We must make it clear that the international community stands ready to support and assist Zimbabwe, if its leadership is prepared to make the dramatic change needed to give the country a truly democratically elected government – a government that is determined to provide hope and relief for its people, and is committed to economic and governance reform. – William Hague MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary

The misery of Zimbabwe continues. Images of the beaten Opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai (pictured above), lying in a hospital are further evidence of the depths to which the Mugabe regime have fallen. A country once famous for being the “bread basket of Africa” is now fast becoming a basket case. A country with an abundance of natural resources and a vibrant agricultural economy has become one where its inhabitants have a life expectancy of just 38 years. HIV infection is rife and malnutrition is a growing problem. The majority of those who are fortunate enough to be in employment exist on pitiful wages, at a time when inflation approaches 2000%.

Sadly, none of this is is new for Zimbabwe. The uncomfortable reality for wealthy Western nations is that Mugabe has been running wroth shod over the human rights of the majority of his citizens for years. His brutality and appalling governance have taken a once proud, independent nation into a position of growing reliance on others, particularly its neighbour South Africa. Those who have tried to oppose his governance have either been attacked (and sometimes killed) or left the country. In my clinical practice, I have seen many Zimbabweans that have fled their homeland, often displaying obvious signs of previous abuse. I have noted evidence of depression, poorly treated AIDS-related disease and physical harm in many of the Zimbabweans I have treated.

But, what are we to do? What can Britain do about this violent dictator? Should the former colonial master interfere in the country we once called Rhodesia? On Question Time last week it was painful to watch the Solicitor General justify Britain not intervening, in the process having the temerity to talk about Mugabe being a legitimate, democratic leader! He looked and sounded stupid. He was, however, subscribing to the view that Britain has no active role to play – i.e. the ‘white man’ interfering in sub-Saharan Africa would only inflame the situation. This would broadly appear to be the attitude of most commentators.

This attitude is frustrating, and above all, weak. I was, therefore, pleased to read William Hague in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph calling for “the international community to say enough is enough”. He argued eloquently for a broadening of established sanctions, both by the EU and the wider international community. Ultimately, however, if Mugabe (or one of his successors) is still there come next year, the international community may need to consider proper intervention. Zimbabwe’s sad situation has been created by one of its own, a brutal man with a track record of poor governance. How much longer can we all stand idly by, watching the majority of Zimbabweans suffer at the hands of this dictator? Our colonial history should not dissuade us from doing what is morally right for the oppressed people of that country. Britain should be at the forefront of eliciting a global response to this unfolding African tragedy.

Congratulations must go to the Bangladeshi Cricket team on their unexpected win against India yesterday. In honour of their success, I went out for a curry at the nearest Tandoori restaurant to the Conference centre in Nottingham. By chance, the Bangladeshi owners not only had a picture of the winning team on the wall from a previous visit, they also enthusiastically declared their lifelong support for the Conservative Party and, in particular, for Kenneth Clarke MP.

It is important to recognise that morality is not the exclusive preserve of protesters, whether outside the gates of Parliament, hanging over the river, outside the gates of No. 10, or outside Faslane, Devonport or Aldermaston. Most people, including most Christians, reject the pacifist morality that says it would be better to be subjugated by superior military power and lose our freedoms than to possess nuclear weapons, on the grounds that no dictatorship lasts for ever and our moral judgment would be intact-even if we were in chains or dead. – Robert Key MP (Salisbury)

This month’s BBC History Magazine leads with an article about Bomber Command in the Second World War. Titled, “Good Men Doing An Ugly Job“, it discusses the controversy that ensued following Britain’s decision to ‘area bomb’ large areas of urban Germany. The picture above graphically illustrates just one of those cities, Dresden, that Bomber Command chose to completely destroy. The resultant loss of 600,000 German civilian lives initially proved controversial, so much so, that unlike Fighter Command, there is still no national memorial to the memory of the ‘Bomber Boys’, 55,000 of whom died during the campaign.

Not only did over 50,000 men lose their lives, many were mentally scarred, one of whom happens to be my grandfather. He flew in 30 bombing missions over Germany and Occupied France, sitting precariously in his tail-gun position. I am told he suffered flashbacks about what he witnessed for many decades after the war ended. His sacrifice, and those of his fellow airmen, should be recognised as contributing greatly towards the noble cause of removing Hitler from power. By doing so, they won the peace, stopped the Holocaust and brought democracy to the continent of Europe.

