Dealing with dictators has become more difficult in recent times. In the past, democratic governments could go to war more easily, secure in the knowledge that they had public support, safe in the knowledge that distressing imagery from ‘the front’ would not make it on to screens back home. With the advent of 24-hour news media, those images of warfare are now spread quickly around the globe, often eliciting a negative response from the viewing public.

Recently, the BBC ran a series of programmes on BBC Parliament illustrating how the media’s coverage of war has changed in just the last 25 years. During the Falklands Conflict, British journalists were embedded with our forces and technically unable to broadcast live from the Islands. Furthermore, the MOD censored the footage and reports that did make it back to Britain, often causing a significant delay in the reporting of incidents. For example, footage of the May 4th attack on HMS Sheffield was not shown until over fortnight after the Exocet was launched against it. I could not imagine that type of delay being acceptable today.

This change in the way the media handles warfare has been widely welcomed. Commentators have argued that seeing the realities of war on our screens makes us all less inclined to support the use of force. That may very well be true. My concern is, however, that whether we like it or not, the world remains an unstable place, and as the pictures above highlight, there are still countries around the globe controlled by aggressive and violent dictators. What with the spread of nuclear technology and the apparent acceptability of state-financed terrorism (e.g. Hezbollah and Iran), the democracies of the world need to be on guard to defend freedoms that we all now take for granted.

But it is not just the defence of our freedoms, and indeed, the freedom of all peoples, which will require Britain and its fellow democratic countries to resort to force throughout the next century. It is also the defence of human rights, and the prevention of crimes against humanity, that should concern us all. What if the very media that provides daily reports of the loss of civilian life in Iraq, also brought us regular footage of barbarity in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, and detailed coverage of the recent famine in North Korea? Would there be a call for military intervention to save African and Korean lives? And if not, why not?

For being inconsistent on these matters elicits derision from the developing world. Displaying such double standards does nothing for our moral standing in the world. The situations in Zimbabwe and Darfur are an international disgrace, a shame on all of our houses. We should not be weak in the face of these issues, for it only serves to provoke further transgressions against humanity. Britain and its Allies should be prepared to intervene to protect any innocent life. And if it came to it, we should also be prepared to accept the awful face of the realities of war on our TV screens, if the ends justify the means. It would be a sad irony of the 21st century if the modern media’s detailed coverage of warfare inadvertently ended up costing more lives.

Let a thousand flowers bloom, and let some of them be prettier. Then the people who get the worst flowers can challenge local leaders, locally, and sack them briskly when they fail. – Libby Purves

Yesterday in The Times, Libby Purves called for a localisation agenda for England. She did this in the light of a recent decision by the Welsh Assembly to abolish prescription charges. This announcement has joined a number of similar pledges made by both the Prinicipality’s elected assembly and our friends north of the border over the last few years. To free prescriptions for the Welsh, one can add free residential care for the Scottish elderly and free university tuition for Scottish students at Scottish universities (note: not free for English students studying in Scottish universities!). All these commitments are to be paid for by the UK taypayer. To add insult to injury, the First Minister in Wales, Rhodri Morgan, declared that the English would be “jealous” of free prescriptions.

And let us not forget the ‘West Lothian question’ so eloquently asked by a Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, in November 1977 –

For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate… at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Yes. 1977. This is not a new problem. It has, however, been further exacerbated by the devolution imposed since 1997 by this Labour government. We now have a situation where Scottish MPs have voted on Westminster legislation, safe in the knowledge that it would not affect their own constituents. Furthermore, in the case of tuition fees, the absence of Scottish MP’s support would have led to the government failing to get the policy implemented in England and Wales. The audacity and inappropriateness of this behaviour was remarkable.

And let us also not forget the ‘Barnett formula’. This 1970s implemented policy has led to the present-day unfairness of regional public expenditure in the United Kingdom. On the basis of figures from the financial year 2003/2004 (source: HM Treasury Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis -PESA), the expenditure per head in England is £5,940. This compares rather unfavourably to Scotland where it is £7,346, Wales where it is £6,901, and in Northern Ireland where it is £7,945. Lord Barnett himself now views the formula as unfair. In The Scotsman in January 2004 he wrote “It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn’t create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding.” When will this formula be consigned to history? Not by a Scottish dominated Labour Party I suspect.

In Libby Purves’ article, she went on to call for a localisation drive in England. The blatant unfairness of the present situation should, she argued, be seen as an opportunity for the English local regions to reassert themselves. I have long been an advocate of localism in schools and hospitals administration. The “postcode lottery” that in the past we have been led to believe is so wrong, has now been introduced by devolution in Scotland and Wales. I welcome the different approaches by our Celtic friends, and would like to see more diversity in service provision throughout the United Kingdom. What I resent, however, is that the English, from whom the Exchequer extracts the most tax, are being short-changed financially. This must stop. The poorer regions of England need more money and we should be providing it. I believe future Conservative Party policy should be about empowering local areas to organise the public services they want. It is not only the right thing to be doing, it is also politically the most astute. And with regards to the democratic deficit, it remains to be seen how the English will respond to a future Scottish Prime Minister whose Parliamentary majority in Westminster could very well be solely due to the demographic over-representation of Wales and Scotland. Interesting times ahead I believe.

In the next week or two this House, the nation and the Right Honourable Lady herself will learn of what metal she is made – Enoch Powell

Following on from yesterday’s post, today marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Emergency Debate on the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. The BBC Parliament channel repeated the three hour debate last Sunday evening. For those of us who are never happier than when wearing our political anoraks, it made for an interesting evening’s viewing.

The debate took place unusually on a Saturday morning. Unsurprisingly, it was very well attended by both sides of the House. Listening to the contributions reminded me of the importance of Parliament. It was undeniably a time of confusion and anger, and the Commons served to allow those concerned Members to vent their disgust at the invasion, their frustration about apparent government inaction in the weeks preceding, and most importantly, to express the views of the nation at large.

There were many distinguished speeches from the floor. The debate was begun by the Prime Minister, to which Michael Foot responded admirably – Foot had been an ardent supporter of those in the 1930s who had called for the end of the appeasement of Hitler. Memorably, Enoch Powell, then an Ulster Unionist, cleverly challenged Mrs Thatcher on her apparent pleasure at receiving her newly bestowed sobriquet, ‘The Iron Lady’ (quote above), in the light of events likely to follow. Edward du Cann, the then MP for Taunton, in response to Michael Foot’s speech, summed up the general feeling of the House most eloquently:

There are times in the affairs of our nation when the House should speak with a single, united voice. This is just such a time. The Leader of the Opposition spoke for us all. He did this nation a service when, in clear and unmistakable terms, he condemned what he called this brutal aggression and when he affirmed the rights of the Falkland Islanders to decide their own destiny.

Listening to the debate reminded me of the importance of Parliament during times of national distress. In the light of recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kenneth Clarke was right to recently call for the House of Commons to be formally included in the decision-making process of this country going to war. On April 3rd 1982, the Commons successfully and strongly debated the events preceding the invasion at the same time as offering its full support for the government’s decision to send a task force to the South Atlantic. Future legislation regards the role of Parliament at such times should recall that historically, the elected representatives of this country, of whatever political colour, have displayed admirable qualities when determining the use of our armed forces in the defence of this nation. We would do well to remember that.

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.

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.