IT'S been a tough year, and everybody is entitled to a break and a bit of family time, even government ministers. Why they would choose to chase the sun in Greece this summer though is curious, but that’s a conversation for another time.
However, in a time of crisis, you would reasonably expect them to be ready to work in the blink of an eye: this is an implication of having big responsibilities. So when newspapers reported on Thursday that Dominic Raab failed to call his Afghan counterpart, just as the American Secretary of State and Defence Secretary did, to request urgent assistance to airlift Afghan translators who had been involved in the British military mission as the Taliban were advancing, there was no wonder he went under intense pressure to resign. The advice from officials couldn’t have been more explicit: it was he, specifically, who needed to make the call, instead of a junior minister.
It was already a bad look that he waited until Monday to come back to the UK from his vacation, but it is hard to resist putting your face in your hands in affliction after reading he waited an entire day before calling his counterpart. Could more people living in peril have been protected had this time not been wasted?
READ MORE: Dominic Raab must resign over Afghanistan 'foreign policy disaster', SNP say
The UK’s Government argument consists in saying that the deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan cannot be blamed on the Foreign Secretary missing a phone call. But that is not the question: did he not think that it was important enough for him to do that one job, which was to pick up the phone and call the Afghan Foreign Secretary? I hesitate between naivety, incompetence, or idleness. I don’t know which would be worse, especially since another point the Government is making is that he was actually working, participating in meetings, and making other phone calls. So why not this one?
Dominic Raab is feeling the heat today, but Prime Minister Boris Johnson should be worried too. If the secretary doesn’t resign after this baffling error of judgment, then surely the Prime Minister needs to take his responsibilities and replace him. But after a string of disturbing acts of negligence since he became Prime Minister, can we really expect Boris Johnson to show any more leadership?
If this is the way those who have helped the British military are treated, then I wouldn’t expect more generosity for the thousands of Afghan people who live in fear of violence and persecution from the Taliban. The same debate has been raging in France after president Emmanuel Macron’s TV address on Monday night, with his left-wing opponents condemning his view that “we need to anticipate and shield ourselves against major illegal migration influxes”.
Although they have no power whatsoever over immigration, left-wing mayors said they are willing to welcome Afghan families in their cities. This morning, the socialist mayor of Lille, Martine Aubry, said that the biggest tragedy was that all of this could have been anticipated: it isn’t as if the Taliban’s rapid advance happened overnight.
READ MORE: BBC Question Time's Fiona Bruce under fire for interrupting veteran's heartfelt speech
Of course, we owe assistance to those who worked with the French military mission in Afghanistan until the withdrawal of troops seven years ago, but thousands more are under threat. Instead of hiding behind “an initiative to build without delay a robust, coordinated and united response to fight against illegal immigration” that Macron wants to see, Aubry said, what should be expected of the European Union instead was coordination to welcome Afghan people with dignity and generosity, because we can. After all, she argued, these people are victims, falling in the framework of the Geneva Convention that we have signed.
There are some similarities with the situation in which the Scottish government, which doesn’t have powers over immigration, finds itself: First Minister Nicola Sturgeon too said that Scotland was standing ready to play its part in welcoming Afghan refugees. This was the normal and decent thing to say, and I hope that if or when Scotland becomes independent, the same spirit of generosity will remain.
Nevertheless, I can’t forget that French socialists are now very critical of the country’s approach to immigration and asylum, but failed to actually implement more welcoming policies when they were in power between 2012 and 2017.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel