Where is our sense of honour?
LOYALTY towards those who serve should be one of the guiding principles of our defence policy. Without that virtue, morale in the military is undermined, operational effectiveness is weakened and our national reputation is tarnished.
Tragically, loyalty is not the quality that has characterised the Government’s treatment of those brave Afghan civilians who acted as interpreters, translators and other support staff for the British armed forces in the long fight against the Taliban.
For their heroic service, they should have been honoured by this country. I nst ea d, to o many of them have been betrayed.
Their courage has been met with indifference, even hostility, from our politicians and bungling bureaucrats. Promises of protection have materialised painfully slowly; calls for help have been ignored.
It is a disgrace that our government is treating the Afghan interpreters in this callous manner. Given the risks they undertook and the services t hey performed, we owe them a fundamental duty of care.
The current neglectful approach makes a mockery of both morality and the fine traditions of the British armed forces. It is a fundamental keystone of military life in this country that people who work with our services should be looked after, and certainly not left in harm’s way. Any soldier, sailor or airman will tell you that.
Indeed, the people who will be most horrified by the shameful treatment of the Afghan ex- staff will be the British personnel who fought alongside them underfire in that struggle. Serving men and women do not abandon t heir comrades – and neither should the Government.
Not only is the current brutally restrictive policy unjust, but it is hopelessly counter-productive, given that over the coming decades British forces are certain to be engaged in future conflicts all over the world. The terrible message is that, if you help the British military, you will get nothing in return: you will be left to your own fate, no matter how great the dangers you face.
How on earth can we expect to recruit foreign assistance in future operations? Who would want to provide us with logistical support if the ultimate pay-off is likely to be the assassin’s bullet?
Other countries in the antiTaliban oalition, such as the US and Denmark, have been far more honourable to their former Afghan staff, recognising that the duty of care may extend to giving them asylum.
But in Britain we have adopted an absurdly narrow, legalistic and cruel outlook, which is fuelling real misery and even death.
THebasic ground rule should be that anyone who has performed a significant role in the Local l y engaged Staff in Afghanistan should be given support and a home in Britain if they feel their families are in danger. Once they arrive here, the details of their cases and requirements can be examined.
If t hey are found t o have exaggerated - or even invented – their service, then they can be deported. But the presumption should be in favour of compassion, merited by service.
The Government, however, has completely inverted this. The entire thrust of current policy is that Afghans must be excluded except in very special circumstances. It is an outrageously negative stance, lacking in any compassion or fairness.
Because of my anger, I – along with several other public figures like the indefatigable crossbench peer Baroness Coussins – have been lobbying ministers to take a more noble attitude towards the Afghans.
After all, we are talking about a very small group, far smaller than the number of illegal immigrants who make their way across the english Channel every week, many of whom seem to end up being accommodated i n wellappointed hotels here while their cases are assessed.
The contrast between t he experiences of such migrants and the lethal ordeals endured by the likes of Chris could hardly be more glaring.
In our lobbying meetings about t he Afghans, we are al ways given soothing words by ministers who assure us that justice will be done.
But the civil servants – especially those at the Home Office – never appear to act on such rhetoric. Instead, as they beaver away through the files, they seem determined to act negatively, always l ooking f or r easons t o ban someone rather than searching for ways to help.
There are two main strands to the help that Britain is meant to provide.
One is through a redundancy scheme, which provides funding or retraining for former local staff. The other is the ‘Intimidation Policy’ which is meant to give backing to those whose service to Britain may have put them in dan- ger. But the problem here is that the policy i s defined f ar too narrowly, because it relies on the collection of evidence about intimidation.
The tribal, conflict-ridden, often barbaric nature of Afghanistan means that it is extremely hard to investigate any individual case thoroughly; Midsomer Murders this is not.
SO,i n the absence of evidence, the presumption should be in favour of those who have helped our country. They are not criminals. Their word should be believed, their service recognised.
What is so ridiculous is that Government’s hard line, especially from the Home Office, is not part of a rigorous pattern of maintaining tough border controls.
If Britain had a ruthless immigration policy, then the objection to the Afghan former military staff might be more understandable, if no less reprehensible.
But we are a country that allows more than 620,000 foreigners to settle here every year. Meanwhile the Home Office, so eager to reject the Afghan interpreters, admits that it ‘doesn’t have a clue’ how many illegal immigrants are living here.
There are appalling double standards at work here. A tiny group of Afghans who have served our country are subjected to bureaucratic bullying and rejection.
Yet thousands of migrants who have not made any contribution to British society at all are welcomed. This is not justice. It is the politics of the madhouse.