in Jamaica. The last one-day international between the West Indies and Pakistan is in progress; I listen to the radio for coverage. The commentators are presumably watching cable and transmitting their views on the match. Just now, a voice that may be that of Robert Samuels is reminding us that the century-making Marlon Samuels would like to bat higher up in the order at number four. I cannot fully judge the argument presented by Samuels the Younger - because I did not see his match-winning performance earlier in the week, because the television stations have not lived up to their social responsibility.

So, the Caribbean television stations need to deal with the problem. We want live coverage from all over the world. And cable television, despite its many virtues, is not the means by which we want to watch live cricket - in Barbados, Jamaica, and everywhere else in the cricket-loving Caribbean.