Afghan interpreters asylum appeal

steve45

steve45

steve45

Soldato
Joined
10 Jan 2006
Posts
4,715
Location
Catterick/Dundee
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22051400

Former army chief Gen Sir Mike Jackson has appealed to the government to not abandon Afghan interpreters who have helped the British army.

Sir Mike and others, including former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown, said Britain has a "moral obligation" to offer the interpreters asylum.

They said the 600 interpreters who have served British forces in Afghanistan live in fear of Taliban reprisals.

Britain is the only Nato country yet to offer its Afghan interpreters asylum.

The open letter in The Times newspaper was also signed by the director of the think tank The Royal United Services Institute, Michael Clarke; author and ex-army officer Patrick Hennessey; and veteran Jake Wood, who wrote Among You: The Extraordinary True Story of a Soldier Broken By War.

'Extraordinary sacrifices'
It said the current system of dealing with asylum claims by Afghans is "slow, not transparent and offers no guarantee of success".

Around 20 interpreters have been killed in action, dozens more have been injured, and five others have been killed while off duty.

The letter detailed how last week an interpreter and his family had gone into hiding after receiving a call from the Taliban threatening to punish him for helping the British.

The letter said: "Afghan interpreters who've stood shoulder to shoulder with our armed forces in Afghanistan are in danger of being abandoned by Britain.

"The British military's job would have been impossible without local interpreters, who risked their lives and made extraordinary sacrifices."

Britain's current position differs from its Nato allies, in "shamefully" being the only country to not offer the interpreters asylum, the letter says.


After the Iraq war, Britain gave Iraqi interpreters the offer of asylum or a one-off financial payment.

There has been a growing campaign for Afghan interpreters to be offered the same.

An online petition launched by one interpreter has received 60,000 signatures.

The letter said: "The Ministry of Defence's argument against an Iraqi-style scheme has been that it was 'expensive, complex to administer and took little account of any individual need for protection.'

"Our argument is that Britain has a moral obligation to support this small number of brave men who put themselves in grave danger so that British soldiers could do their job."
Click to expand...
Now lets try focus on the topic today, i understand there are quite a few members on here that are against the action in afghanistan or even armed forces in general, however lets try to put that aside for a while at least.


Now on to the topic at hand, the main reason for me posting this was my suprise to find that this wasnt the case already, I had just assumed they would be given this choice, i have chatted with a number of terps in my time over there the majority have seemed like genuinely nice people, but it never really crossed my mind to ask them what would happen when we pulled out, again i just assumed they would be offered asylum, or that there would be a process for improving the safety of themselves and there family from reprisals.
They(and there families) are already at great risk doing what they do with us still there, i could only imagine how dangerous it would be for them when we leave.
I'm not usually a fan of the whole immigration/asylum thing, however I think it is only fair that we are responsible for putting them in this position that we take responisibility for there safety on leaving the region, by offering them and there immediate family asylum.
 
We worked for the benefit of the Afghanistan government, it is their job to protect all those Afghan nationals who assisted in that process.
 
I think we should only offer asylum where there is a clear need be that immediate danger, moral obligation, past or future benefit to our nation, etc. For me these people have ticked all those boxes. And it is very cheap our government don't fulfil their obligations as they never have done with our Nepalese comrades too. We wouldn't have been able to function without these people for something our government wanted to do - we owe them a debt and we should repay that debt otherwise the word gets around and the next time we don't get help. Hearts and minds doesn't apply to solely to the conflict it is used in it used historically as a measure of what to expect from a nation's forces. I would hope our reputation would be based upon excellence rather than betrayal.
 
bitslice said:
We worked for the benefit of the Afghanistan government, it is their job to protect all those Afghan nationals who assisted in that process.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world yes, however i dont think the GIRoA/ANSF are sufficiently capable of providing this protection for them, at least not at this time, also the precedent has already been set by all the other nations involved in Afghanistan, UK is the only nation not to offer this to the interpreters that work with us.
 
