
UK data leak highlights West's flawed Afghanistan project
The reverberations of the Western forces' withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 keep on being felt in many nations, years after Taliban turned the page on 20 years of failed attempts by the US, UK, NATO and others to democratize the country.
The recently exposed leak of data about thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces presents several unanswered questions, as well as billions of pounds in costs. Then there is the vetting process that remains less than comprehensive, to say the least, and open to abuse, especially as the Taliban have repeatedly claimed that they have not pursued or targeted those who cooperated with the pro-Western regime in Kabul or its many Western allies.
So, is it possible that the Afghans have been overexaggerating the level of threat to their safety for other reasons? Or has the West again been a victim of its oversensitivity to the protection of human rights, freedom of expression and women and other minorities from potential abuse by regimes such as the Taliban?
In less than a month's time, on Aug. 15, it will be four years since Kabul fell back into the hands of the Taliban. The US-led Western troops' pullout, negotiated by the first Trump administration and executed by the Biden administration, ended up being one of the most chaotic and humiliating withdrawals since American troops pulled out of Vietnam. Whatever the reasons behind the speedy collapse of the pro-Western government in Kabul, it showed once more that the Western efforts to supplant democracy and nation-building were flawed from the beginning.
The story for the UK of repatriating Afghans who had worked with its forces began then and continued under different Conservative governments. But the 2022 data leak did not come to public attention until a high court judge this month lifted a gagging order that was put in place in 2023, when the breach first came to light.
In brief, the story goes back to February 2022, when the personal data related to nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to be repatriated to the UK after the Taliban seized power was leaked. The Conservative government under Rishi Sunak first learned of the breach in August 2023, when some of the details appeared on Facebook. A special resettlement scheme was set up at speed and more than 4,500 Afghans have since arrived in the UK.
But the existence of the leak and subsequent relocations were kept secret after the government obtained a superinjunction banning their disclosure. This was because the data contained the names, contact details and family information of people who had cooperated with the UK and could potentially be at risk of reprisals from the Taliban.
The secret scheme, known as the Afghan Response Route, has already cost the UK £400 million ($541 million). And it is expected to cost a similar amount again, if not more, if the UK is to honor its pledge that 600 more Afghan soldiers and 1,800 of their relatives who are still in Afghanistan will be moved to Britain.
More dangerously, the leak also revealed the details of more than 100 British officials, including members of the special forces and the intelligence services.
The data leak was a catastrophe and it exposed vulnerable Afghans, adding to the risk they faced. The government's decision to try to protect them was right. But it is also fair to question how those risks were assessed and whether the secrecy and lack of public scrutiny improved the situation for those involved.
The Taliban's swift takeover of the country surprised the Western powers for sure, but it did not come as a total surprise for a majority of Afghans. Throughout their country's history, they have been capable of sensing the winds of change and maneuvering themselves to lean as necessary. Amid the hasty evacuation of tens of thousands of Afghans who had worked for the Western powers, not all of them were necessarily in imminent danger, but many also saw an opportunity to live outside Afghanistan.
The existence of the leak was kept secret after the government obtained a superinjunction banning its disclosure.
Mohamed Chebaro
The question that has remained unanswered since 2021 is whether there was a genuine case for repatriation or if it was pure opportunism and freeloading. And though human rights groups routinely speak of threats to some people who dwelled in the public sphere, from security to education and women's rights, the dangers faced by those asking for asylum and evacuation remain unclear.
Afghanistan is no different to any other nation that has frequently suffered internal strife and wars between its various ethnic and religious constituents. The rush to leave the country as the Western troops withdrew was a natural reflex for humans fearing the worst or sensing an opportune moment to change their lives.
As a reporter who covered various parts of the Afghan story, it was possible to notice a trait of Afghans holding the stick from the middle and never burning their bridges with any clan that could be a foe.
If anything, the UK data leak highlighted how a poorly-thought-out intervention and poorly executed state-building project, followed by a poorly orchestrated withdrawal, caused damage to the West's standing and reputation. Such poor efforts at the craft of state-building were especially likely to fail in a uniquely tribal and linguistically and ethnically diverse country such as Afghanistan.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Al Arabiya
2 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Starmer to press Trump on ending ‘unspeakable suffering' in Gaza
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer will press Donald Trump on ending 'the unspeakable suffering' in Gaza, and also talk trade, when they meet Monday at the US president's golf resort in Scotland. The talks will come a day after the US and the European Union reached a landmark deal to end a transatlantic standoff over tariffs and avert a full-blown trade war. Starmer is expected to push Trump on urging a revival of stalled ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas as a hunger crisis deepens in the besieged Palestinian territory. The meeting at Turnberry, southwestern Scotland, comes as European countries express growing alarm at the situation in Gaza, and as Starmer faces domestic pressure to follow France's lead and recognize a Palestinian state. The leaders will also discuss implementing a recent UK-US trade deal, as well as efforts to end Russia's war against Ukraine, according to a British government statement issued late Sunday. But it is the growing threat of starvation faced by Palestinians in Gaza that is set to dominate the talks, on the third full day of Trump's trip to the land where his mother was born. Starmer is expected to 'welcome the president's administration working with partners in Qatar and Egypt to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza,' a Downing Street spokesperson said. 'He will discuss further with him what more can be done to secure the ceasefire urgently, bring an end to the unspeakable suffering and starvation in Gaza and free the hostages who have been held so cruelly for so long.' Trump told reporters Sunday that the US would give more aid to Gaza but he wanted other countries to step up as well. 'It's not a US problem. It's an international problem,' he said, before embarking on crunch trade talks with EU chief Ursula von der Leyen at the resort south of Glasgow. Starmer and Trump's meeting comes after the UK PM backed efforts by Jordan and the United Arab Emirates to air drop aid to Gaza. Humanitarian chiefs remain skeptical such deliveries can deliver enough food safely for the area's more than two million inhabitants. On Sunday, Israel declared a 'tactical pause' in fighting in parts of Gaza and said it would allow the UN and aid agencies to open secure land routes to tackle the hunger crisis. Tariffs Last week, the United States and Israel withdrew from Gaza truce talks, with US envoy Steve Witkoff accusing Hamas of blocking a deal -- a claim rejected by the Palestinian militant group. Starmer held talks with French and German counterparts on Saturday, after which the UK government said they agreed 'it would be vital to ensure robust plans are in place to turn an urgently-needed ceasefire into lasting peace.' But the Downing Street statement made no mention of Palestinian statehood, which French President Emmanuel Macron has announced his country will recognize in September. More than 220 MPs in Britain's 650-seat parliament, including dozens from Starmer's own ruling Labour party, have demanded that he too recognize Palestinian statehood. Number 10 said Starmer and Trump would also discuss 'progress on implementing the UK-US trade deal,' which was signed on May 8 and lowered tariffs for certain UK exports but has yet to come into force. Trump said Sunday the agreement was 'great' for both sides and that Starmer was doing 'a very good job.' After their meeting they will travel together to Aberdeen in Scotland's northeast, where the US president is expected to formally open a new golf course at his resort on Tuesday. Trump played golf at Turnberry on Saturday and Sunday on his five-day visit that has mixed leisure with diplomacy, and also further blurred the lines between the presidency and his business interests.


Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
The UN, the Palestinians, Israel and a stalled two-state solution
UNITED NATIONS: Ever since the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states in 1947, the United Nations has been inextricably linked to the fate of Palestinians, with the organization meeting this week hoping to revive the two-state solution. Here is a timeline on the issue: In November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 dividing Palestine — which was then under British mandate — into Jewish and Arab states, with a special international zone for Jerusalem. Zionist leaders accepted the resolution, but it was opposed by Arab states and the Palestinians. Israel declared independence in May 1948, triggering the Arab-Israeli war which was won convincingly by Israel the following year. Around 760,000 Palestinians fled their homes or were expelled — an event known as the 'Nakba,' Arabic for 'catastrophe,' which the United Nations only officially commemorated for the first time in May 2023. In the aftermath of the Six-Day War of 1967, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied during the conflict, including the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. But linguistic ambiguities between the English and French versions of the resolutions complicated matters, making the scope of the required withdrawal unclear. In November 1974, Yasser Arafat, head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), gave his first speech to the UN General Assembly in New York, saying he carried both 'an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun.' Days later, the UN General Assembly recognized the Palestinians' right to self-determination and independence. It granted UN observer status to the PLO as a representative of the Palestinian people. One of the strongest peace initiatives did not come from the United Nations. In 1993, Israel and the PLO — which in 1988 unilaterally declared an independent State of Palestine — wrapped up months of secret negotiations in Norway's capital Oslo. The two sides signed a 'declaration of principles' on Palestinian autonomy and, in 1994, Arafat returned to the Palestinian territories after a long exile and formed the Palestinian Authority, the governing body for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. UN Security Council decisions on how to treat the Palestinians have always depended on the position of the veto-wielding United States. Since 1972, Washington has used its veto more than 30 times to protect its close ally Israel. But sometimes, it allows key resolutions to advance. In March 2002, the Security Council — at Washington's initiative — adopted Resolution 1397, the first to mention a Palestinian state existing alongside Israel, with secure and recognized borders. In December 2016, for the first time since 1979, the Council called on Israel to stop building settlements in the Palestinian territories — a measure that went through thanks to a US abstention, just before the end of Barack Obama's White House term. And in March 2024, another US abstention — under pressure from the international community — allowed the Security Council to call for an immediate ceasefire amid Israel's offensive on Hamas in Gaza, sparked by the militants' October 7 attack. That measure came after the United States blocked three similar drafts. In 2011, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas initiated the process of requesting membership of the State of Palestine to the UN, which required a positive recommendation from the Security Council, followed by a favorable vote from the General Assembly. In the face of opposition from the United States, the process was halted even before a vote in the Council. The following year, the General Assembly granted the Palestinians a lower status as a 'non-member observer State.' In April 2024, the Palestinians renewed their request to become a full-fledged member state, but the United States vetoed it. If the Palestinian request had cleared the Security Council hurdle, it would have had every chance of being approved by the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly. According to an AFP database, at least 142 of the 193 UN member states unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state. In the absence of full membership, the Assembly granted the Palestinians new rights in 2024, seating them in alphabetical order of states, and allowing to submit resolution proposals themselves for the first time.


Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
North Korea says South Korea's overtures ