The Spectator
LLOYD EVANS
WEDNESDAY, 19TH SEPTEMBER 2007
Lloyd Evans reports from the inaugural Spectator / Intelligence Squared debate and finds that he is still undecided on the question of whether or not Britain has failed Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe – last in the dictionary and too often last on the agenda. The new season of Intelligence Squared debates opened with the motion ‘Britain Has Failed Zimbabwe.’ Moderator Richard Lindley set the scene by taking us back to Salisbury, now Harare, on November 11th, 1965 where, as a young journalist, he reported on Ian Smith’s announcement of UDI. Back then, everyone expected that within weeks British paratroopers would descend from the heavens and sort the country out. They’re still waiting.
Peter Godwin, a Zimbabwean journalist, opened in support of the motion with an unsettling quip: ‘If we were in Zimbabwe you wouldn’t be able to go to supper until till you’d voted the right way.’ Listing Britain’s historic failures he described how colonial disengagement was cooked up by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and in particular by its snobbish mandarins who looked down on the white settlers and didn’t believe them capable of governing themselves. The rushed process of decolonisation led directly to Ian Smith’s act of rebellion. And Britain’s neglect didn’t end there. Even while Mugabe’s mass killings were being reported in The Sunday Times (Godwin knows about this, he was the reporter) the dictator was being feted by the British establishment, given an honorary degree from Edinburgh University and, in 1994, a knighthood.
In reply we heard from John Makumbe, a Zimbabwean lecturer in politics. A large man with a quiet and powerful presence he outlined the achievements of British aid in Zimbabwe. He spoke of irrigation programmes, action on human rights and successful campaigns against sexually transmitted diseases. ‘This has made Zimbabwean women the top users of the female condom in Africa,’ he said. Pause. Twinkly smile. ‘I hope that’s not including my wife. She has no business using one. I’ll call her later.’
Next up Tendai Biti, an opposition MP, who took issue with Makumbe’s reassuring words and joked that he should collect ‘a commission for doing a fine propaganda job on behalf of the Foreign Office’. Biti drew our attention to the scale of the crisis. There are shortages of everything. Life expectancy is 34. With inflation at 12,000% Zimbabwe makes the Weimar Republic look like a model of fiscal rectitude. He blamed Britain for the Lancaster House conference which had been ‘marred with blunders’ and had created ‘a loose dishonest constitution’. A disproportionate influence over government was given to the tiny 1% white minority. And worst of all, the constitution failed to limit the terms served by its presidents. Mugabe has profited from all these shortcomings.
Then a complete change of accent and mood with Chenjerai Hove, a columnist and poet living in Norway. He pared everything down to dramatic simplicities. What is the point, he said, of ejecting an oppressor if you retain the tools of oppression? ‘Go away, but let me keep your prisons, your handcuffs and your secret police.’ He argued graphically that Zimbabweans should take responsibility for themselves. ‘In 1980 Prince Charles gave us our flag and the right to manage our affairs. We didn’t expect bed and breakfast as well.’ And he read a stark, moving poem which concentrated the blame in one direction. ‘On your way to the house of power you left footprints of blood … a trail of widows, a trail of orphans, a trail of pain.’
RW Johnson’s opening put-down ‘I won’t be reading any of my poems,’ probably looks harsher here than it sounded on the night. Johnson argued, as Blair once did, for a brief but benevolent war. He gave the example of Sierra Leone where fewer than a thousand British troops arrived and were ‘greeted by cheering crowds.’ He also took on and demolished one of the main arguments against intervention – that Mugabe has characterised Britain as a neo-colonial bandit and that using force would vindicate Mugabe’s propaganda. ‘Well if we’d intervened in Rwanda the Hutu leaders would have had something to say. But so what?’ The problem is too big for such niceties, he argued. Intervention ‘will prevent genocide’ and therefore the case makes itself.
David Coltart, another Zimbabwe MP, finished for the opposition telling us that Britain is now viewed with deep suspicion throughout Africa. Guess why? Iraq. He suggested that if there had to be intervention it should come from others, from France and from the UN.
Then there were questions from the floor. And fresh arguments. Britain and the US are irrelevant, one speaker suggested, and China is the new power in Africa. Oh no it’s not, said another. China’s pulling out. A brave little chap called Freddie took the mike and stated in clear and persuasive tones: ‘England could have intervened but the leader of Zimbabwe is so cruel he probably wouldn’t listen.’ Massive applause.
The poet Chenjerai Hove finished with a dig at his president. ‘He is unaware of shortages. He shops from Harrods. That’s why Mugabe’s so angry with Britain. Because he can’t come shopping.’
Those listening on-line voted for the motion 54% and against 46%. In the room it was much more clear-cut. Initially there were 343 in favour and this rose to 455 after the debate. The 155 against rose to 203. And those tricky and elusive ‘don’t knows’ shifted from 230 to 35. I was one of them, I must admit, but for a ‘don’t know’ I’ve never felt so wonderfully well informed.