Ive met a few of them - and to be fair some of them are pretty cool, others are proper scumbags, but they all risk a lot by being terps for us, If i was one of them id be pretty worried by about 2014/15

even if the government has a good hold on security post Herrick, it would be pretty easy to target these people as punishment for helping us
 
it does seem a bit rushed, but in reality we should have at least some forces there for a good while yet, however will these forces(or even good afghan forces) be able to protect terps who are back in the general population ? I doubt it

in terms of your question about leaving now - I don't think we can do much more really, I think you get to a point where if the afghans cant go it alone then they never will
 
I dont know, have they rushed it? most probably yes.
will we be leaving before they are ready? that is still to be seen, however they are making good progress towards that goal.
but we wont really be able to tell properly for a good number of years when we see how the country looks after itself when we are gone, but most certainly the people like the terps and others that have provided services for armed forces will most definitely be at real great risk.
 
If these generals had any testicles they would speak out prior to receiving their pensions, from their position of authority, instead of become quazi-political figures upon their retirement. They all do it, head of the navy did it, and Gen Sir Mike has opened his gob on many occasions since he started drawing his retirement salary.
He was the commander of the entire armed forced, he answered only to the defence minister, so there is no excuse of following orders as he's the chap who sets the orders.
If he cared he would have made it one of the conditions of engagement.
He didn't.
He kept quiet then, he should keep quiet now.
 
yes they should be granted asylum.. its a special case in which they face extra danger purely as a result of working for us

Its also a drop in the water compared to asylum claims in general - 600 interpreters is hardly a burden and it sends out a very bad message to anyone who might be willing to help us in future if we don't take these guys in... - you'd be surprised at the UK news stories that people are aware of in these countries.
 
600 + their family...
they have large families over there and some of them multiple wives....
If all 600 come over I bet it's more likely to be around 3000+ people.

I don't see why they should be granted asylum we went to Afghanistan to make their country a better place and to remove the Taliban from power.

I doubt it's even that unsafe what about all the people that were in
The Afghan Northern Alliance, officially known as the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan
Click to expand...
you know that ragtag army that fought the taliban with us.... why don't the interpreters go and live around the other people who fought against the taliban ?

or is everyone who removed the taliban from power and severely weakened them scared and all applying for asylum?
 
Last edited:
wannabedamned said:
I'm all for protecting those that need protecting, but surely the government in place in Afghan is responsible for that now?
Click to expand...
You do realise we're leaving because our political will is waning not because we have created a safe, stable foundation for a peaceful country to blossom from.

The targeting of civilians perceived to be supporting the Government is on the rise and the government is barely able to project power outside the capital. Most of the country is governed with the cooperation of local warlords. When we leave who knows where their allegiance will fall.

The only moral course of action is to provide them asylum.
 
It won't be 600 though, it'll be all their families too. They weren't forced into becoming interpreters, they knew there would be very high risks, they already chose to accept those risks and the possible threat to their families for money.
 
Well they can stay in one of the countries that HAS granted them asylum, then. Which is everyone except us.
 
Jono said:
Well they can stay in one of the countries that HAS granted them asylum, then. Which is everyone except us.
Click to expand...

I think you might be confusing matters

the US granting US interpreters asylum doesn't mean that UK interpreters get asylum in the US too
 
arknor said:
600 + their family...
they have large families over there and some of them multiple wives....
If all 600 come over I bet it's more likely to be around 3000+ people.
Click to expand...
That is the one concern I have. Young men were generally employed so hopefully the majority of them would be brought over by themselves. It is something that should have been factored in from the start when employing them.

I don't see why they should be granted asylum we went to Afghanistan to make their country a better place and to remove the Taliban from power.
Click to expand...
They knew the risks of being a translator and were also paid handsomely for their work. What they would not have known was that we'd up sticks and leave before the job was done and they could safely return to their old lives.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom