scolding the afghan deputy minister
Submitted by antarchi on July 14, 2009 - 17:13
The Today Programme ran a 6 minute segment on corruption in Afghanistan.
"We are fighting in Afghanistan in order to build a more stable society there." says Evan Davies in his introduction. (So that's clear then, for anyone who wondered what on earth our boys were doing there)
On he goes: "... Transparency International has Afghanistan as the 159th most corrupt country. Now this is not just a matter of the usual significance, as it would be anywhere.[!?] It seriously undermines attempts for the government we are fighting to support to gain the respect of the citizens..."
Us, us us.
Then he went on to question the Afghan deputy minister for rural rehabilitation in the most patronising, colonial way, about corruption in Afghanistan, and what were the government doing to fight it, and wasn't it worse there than anywhere else in the world. (And shouldn't they be ashamed of themselves).
Culminating in the following:
"But do you agree... do you agree, Deputy Minister, that the effort that is being made by the Afghanistan authorities - and from the very very top - match the sacrifices that are being made by British soldiers, for example, trying to fight to hold the country together?"
How do you fight to hold something together? By blowing up anyone who's 'different'; anyone who doesn't support the government you selected for them? I suppose if you blow up everyone who disagrees, and as long as you have the best instruments of precision bombing and don't hit anyone who agrees, or anyone who is close emotionally to those who disagree (and are now dead) then maybe you can end up with a country which is 'together'. In the same way, If you precision bombed the House of Commons, and made sure you took out everyone opposed to ID cards, you'd end up with a HoC held together by the wish for ID cards.
Clever.
Dear Evan Davies
I was deeply embarrassed by your scolding interview with the Afghan Deputy Minister on Monday morning, and in particular, by the last question you posed. You asked:
'Do you agree, Deputy Minister, that the effort that is being made by the Afghanistan authorities - and from the very very top - match the sacrifices that are being made by British soldiers, for example, trying to fight to hold the country together?'
I assume that you in fact meant to ask him whether he agreed that it did not match the sacrifices by British soldiers.
Do you recall that we were not invited into Afghanistan? Do you recall that there was no Security Council Resolution legitimising the invasion and heavy bombing that we and the American forces imposed upon that country? Are you aware that according to a recent poll undertaken by the BBC, only 24% of Afghanis believe that the British role in their country is 'positive'? And that 51% of the population want foreign troops out now, or some time in the next 1-2 years?
How well do you think we would manage to 'fight corruption' if foreign troops had smashed our infrastructure, bombed our wedding parties, reduced our country to a pile of dust, and then brought in their own high-salaried (corrupted) nationals to 'rebuild' and occupy us - all without our invitation? And how would you feel, as a representative of that occupied land, if the foreign invaders interviewed you on national radio and scolded you for not managing to do more to build up, in an honest way, what had been smashed down (honestly) by them? Or if they told you that those who had destroyed your country were in fact just 'trying to fight to hold the country together'?
What evidence do you have that British troops are 'trying to fight to hold the country together'? Do you hold a country together by fighting part of its people?
If you cannot bring yourself to point out these facts to our politicians - those who are guilty of these crimes - please, at least, refrain from interviewing representatives of that broken country as if we owned the place. We do not. We have merely destroyed it.
Thank you
antarchi.
- antarchi's blog
- Login to post comments
Evan Davis responds
I'm sorry Ellie
The man who I was interviewing entirely shared the premise that underlined my question. You do not, but he does.
If he thought we shouldn't be there, your point would be valid.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
my response to him
(of course he didn't bother to reply)
Dear Evan
You wrote:
Is that it? Did you ask him; and do you have no responsibilities to listeners who 'do not share your premisses'? Do you not have a responsibility, particularly on such controversial issues, to refrain from making your personal judgement such a key part of the interview (whether or not your interviewees agree with you)?
In any case, there were actually several premises underlying your question. Each of them I found controversial - and so would many other listeners - and on each point you made your own position quite plain:
1. That our troops are trying to fight to hold the country together. I asked you for evidence to support this claim - partly because it is at odds with the official government reason, which is to prevent terrorist attacks in this country; and partly because fighting, in my experience, does not lead to unity and is never intended to do so (except in order to unite people against a common enemy. Perhaps that was what you meant?)
2. That British troops fighting in Afghanistan is a realistic, admirable and legitimate means to the end of a unified country and stable society. I would indeed dispute all 3 of these premises. So would many others.
3. That there are no other ends for which we are fighting. I strongly suspect that the Afghan Deputy Minister would not agree with you on this point, and I did not hear you ask him whether he did. Perhaps you would like to explain why it is that we are not fighting in other 'unstable' countries round the world, or in other countries that need 'bringing together'.
4. That the fighting (invasion) played no part in unleashing violence and disuniting the country, and that we therefore hold no responsibility for the problems in Afghanistan today. I suspect that the Minister would also not agree with this either, but you did not ask him.
5. That British troops' attempts (now) are being undermined by the Afghan government's failure to address the corruption issue. Even if true, it is hardly the most important reason for our military failure (ask the military specialists).
6. That Afghanistan 'owes' us something, because our troops (uninvited) are dying there. I think for Afghanistan it might be relevant that far, far greater numbers of their civilians (not just troops) are dying, chiefly as a result of our efforts.
7. That we are entitled to criticise and scold publicly members of the Afghan government for not doing more, and that we can take the moral high ground against representatives of a country we have invaded (illegally).
I know you don't agree with any of these points, because it was quite clear from your interview. So my further question is that given the controversial nature of each of these points, might you want to consider framing your questions, in future, in a way which does not depend on all your listeners sharing your personal judgement.
Thank you
ant