The twenty-fifth anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands should remind us all of the importance of principle in foreign affairs. Margaret Thatcher’s brave decision to send a task force to reclaim the islands was based upon the principles that unprovoked military aggression should not be rewarded and that the British islanders had a right to self-determination. The invasion was an illegal act and hence warranted a forceful response. Despite being given a ’50/50′ chance of the task force’s success by her military commanders, and the expression of some doubts both within and without government, the then Prime Minister stood firmly, arguing the case to stand up to the intimidation of the Argentine military junta. She was proven to be right.

The loss of 255 British lives was a high cost to pay to defend Britons on the other side of the world, however, I truly believe that they died for a cause worth defending. Britain should never shirk from defending its people, its territory and its interests. To do so, would be to invite another conflict similar to that which we witnessed in 1982.

The Iranian abduction of 15 British Navy personnel last week has brought into sharp focus the daily dangers that our servicemen and women are undergoing by protecting British interests around the world. We ask so much of our armed forces and in return we spend so relatively little. Indeed, it is that apparent lack of commitment to defence spending that may have contributed to Iran’s flagrant actions last week, in that we may very well have appeared weak.

Since the taking of the 15 servicemen (including one woman), the British government has reacted with a calm firmness. So far, this approach does not appear to be bearing fruit. Today, there are further reports that the abducted Britons will be charged with espionage for having taken “an aggressive action” by “invading Iranian waters”. The ultimate penalty for this charge if convicted would be death. Now, I do not suspect that this will be the outcome, however, there is a sense that Britain alone has few options to pursue in securing the safe release of its service personnel. This state of affairs should concern us all.

I am not advocating a military solution to this situation. I am, however, suggesting that if Britain wants to continue wielding military and diplomatic strength around the world, it needs to dramatically increase its spending on conventional forces. Britain spends proportionately less of its wealth on defence than Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. Defence spending as a percentage of the UK’s gross domestic product is at its lowest since 1930. Government figures show that 2.5 per cent of our GDP (£32 billion) was spent on defence in 2005/6 compared with 4.4 per cent in 1987/88. Our spending as a proportion of national wealth is just over half that of the USA. And this apparent lower level of funding is despite the fact that the present Labour government has presided over a big increase in operational commitments: Operation Desert Fox to destroy Saddam Hussein’s capability to produce weapons of mass destruction (1998), Kosovo (1999 – ), Sierra Leone (2000 – ), Afghanistan (2001 -) and Operation Telic in Iraq (2003 – ). The Conservative Party’s Defence Team has calculated that troop numbers have fallen from 101,360 full-time personnel in 1997 to 99,460 in 2007, while the Royal Air Force has seen offensive squadrons fall from 16 to 11, and the Navy has lost eight destroyers and six frigates. This should not be politically acceptable.

This government has been quick to place our forces in action. I would have initially supported each of the campaigns listed above, however, my support would have been qualified on the basis of a genuine government commitment to proper investment in our armed forces. Recent history teaches us that we have always compromised our defence in times of peace only to find ourselves overwhelmed by events when a war looms. Let us hope that this on-going Iranian dispute ends peacefully. However, what if it does not?

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.