Standing in a Danish cornfield last week, a young Iraqi interpreter described
to me what it feels like to be branded as a collaborator: the menacing
stares, the neighbours who shun you in the street and spit as you pass, the
threatening notes pushed under the door at midnight promising death to
traitors, the isolation and the terror.
Like many university-educated Iraqis, this man began working as a translator
for the coalition forces soon after the invasion of Iraq, and ended up on
the payroll of the Danish Army. When the Danes pulled out last month, they
took him with them, along with some 200 other Iraqis and their families who
would otherwise face death at the hands of insurgent murder squads.
“Collaboration” is one of the most morally freighted words in modern European
history. It instantly recalls the Fascist sympathisers hanging from
lampposts, Parisian women with their heads shaven in revenge for consorting
with the enemy, Lord Haw-Haw, Vidkun Quisling and countless lesser
collaborators. The grim wartime question of who cooperated with the enemy
still cannot be asked in parts of former Occupied Europe.
Of course, we do not see the brave men and women who have helped the Armed
Forces in Iraq as collaborators, any more than we regard the armed cowards
who kidnap, torture and murder them as resistance fighters. Yet that is how,
increasingly, they are seen in Iraq.
Barely four years ago, the interpreters who agreed to help the Americans and
British were hailed by Iraqis (and saw themselves) as part of a civilian
army of liberation. It is a measure of how far even moderate Iraqi opinion
has been alienated there that they are now widely seen as opportunists, at
best, and at worse condemned as traitors.
“You are either with us or against us,” cautioned George W. Bush. The Iraqi
interpreters made that choice emphatically, and regardless of the rights and
wrongs of the war itself, Britain and the US now have an overwhelming moral
obligation to honour that deal by granting them asylum and a safe haven.
It is appropriate that Denmark should take the lead in this, for it
understands intimately the moral confusion that comes with occupation and
collaboration. Denmark was overrun by the Nazis in just a few hours in 1940,
and then comfortably accommodated the invaders for most of the war.
Thousands of Danes helped to smuggle most of the country’s Jews to safety in
Sweden, but the taint of collaboration still lingers. Two years ago, the
Danish Prime Minister apologised for Denmark’s wartime acquiescence to Nazi
rule.
Collaboration, resistance, recrimination and reprisal form the backdrop to
every invasion in history. The accounting for who did, and who did not,
cooperate with the invader is often unfair and haphazard, complicated by
local vendetta and private feud, leaving a poisonous legacy and stigma of
association that can last for generations. French people from the area of
northern France that came under German occupation during the First World War
suffered years of discrimination, referred to contemptuously as les
Boches du Nord, simply because they had been forced to live alongside
the invaders.
Charles de Gaulle sought to erase the memory of French collaboration in the
Second World War by elevating the myths of the Resistance. It was not until
1995 that President Chirac broke with tradition by officially recognising
French collaboration under Nazi occupation as a “collective fault”.
Yet the men and women who came forward to help the US and British troops in
2003 could not be farther removed from the criminal chancers and Fascist
ideologues who collaborated with evil during the Second World War. The Iraqi
interpreters I spoke to genuinely believed that they were helping to
overthrow a tyrant; their pain and bafflement at what has unfolded since is
heart breaking.
The only way to demonstrate to ordinary Iraqis that the interpreters are not
enemy collaborators but patriots, is to stand by them, to protect them while
we remain in Iraq, and to offer them shelter when we go. If they are left to
the mercies of the insurgents, that will simply confirm in the minds of many
Iraqis that this was always a cynical grab for oil and power, in which the
lives of Iraqis mattered little.
The precedents are clear, and horrible. When France finally pulled out of
Algeria in 1962, some 90,000 Arabs who had worked with the French managed to
escape along with the former colonists of European origin. Of the pro-French
Algerians who remained behind, it is estimated that between 50,000 and
150,000 were killed by lynch mobs.
In Vietnam, America made no effective plans to evacuate the thousands of
Vietnamese who had worked with it. One of the most chilling images of
military defeat are the photographs of desperate Vietnamese clinging to the
helicopters as they lifted off from the US Embassy in Saigon for the last
time.
Britain has yet to decide whether to grant asylum to the interpreters,
drivers, guards and other Iraqis who supported our troops. This may amount
to as many as 15,000 people – a small number when one considers that Sweden,
which is not a member of the coalition, will admit 25,000 Iraqi refugees
this year alone.
A failure to protect our closest friends in Iraq would be politically foolish,
historically ignorant and morally indefensible.
The exiled interpreters I spoke to have no desire to spend their lives in an
alien Danish cornfield (or in Britain, for that matter), however safe and
comfortable it may be. Four years ago, they volunteered to help to create a
free Iraq, in which they could live at peace. We may not be able to salvage
that aspiration, but we can save them.
As Russian Army advanced on Poland in the closing days of WWII they encouraged the Poles to rise up against the retreating Germans. The Poles did as they asked expecting the Russians to march in and reinforce them. They didn't. Instead the Russians waited for the retreating German Army to come back in and slaughter all those who had risen to fight, as requested by the advancing Russians. The Germans then left and the Russians invaded. It seems like England has learnt a lesson from the Russians. Which is " to get the locals to fight on your behalf and then when your finished with them feed them to the dogs. Let them do your dirty work and then leave them to their predetermined fate". Come an England, you can do better then this. Dave Auckland New Zealand
Dave, Auckland, New Zealand
It would be cowardly for the UK to deny asylum to these Iraqis who have helped the Coalition so much. For all my 60 years, I have been proud to be a Briton since this has always meant something, above all else, a courage of heart and a dedication to help and protect those who help us, to keep our word.
Those Iraqis who have assisted the British in Iraq stuck their necks out for us, and now we're just about to turn our backs on them, leaving them to be slaughtered by the same Iraqis guerrillas who have defeated the British.
I have never, ever said this before, but I am ashamed to be a Briton, ashamed at the way my once proud and respectable nation has descended into cowardice and betrayal of our "allies."
Besides the moral reprehensibility of this, how in the world can the UK ever fight another war in the future? After our defeat in Iraq, and our betrayal of the Iraqis who have helped us, no locals in their right minds will ever assist the treacherous British again.
Michael, Leeds, UK,
"Thanks for the defeatest advice. America prefers to just see things thru to victory." from Robert in Los Vegas shows the the US media (or just perhaps the outlets he reads) are not reporting the fact that the US government has already accepted thousands of Iraqis that have helped them as asylum seekers.
In reference to the British side of the story perhaps a classic case of the Military right hand not telling the Immigration left hand what's going on these guys just being treated as normal asylum seekers?
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster save us from ourselves!
Stephen, Maidstone, UK
You break it, you own it. You break the people, you own them.
Pete, London,
I know it sounds bad but us BRITS have always left someone carrying the can,,I assume the south atlantic is the one place we still hold out at great cost,,,, yet 'cost' is the term we easily use to disengage nowadays
I then state it comes down to money,,if someone like NATO, some charity or the UN pays the bill us BRITS will move them out. If there is a cost involved ,,then as in other wars,,We as BRITS have always in a long tradition just pulled out.
History always repeats itself in war. Tragidy of war always repeats itself.
My personal view is we should move these people out, as it is certain they will be killed
Nicholas, Oswestry, Shropshire
To Dave, worthing, uk,
Yes, respectfully, I am serious. Our leaders told us we went into Iraq to help them, in part. That means our governments have said that Iraq owes us, not that we owe them. Our governments should not lie to us. By saying we are helping them, which is the only reason to stay, our governments are saying they owe us.
That means we don't have to let them take our lands. The purpose of a military is to keep other people taking our lands, not to bring them here. Hmong from Vietnam were brought to the US and one school district took non-Hmong off a public school bus because they weren't safe.
Old Atlantic, Atlantic City, NJ
There are apparently about half a million failed asylum seekers who have disappeared into Britain. They should be sent out of Britain -- to make room for legitimate asylum seekers who have helped Britain and endangered their lives. Perhaps we should send a judge out to Iraq to hear their cases.
Joseph, London, England
There are a many ways of saying it, for example, I´taminuunaa nahnu naHmiikum but I wouldn´t believe a word of it if I were an Iraqi interpreter.
Francis, Madrid,
The interpreters and other Iraqis were not given any assurances of asylum before they undertook to work on behalf of British forces. They were not forced to do the work and it is inconceivable they didn't understand the risks beforehand. Why should there be any question of asylum being granted to them now? There is no moral duty to do so. The quid pro quo for their help was money not asylum.
Should the government accede to these unwarranted demands then we can expect many tens of thousands more Iraqis in the coming months and years claiming that they helped the allied forces in one way or another. Then there will be many thousands more who will claim asylum because they were seen talking to British soldiers - and so it will go on. This nonsense should be nipped in the bud immediately and never mind the traitorous bleeding hearts in this country.
Steve, Sutton Coldfield,
As a Briton, I want to know why Britain is dithering in this matter, and yet to decide. What's to decide ? They are few in number and have simply put themselves and their families at enormous personal risk.
Britain MUST act, and act now! Not in the autumn, by which time more of our helpers will be dead.
I tried to have this subject entered as a petition on the 10 Downing Street website which was refused. Why ?
Why also do we have someone as ineffectual and morally obscene as Des Browne in charge of this matter ? It is scandalous cowardly bahaviour.
