Following on from the recent deaths of aid workers in Afghanistan, the political reaction in countries with a stake in the matter (read: the workers’ home countries) has been acute. It is not my intention to summarise it here, but one comment by a politician caught my attention.
She said
There can be no justification, ever, for killing innocent aid workers.
Well, where does one start? One might say killing innocent people, point finale, can never be justified, aid workers or not. But, I digress. What I really want to say is, “that ain’t necessarily so.” It depends upon your perspective.
IF, you are the Taliban, you may see Western aid, no matter how purely it is offered, as part of a larger campaign of subjugation/stabilisation. In that sense, the relief/aid/development process runs in direct opposition to your desired endstate for Afghanistan, a country which you believe should heel to sharia law and ultimately, Allah himself, just as it was intended in the 7th Century ‘CE’. It is, therefore, internally logical that anyone who furthers the aid process, detracts from your programme is, therefore, an enemy. Since the issue at hand is one of an existential nature, you may feel justified in taking whatever measures necessary to stop progress and deter others from attempting it in the future. Not dissimilar to the imagary of missionaries in the stew pot and all that.
Now, this raises some interesting points. First, what makes the Taliban so sure that aid et al are wrapped up inside a bigger movement? Well, words like this from Colin Powell sure help
I am serious about making sure we have the best relationship with the NGOs who are such a force multiplier for us, such an important part of our combat team.
Yikes. There must have been a lot of flesh crawling in that conference room. Not exactly what a lot of NGOs, IGOs, and IOs are looking for by way of endorsement. Others–soldiers, politicians, and academics–have said similar things.
However, it is vital to look beyond ‘mistaken identity’ as a motive for these kinds of attacks. Aid workers are not killed because the ‘bad guys’ gets confused and thinks that they are soldiers, or auxilliaries. They know darn well who are they are what they are up to, and to the extent that it follows the pattern I have outlined above, they don’t appreciate it. Therefore, protestations by Western politicians (and officials from the various headquarters of aid agencies and organisations) claiming neutrality and impartiality are beside the point if viewed from the perspective of the Taliban, et al.
To them, this is war. The longer the rest of us take to figure that out, the longer we will continue to be shocked and confused.
Wednesday, 20, August, 2008 at 1:30 am |
Good points. Once again, it it worth my time to visit this site. Thanks.
Sunday, 24, August, 2008 at 3:26 am |
If one side wants to have a total war, ignoring the “perfidious” label for dressing like and shielding among civilians, then that’s what it will get. You can’t cede the civilian space to them. The Hague Conventions assign full responsibility for consequent civilian deaths to the perfidious ones, but if you can’t handle that and demand “no innocent deaths”, then you lose. Liberals prefer door #2, conservatives door #1.
Sunday, 24, August, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
Brian H: So your answer is to go all-out and damn the civilians? Wasnt that what the russians tried? This fails the point that this is a “battle for hearts and minds” and the “quest for legitimacy”, and will make the effort nearly impossible. Wich I am more and more coming round to that it is, because these last five years have seen Afghanistan sliding downwards into warlordism, not upwards towards civil rights for the populace.
Tuesday, 26, August, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
[...] of the complexities of the situation on the ground, which I suppose is difficult due to the nature of the conflict and the commercial, corporate and political pressures contemporary news media find [...]