We all know the theory behind counter-insurgency – cultural sensitivity, force as a last resort, the patient exertion of influence etc – but the reality is often very different as this first-person account from Afghanistan shows.
Canadian columnist, Rosie Dimanno found herself stuck behind an American convoy that was blocking a road into Kabul. She was asked to help an ambulance that desperately needed to pass:
Hands in the air, dangling my media credentials from my fingers, I forced one foot in front of the other. Clearly the troops should be able to see I was Western, wearing jeans and a T-shirt, not hiding a weapon or a suicide vest.
Fifty metres away, the air gunner in the rear vehicle lowered his machine gun at me threateningly.
“Don’t shoot!” I croaked. “Just let the ambulance pass!”
The doors opened and two soldiers got out, clearly angry.
“You!” he hollered, pointing at me. “Get back where you were.”
Then, stomping up to my Afghan colleague, the senior soldier got right in his face. “We’ve got a problem here,” he spat out. “And you are creating an even bigger problem. Now go back to your car or we will have one REALLY REALLY BIG PROBLEM.”
I felt the Afghan’s humiliation and saw red.
“Don’t you f—-g talk to him like that. And don’t you f—-g talk to me like that. This is his country. Not yours, not mine.”
The second soldier, a younger fellow who looked intensely embarrassed, whispered to me: “I’m sorry ma’am. It’s just been a long day.”
Back in the car, her driver – a NATO fan – is bitter:
This is why Afghans have come to hate Americans. Afghanistan is not our country any more. They are our bosses. They treat us sometimes as if we are trespassing on our own land.
As Dimanno reflects:
I suspect some more enemies were made on this afternoon, adding incrementally to the hostility that is rapidly replacing the warm welcome that most Afghans had originally given their “liberators.”
The Americans did not have to be so aggressive. They did not have to treat Afghan men like boys.
“It’s deja vu all over again”, as the famous U.S baseball player Yogi Berra said. The latest polls show Irish voters’ getting ready to reject the Lisbon Treaty, much like they rejected the Nice Treaty seven years ago. Even though the campaign is not over, it is probably not too soon to speculate about the consequences of a “No” vote.
The rejection of the Lisbon Treaty will pose a huge headache for Europe’s leaders, who negotiated the accord after the rejection of the European Constitution by French and Dutch voters.
Even though things would perhaps not be as dire as they were in 2001 – when the Nice Treaty was seen as necessary for the Union’s expansion – a rejection of the Treaty would hobble the Union. The always sensible Andrew Duff writes why here.
Besides the effects on the Irish government – which thought it would be rejection-proof without Bertie Ehaern as Prime Minister – a rejection will lead to an extended period of navel-gazing. The French EU Presidency would be focused on the issue entirely, as would that of the Czech Republic. Real business would be pushed to one side.
Three options are possible. First, another referendum in Ireland, probably within the next 18 months. The search would be on for “concessions” to be offered Dublin much like the Danish op-outs offered to Copenhagen when the Danes rejected the Amsterdam Treaty. A key issue might be ESDP, which is sensitive in neutral Ireland. But given the two Irish votes on the Nice Treaty, another twirl of the referendum merry-go-round might be too much.
The second option might be for all the other countries to ignore Ireland’s decision and to plough on, letting Dublin know that it can either jump on board or jump off.
On this argument, four million should not be able to hold back the rest of Europe. But this nuclear option would be very risky and unpopular in many countries. The third option would be a long period of “reflection” with EU leaders basically pushing the issue off until at least the Swedish EU Presidency in 2010.
Either way, a rejection can hardly come at a worse time. Britain’s Gordon Brown is paralysed after the Crewe by-election and is unlikely to welcome a lengthy debate about Europe’s machinery. Any concession to Dublin would be an embarrassment for his government, which claimed that the Lisbon Treaty had to be accepted in its entirety.
President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel did the most to rejuvenate the Constitution…woops I mean Treaty. But their relationship has deteriorated markedly over the last year. With the SPD at the lowest point in the polls ever, this could be a tough issue for the German power-sharing government while Sarko needs thi sissues as much as he needs a third leg. Finally, the arrival of Silvio Berlusconi on the scene will not make matters easier.
One way out, as my colleague Jose Igancio Torreblanca says, could for the Lisbon Treaty to be applied to those EU states who voted ratified the Treaty, whenever 2/3 of Member States did so. In this way, the “No” votes would only affect those who voted to reject the Treaty, who should then opt-out totally or selectively, but would let the others move forward. But what about the change to the voting procedures. Would Ireland not be able to vote on those matters?
Bottom-line, if the Irish vote “No” it won’t be just a set-back, but a major problem for the EU.
By any estimation this is a shocking video. A hit and run case made worse because people walking along the pavement don’t rush to the victim, or call 911 but instead they stand and watch the victim. This psychological phenomenon is fairly well documented and is known as genovese syndrome (after a woman by the name of Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death by a serial rapist and murderer over a period of about a half hour, after which it was reported that dozens of alleged “witnesses” failed to help the victim). Researchers found that individuals will intervene if another person is in need of help – but that help is less likely to be given if more people are present.
But how, I wonder, does this social phenomenon play into the broader issue of community resilience – if at all? Self help groups, good Samaritans and community spirit all play critical roles in helping a community bounce back from an event. But what if they don’t actually exist in the first place? Are policy makers and policy wonks assuming too much about individuals and their appetite to help others? Evidence is key but think about the following:
Back in March 2008 the UK Government unveiled a plan for a civil defence network to protect Britain against natural disasters and terrorism. The idea was that organisations would team up to build the country’s resilience in a catastrophe.
But this initiative was based on the assumption that people would want to join such an organisation. And most individuals, it seems, don’t. So my prediction is that the civil defence force will be consigned to the dustbin of ideas even before it’s piloted. And is there an alternative? Based on a superficial reading of the evidence it seems most people form their own groups in response to specific events. A case of bottom- up approaches trumping top-down initiatives – leaving Government with a massive headache as to how it should approach the issue of community resilience.
In case, you missed Ravi Gurumurthy, David Miliband’s speech writer, on the F-Word, you can watch the whole thing on C4 on demand (requires Internet Explorer, a software download etc etc.)
Or you can have a look at this great montage from Channel 4. Ravi was competing on Gordon Ramsay’s programme with his mum, his newsreader brother, and his brother’s wife, with money raised going to the International Childcare Trust.