Because it is a noble endeavour to go to war to remove tyrants. It is also right for democratic countries, where liberty and tolerance are part of the national fabric, to firmly resist intimidation and terror. The problem for the present generation is that the foe is less easily defined, and more importantly, far from easy to attack. Furthermore, with the advent of 24hr news media, everyone gets to see the results of warfare immediately. I have no doubt that appalling images from the Vietnam war, arguably the first televised conflict, contributed to the waning of public support at home in America. I am concerned, however, that warfare imagery could deflect political leaders from making the ‘right’ decision’ for the world in the longer term. Would the Allies have continued the bombing onslaught of German cities if camera teams had been on the ground in Hamburg and Dresden? If so, what of the Final Solution, the execution of which accelerated after the Germans began to lose the war? My point being that one could make a moral case for bombing Germany to defend the lives of innocent Jews, however, if images of civilian deaths in Germany had become more widely seen, the British public’s support for the bombing may have dwindled.

This week’s decision on Trident should be seen in the light of this recent history. Wednesday’s debate included many important contributions. Robert Key MP made an impressive speech in which he argued persuasively that Britain had the moral right to defend its way of life. I support his view in the same way that I supported the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. I have previously stated my concern that Trident may be a weapon for another age, however, history teaches us that sometimes world events warrant a tough moral response. When Hitler attempted to take over Europe and annihilate any who stood in his way, it was right for Britain to ‘stand up and be counted’. When the morally-corrupt Soviet Union threatened us with a massive array of nuclear weapons it was right for Britain and its Allies to stand firm. Today’s foe appears more elusive, but he and any future enemy, be they terrorist group or country, should know that Britain will defend itself firmly in the face of intolerance, tyranny and terror.

In 1957, the post-Suez Defence Review ruled that nuclear weapons would provide the basis for British security. This decision effectively reinforced the need for close US relations. This “special relationship” with America that had first developed during the Second World War lasts to today, with Britain now regarded as an important “junior” partner in the War on Terrorism. Furthermore, the thinking expressed in that 1950s document underpins our present-day nuclear policy, a policy that is to be discussed this afternoon in Parliament.

Today, MPs vote on whether to renew Trident, Britain’s sole remaining independent nuclear deterrent. Of the four practical options considered, the Government has chosen a submarine-based system similar to the present one, equipped with the Trident D5 missile (pictured above). The Conservative Opposition is supporting the government, thereby assuring that the legislation is passed. Without Conservative support, the likely Labour back-bench rebellion would have stopped the decision being made to replace Britain’s nuclear weaponry.

The government of this country has many responsibilities, none though, are more important than the defence of the realm. It is for this reason that if I was an MP I would be casting my vote in favour of replacing our nuclear deterrent. In doing so, however, I would have a nagging doubt in my mind that an opportunity to forge a new path in British foreign policy had been missed. That opportunity may very well not come around for another few decades.

The case for Britain having an independent nuclear deterrent was once dependent upon the existence of an obvious foe, the Soviet Union. The size of the Soviet nuclear arsenal was so immense that it was a widely held belief that, for NATO to have an effective deterrent, more than one of its members was required to bear nuclear weapons. This foe no longer exists, having been replaced by a Russian government less likely to instigate nuclear Armageddon. Not only do we no longer have a country as an aggressor, it is questionable that a future nuclear foe would be a defined state. What of the awful image of a suicide bomber equipped with a nuclear device attacking the London Underground? Against whom would we retaliate? A token Muslim city? So, why should we retain these weapons? Do they augment our political status?

It has been argued that Britain needs to possess nuclear weapons to justify its privileged position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I don’t like this argument. It implies diplomatic strength and political status solely go ‘hand-in-hand’ with military strength. Are we suggesting that Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and possibly Iran, should be granted permanent membership? And if not, what message does that send? Develop WMD and spread the technology and then we will take you seriously? My point is that political status is not, and should not be, necessarily dependent upon nuclear capability. Both Germany and Japan wield diplomatic power without possessing nuclear weapons. Maybe if Britain was no longer seen as America’s unquestioning partner, its political status in the eyes of others would rise?

The problem though, is that any decision to give up Britain’s nuclear weapons would practically be irrevocable. The technology, and more importantly, the people with the requisite knowledge, could not respond in time to a change in the international security situation. History painfully teaches us that within the twenty years required to develop a replacement nuclear weapon system, world events could lead to dramatic changes in global threats. I believe, therefore, that the sensible and prudent decision is to retain a modest nuclear deterrent capability. To give up nuclear weapons just when other countries are acquiring them would rightly be seen by the British public as irresponsible. I just wish, however, we could have taken time to fashion a new foreign policy that was not written in the 1950s. The world has since changed. Our foreign policy has not.

The clip below was taken from last night’s 18 Doughty Street’s programme about the on-going MMC controversy. To watch the full programme click here.