Airstrip One

Julian the Apostate

If you are interested in what Britain means to do in Zimbabwe you may want to at least glance at this Parliamentary debate last Wednesday. One of the more chilling phrases came from the mouth of Dr Julian Lewis (who initiated the debate) "I would not rule out direct intervention in the event that this dictatorship is not seen to bring matters back into a constitutional position."

One interesting idea was put out by Francis Maude:

Why does the great issue of Zimbabwe matter to us? It matters because of our history, our connections and our historic obligations to it, and because of its strategic importance. It is at the centre of southern Africa. What is happening there is contaminating and destabilising the whole region. Therefore, for every reason that one can think of, it is in Britain's interest and a matter of honour and obligation to do whatever we can to assist the beleaguered people of Zimbabwe.

Julian Lewis MP is an interesting character, on whom Christopher Montgomery will probably have more to say. He is genuinely knowledgeable on a wide range of defence and diplomatic issues. He is however irredeemably Atlanticist, in the sense that he sees no practical difference between our interests and America's. He's also more hawkish than the American think tanks who subsidised him, as he says "I supported the Government over Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan".

The interesting thing is the way in which the debate's been reported in Zim. The independent Zimbabwe Standard has headlined it "UK Urged to Send Troops".


One interesting contribution was from Francis Maude:

Why does the great issue of Zimbabwe matter to us? It matters because of our history, our connections and our historic obligations to it, and because of its strategic importance. It is at the centre of southern Africa. What is happening there is contaminating and destabilising the whole region. Therefore, for every reason that one can think of, it is in Britain's interest and a matter of honour and obligation to do whatever we can to assist the beleaguered people of Zimbabwe.

1) Our history. Our history is in the past. To quote Palmerston "It is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies - our interests are eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow." Our history is more tied to Western Europe, particularly Northern Germany, France and the Low Countries, than it could ever be to any part of Africa. However this is not an argument for keeping in Africa.

2) Our connections. To read British passport holders with large business interests (mainly agricultural). A better argument than many others, however the British state can not hope to be the guarantor for property rights in independent countries in the other hemisphere.

3) Our historic obligations to it. Note the adjective. Rhodesia declared independence in 1965, and voted in Mugabe in 1980. By any reasonable standard Britain's obligations are now out of time, indeed historic.

4) Because of its strategic importance. It is at the centre of southern Africa. This affects Britain, how? Southern Africa has not had any strategic importance since Disraeli secured control of the Suez canal, and even if the Suez canal was blocked neither India nor Australia are now important to us. Livingston and Rhodes may have seen moral or monetary value in Southern Africa, but strategically it was a dead issue for Britain almost a century before UDI (not counting the rather weird conditions in the Cold War, where every country had some strategic import).

For every reason that one can think of? That is if you don't count the strategic, economic or diplomatic fall out.