Relocating former Afghan interpreters to safety

Following the withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan and consequent advances made by the Taliban, Afghan interpreters and other staff who worked alongside those troops are increasingly at risk of vengeful attacks by the Taliban.

British veterans have taken to social media to share their concerns for the safety of such Afghans and to criticise the current UK government policy on the relocation of Afghans to the UK.

One such veteran is Major General (retired) Charlie Herbert, who has been tirelessly raising awareness of the dangers that former Afghan staff employed by the UK face. He agreed to answer some questions about this important issue.

To provide some context, these relocations are happening under the auspices of the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). Home Secretary Priti Patel had claimed that this policy was an exemplification of the “UK fulfilling its promise to those Afghan interpreters and other locally employed staff who have worked tirelessly alongside our Armed Forces”.

ARAP was introduced in December 2020 following growing instability in Afghanistan. It replaced the prior Intimidation Policy, which had been criticised for relocating staff intimidated by the Taliban within Afghanistan and had limited relocation to the UK only in the most severe of cases.

Launched on the 1st of April, guidance notes for ARAP states that, “any current or former Locally Employed Staff assessed to be at serious risk of threat to life will be offered priority relocation to the UK regardless of their employment status, rank or role, or length of time served.” However, staff that was dismissed are ineligible for relocation “by default.”

For those not familiar with the role that Afghan interpreters have played, Maj Gen Herbert suggested they must be relocated to the UK because we have “a moral obligation to protect those whose lives are in danger as a result of their service to the crown… We know that they are under threat from the Taliban with dozens murdered over the years.”

However, many have openly criticised ARAP as substantially flawed. In this vein, Maj Gen Herbert highlighted that there are still too many Afghans being rejected and that the “movement process is still taking too long.”

Afghans have been rejected for “alleged misdemeanours” and because they were employed by third-party contractors, and so he would like to see that these cases are once again reviewed “on a case-by-case basis.”

For Maj Gen Herbert, the main consequence of failing to relocate Afghans who have played an instrumental role for the British Armed Forces is clear. “Many will be killed. It really is as simple as that.”

This is by no means catastrophising. The Daily Mail had reported on one case in particular in which a former Afghan interpreter, who has worked for the UK for 17 years, was denied relocation despite having been ambushed and attacked by the Taliban. Fortunately, the decision was reversed and he was eventually allowed to relocate safely to the UK. But this was likely only as a result of the extensive condemnation of the original decision.

According to a research briefing by the UK Parliament, thousands of Afghans have served alongside UK personnel. It stated: “During Operation Herrick (2003-2014) the UK employed approximately 7,000 local Afghans to assist British forces in overcoming language and cultural barriers and to help them forge relationships with the local communities in areas where they were deployed.

Of those 7,000 locally employed civilians, 2,850 worked as interpreters and translators for British forces on the frontline, largely in Helmand province.”

This briefing confirmed that, as of 26th July, “almost 2,000 former staff (including family members) had relocated to the UK through either the ex gratia scheme, the intimidation policy or the ARAP.” This is expected to increase by another few thousand in the coming months.

Maj Gen Herbert celebrated the work of particular groups in raising awareness of the plight of Afghans employed by the UK. Though other organisations are now following suit, he suggests that the “Sulha Alliance has led this campaign for years” and that the Daily Mail has also played an integral role in raising awareness. Having invited 35 “very senior retired officers” to sign an open letter to the government himself, he was also thankful to Lord Dannatt for being “instrumental in supporting” it.

Though a threat to the lives of Afghans formerly employed by the UK and other Western countries remains great, it is not only relocation that ought to remain a grave concern. “Withdrawal was premature,” claimed Maj Gen Herbert, “we should have stayed at the commitment levels we had before. It was sufficient to hold the Taliban at bay and buy time to continue developing the ANDSF etc.”

“It was, to use a phrase, the least worst of the options we had. At a minimum, NATO could have maintained a light counter-terrorist, train, advise, assist footprint.

“And greater use could be made of contractors where we are unwilling to commit troops. Not for combat operations, but for train, advise, assist and enable functions.”

The power of raising awareness by Maj Gen Herbert and others has been borne out by the expedition of relocation and reversed decisions. But there is clearly much to be done to ensure that all of those who deserve protection from the UK are safely moved out of harm’s way.

In light of the withdrawal of troops, cuts to UK foreign aid, the government’s stance on refugees amidst an impending refugee crisis and the struggle that many Afghans formerly employed by the UK face in fleeing the Taliban, the sense of abandonment is palpable. As the Taliban takes control of more provincial capitals and large swathes of land, Western governments in part literally get to decide, among their former staff, who lives and who dies.

The writer is a researcher in the UK and is soon to start her PhD. She tweets @MaryFloraHunter