OK, let's try to be constructive. For reasons I've already explored on these virtual pages, it is now virtually certain that the ICC will reduce the number of qualifiers for the 2011 World Cup from six to four, given that the Associates have rather less power and influence in cricket's decision-making bodies than, say, Tonga would have as a member of the UN Security Council.

Since it seems unavoidable that the ICC Board will when it meets on 18 March deliver a blow to the aspirations of the leading Associates which can only be seen as a betrayal of the principles of the global development programme, what can the Full Members do to restore confidence in their commitment to the expansion of cricket? Always assuming, of course, that they are actually interested in doing so.

There is no doubt that the development programme, and not least its High Performance arm, has been a considerable success.

The Associates' squads in the 2007 World Cup were infinitely better prepared than any of their predecessors, and the tastiest fruit of that crop was Ireland's spectacular success – an achievement which has, ironically, played a large part in the determination of certain Full Members to reduce the chances of such embarrassments in future.

The Intercontinental Cup, meanwhile, has for all its growing pains emerged as a significant addition to the first-class calendar, and a valuable proving-ground for emerging Associates' talent, while the five divisions of the World Cricket League mean that 30 countries are now taking part in a regular programme of global tournaments.

And in a quite extraordinary irony, the ICC was able to announce, in the very week that its CEOs Committee recommended delivering a sharp kick in the teeth to the Associates, that the number of players in the Associate and Affiliate countries had risen by 17% last year to a total of 338,000 – making an increase of 135% over five years.

These are all achievements to be proud of, but even they are nothing like enough if the fine words of the ICC's Strategic Plan are to be fully realised.

There are, it is true, signs that further actions are planned to ensure that the progress is maintained: the number of HPP countries has been modestly expanded by bringing in Namibia and Denmark, the funding of the High Performance Program is to be significantly increased for the next four-year cycle, and there are suggestions that the ruling regarding the release of Associates players for international matches by first-class bodies should be given more teeth.

All desirable measures in themselves, but even they will not be enough to compensate for the massively symbolic and destructive act of reducing the number of Associates permitted to play in the World Cup.

What is now required is nothing less than a genuine, binding commitment by the Full Members, each and every one of them, to do everything in their power to ensure that the initiatives undertaken by the ICC through the global development programme are brought to fruition.

Just to take one crucial litmus test: over the past two and a half years, Full Members have, outside the framework of the World Cup and the Champions Trophy, played a total of 31 ODIs against the top six Associates.

You might think that sounds like quite a lot, but bear in mind that over the same period they have played nearly 300 against each other, and that of those 31, no fewer than 18 involved either Bangladesh or Zimbabwe (with Kenya as the opponent in more than half of those), while Pakistan and India managed to find room for just two in their schedule, England one, and Australia and New Zealand did not play a single ODI against Associate opposition.

It is true, of course, that the international programme is already so heavy that there is talk of having to cut back on the Future Tours Programme, but that is in large measure due to the apparent determination of certain Full Members to milk to the full the demand for televisable matches which are dismissively known in many quarters as JAMODIs – Just Another Meaningless ODI.

There is a limit to how much the leading Associates can learn from constantly playing each other: if they do not get regular experience of trying to compete against the top sides they will never be able to bridge the gap which currently exists.

Realistically, it must be conceded that there will for the foreseeable future be a tight limit on the number of matches against the Associates the Full Members will be prepared to play, although it needs to be significantly increased from the present paltry total. But if the Full Members were to guarantee that each of the top eight High Performance countries would play at least five ODIs a year against them, that would mean that they were committed to playing just four each, spread over the whole calendar year.

And the possibility of an upset would surely make such games at least as interesting as yet another ODI series between, say, England and New Zealand.

There are other measures, too, which can be taken to give the High Performance countries more demanding experience than they are currently able to acquire. Some things have already been done, but the coverage is patchy and there is no sign of a consistent policy.

Ireland and Scotland are allowed to play in the English Friends Provident Trophy, for example, giving valuable opportunities to take on county opposition; but when that competition was restructured the ECB summarily chucked out The Netherlands, who had at least as good a record in its predecessor as either the Scots or the Irish.

The participation of Namibia in the South African first-class competition, of the Scottish A side in the English Minor Counties, and even a Kenyan side in Zimbabwe's Logan Cup can all be seen as indications of what can be achieved, given enterprise and a measure of goodwill. More cricket against first-class or near-first-class opposition is vital, not only for the future of the Intercontinental Cup, but for the development of the ODI players of the future.

Such things need money, and both the ICC itself and cricket's financial super-powers have to be prepared to invest consistently to make them possible.

Even more important, however, is the need for both parties, the Full Members and the leading Associates to sit around the table and work out a proper, joined-up plan, costed, budgeted and guaranteed, that ensures that all the top Associates get equal opportunities to move forward. The glossy, lavishly-illustrated promises of the ICC's so-called Strategic Plan will otherwise prove to be no more than an empty PR exercise.

If cricket's head honchos have any sense of decency, they will recognise the damage that the scheme for returning to a 14-team World Cup has done to the cause of global development, and they will take steps along these lines. And that might mean that something positive could come out this sorry, miserable episode.