It makes me feel ashamed to be British.
HUBBLE, Evian-les-Bains, France
I read with interest your story about BT. I have been ringing BT on an almost daily basis to get a phoneline in my daughters house. I have spent too many hours to count but heading towards 100 by now I would think. It has been an ongoing saga for a month with an engineer not showing up after an appointment made on the 2nd August. This hasn't lasted a couple of days but a MONTH. We have complained online 4 times. BT have cut us off more times than I can count. They promise to do it urgently given all the problems and the amount of time already waited but then we never hear from BT again. Apparently they have cancelled my daughters order twice but have not given reasons for doing so. When we manage to get through we are always told we need another department and they transfer us on hold again or occasionally offer a ring back service. But that does't work any better. They ring you back and put you on hold or just dont ring back. After a month I dont know what else to do?
Angela Carmon, Morecambe, Lancashire
"Thanks for the defeatest advice. America prefers to just see things thru to victory.
Robert Burnett, Las Vegas, Nv, USA"
Since 1945, when was the last time you did that?
Oh yeah ...Grenada
Homer, London,
Old Atlantic, you are surely joking right?! You must be, either that or you honestly believe that Iraqi civillians physically forced our two nations to invade and place their lives in danger. No one denies that Iraq was a seriously dodgy place to live before we invaded but to say that the Iraqi people owe US?!?! Yeah, no I am sure now, you are definately kidding.
Dave, worthing, uk
In my area of South London every single new flat or house becoming vacant is immediately claimed by an immigrant or asylum family paid for by all of us. The word 'swamped' was once said to be too extreme to describe the influx of people to the UK but if anything, it under-estimates the problem. These immigrants are not the sick, struggling needy ones. Most of the local immigrants I see are now driving new cars, living in free accomodation and receiving full benefits from the tax-paying majority. I haven't been able to buy a new car in the last ten years and i receive no benefits.
But Mr McIntyre is right. We do owe these brave interpreters safety. Unfortunately we have given so much of our hospitality away too cheaply, we no longer have anything left for the ones who really deserve it.
David Burns, London, UK
It's very simple. It's a mater of honour. Gordon Brown please note.
D.O'Neill, Farnham, UK
What do you mean "tainted as collaborators"? Iraq was invaded, without provocation and occupied by foreign powers. These interpreters then helped the occupiers. Whatever moral defence you may want to come up with, they are collaborators. Look the word up in a dictionary, if you don't believe me.
Joe, brussels, belgium
Re Mr Noel Falconer's comment. Polish Troops were allowed to stay. The people forced onto trains to return to Russia were Cossacks who had fought for the Germans. This has been the subject of considerable discussion and at least one libel action.
Ron Titan, Salisbury, Wiltshire
Excellent article Mr Macintyre, couldn't agree more.
The Arabic for 'We'll stand by you' is 'Sa nakef ma'akom' by the way, though I shouldn't think Bush, Blair, Brown or any of those supporting their shameful disregarding of their responsiblities to these people know it anyway.
Wrong there CCTV, as the interpreters and all those who have helped British, American and other coalition forces have repeatedly proven by risking and continuing to risk their lives to 'stand by us'.
Neil, unless the 'coalition of the willing' are willing to provide bodyguards 24/7 for those interpreters and their families for the next few years, they won't be around to stabilise the country or breathe life into the political system as the militias, to whom they are primary targets, will have slaughtered them.
Rose , Hawalli , Kuwait
So everyone who has helped the coalition should leave Iraq and come to the West. The people most motivated and capable and willing to build this new democratic Iraq should leave. Don't be ridiculous. I remember similar foolish prattle over Hong Kong. Would Hong Kong have continued to be the economic success it is if the tens of thousands of professionals had been given asylum in the UK, in accordance with liberal wishes? As with Hong Kong, this is just yet another 'prove you're not racist' gauntlet thrown down at the feet of the British people. Small numbers of people are fast-tracked to a better life, liberals feel smug but nations are weakened and more people suffer in the long run.
Eugene, Chester, England
What is sad about refusing the intrepreters asylum and support to restart their lives is the fact that it is not unusual. What an opportunity for citizens to demonstrate in numbers that would scare the politicians into correcting this huge wrong.
Jack Garrison, Melbourne Beach, Florida, U.S.
I presume Mr Burnett means American victories such as Vietnam? Or lebanon where a couple hundred US marines were killed the rest high-tailed out?
get real - the USA has been beaten in Iraq and the only issue now is how we all get out in one piece and don't let the middle east disappear in flames.
In britain of course we shoudl give these people homes and a eg up once here to have a chance to live with dignity and in safety, and return home when they can or will.
