A Matter for Debate

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.