Liam Fox: Afghanistan is a “broken, 13th-century country”

Defence Secretary causes controversy in Afghanistan with “colonialist, orientalist” remarks.

The new Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, has got off to a flying start in Afghanistan. In an interview with the Times on Saturday, he said:

We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education policy in a broken, 13th-century country. We are there so the people of Britain and our global interests are not threatened.

Understandably, this hasn't gone down too well in Afghanistan. The Times today quotes a senior Afghan government official:

His view appears to be that Afghanistan has not changed since the 13th century and it implies that Afghanistan is a tribal and medieval society.

The source adds:

We see Britain as still a colonial, orientalist and racist country that they should have this view.

Fox's response has been somewhat inadequate. He clarified that his point was that national security was more important than nation-building, but on the insulting tone of his comments, his office said only:

Hamid Karzai has used similar words himself, describing what the Taliban left behind as 13th- or 14th-century.

There are several problems here. First of all, his comment overlooks the fact that a stable Afghan state is central to the interests of our national security.

As my colleague Mehdi Hasan has pointed out, it is estimated that there are fewer than 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. We are no longer fighting terrorists in the country. Therefore, the only way to "serve the British interest" is by ensuring that a government is in place that is strong enough to fend off the Taliban, who, if back in government, could allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorists once more. It's tenuous at best.

The second point, which Fox has declined to address, is the patronising, colonial overtones of his comments. Perpetuating an existing perception of a conquering western power that views Afghanistan as primitive and inferior is hugely damaging. Fox can think whatever he likes in private, but he cannot afford to alienate the Afghan people any longer.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What did Jeremy Corbyn really say about Bin Laden?

He's been critiqued for calling Bin Laden's death a "tragedy". But what did Jeremy Corbyn really say?

Jeremy Corbyn is under fire for describing Bin Laden’s death as a “tragedy” in the Sun, but what did the Labour leadership frontrunner really say?

In remarks made to Press TV, the state-backed Iranian broadcaster, the Islington North MP said:

“This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died.”

He also added that it was his preference that Osama Bin Laden be put on trial, a view shared by, among other people, Barack Obama and Boris Johnson.

Although Andy Burnham, one of Corbyn’s rivals for the leadership, will later today claim that “there is everything to play for” in the contest, with “tens of thousands still to vote”, the row is unlikely to harm Corbyn’s chances of becoming Labour leader. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.