It beggars belief that a labour government can so foot drag on this, and it says a lot about the extent to which Labour has lost its moral compass.
neil murphy, cromer, uk
the people of iraq need to stay there and try to fix their own country, people that have ran away previously should be returned to help sort it out. all the people previously granted asylum should have this revoked and be returned to iraq to help. its tough love, but they need to stand up for themselves, it will be better for all concerned in the long run
john, baghdad,
The answer to the question in the headline: "What's Arabic for we'll stand by you?" is simple. No such phrase or sentiment exists in Arabic.
tired and emotional, London,
Why doesn't the government understand that if those people are not treated fairly and if they are killed in front their families....the family members turn into extremists... creating more trouble for the coalition forces... Its just simple sense
The govt. has a moral responsibility if it considers it is does not then it did not have any right invading the country in the first place.
Abhi, Lancaster, Lancs
Sorry, not wanted here. Arrange a free passage to one of Gorge Bush's Arab puppet wheer he send the extraordinary renditionists.
oldasiahand, Guildford, UK
Working for the British should not be seen as a one way ticket into Britain.
Also, the greatest disaster for Iraq will be for all those Iraqis who have stood up to terrorists to then leave. What will have been the point of the war?
Kevin Smith, London, England
It is better to be very careful about immigration/asylum from troubled regions/nations such as ME, Pakistan, Bangladesh and more.
If Britain has not learnt its lesson until now on these, I am sorry to mention that Britain will pay a heavy price in the long run! You will have lynch mobs right in your midst, who will be marching and dancing "death to .. " at the drop of a hat. Next stage is pure lynching!
Can Britain take in more people without further straining its saturated infrastructure? There is some meaning in the immigration of highly qualified scientists, engineers and doctors. On the contrary, to take in other potential trouble makers/liabilities is suicidal. This applies to US and Europe too!
Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India
It is better to not have anything to do with any occupying force as you'd always be left to carry the can. Politicians are too worried about opinion polls to do the humane thing.
KR - stockport is wide off the mark as standing by them has nowt to do with political actions but morality. Go figure!
saul white, London, England
All this moralising has got us into this mess in the first place. What's right to a lefty liberal with God on his side is anathema to the man in the street who has seen his country turned into a multicultural hell. Why moralise about who should or shouldn't come here...everybody does anyway.
stevgillamos, Romford,
Of course we owe them a safe haven. If we don't allow them to relocate to Britain I do hope the Brown Broadcasting Corporation will be politically impartial enough to report each and every hideous torture and death they suffer.
donna walker, effingham, surrey
"stand by them" is a political action. What has it got to do with morality? You are expecting morality from career politicians who, by intent, live their lives at the expense of people who actually work for a living in the real world. A politician's morality is dedicated to the pursuit of power and control, nothing else.
KR, Stockport,
But 'failure to protect our closest friends' is a British tradition. At the end of WW2 our troops forced tens of thousands of Polish soldiers - by their casualty figures the bravest and most resolute of our allies against the Nazis - on to trains to Russia and the same fate that awaits those who helped us in Iraq.
Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France
Thanks for the defeatest advice. America prefers to just see things thru to victory.
Robert Burnett, Las Vegas, Nv, USA
Very well said Ben. It is a travesty that our government refuses to do anything about this situation despite its obvious moral obligation.
Sunny, London, UK
We were told we went there to help them. They owe us, we owe them nothing. Iraq lied to us in its elections, we didn't lie to them. Its the Iraqi people who betrayed us by not standing up for their democracy and freedom. The Iraqi people stole from us every chance they got. They have lied to us and spat on us at every opportunity. They owe us reparations. We deserve asylum from them.
Old Atlantic, Atlantic City, NJ
What’s Arabic for ‘we’ll stand by you’?
I don't think the concept exists !
CCTV, Oxford, England
Post-Viet Nam, my country disgraced itself. We should have had airlifts for those from Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos who worked with us during that ugly conflict. We should have had the entire Pacific fleet picking up boat people who instead died by the hundreds of thousands. We should have made refugee camp stays matters of weeks, not lifetimes. Don't care if we had had to receive a few million people--we should never have abandoned them. Iraqis who have worked with such courage will never be able to aid reconstruction if they are dead. They need asylum, and we have a moral obligation to provide it. Someday they may be able to safely return home. But in the meantime, they and their families should have total and unconditional refuge in the US and UK.
Anne Armitage, Beverly, MA USA
By the way, there was no revenge against the South Vietmese, chilling images or no chilling images.
Eugene, Chester, England
america and britain, the coalition of the willing or whatever has a moral obligation to keep those people that have supported their mission their in iraq to help stabilise the country and breath life into their faltering political system. the best and probably only way to do this is to support the current government in its mission, not to have the country denuded of the very people who can will bulid the country into something meaningful.
neil, sydney, aus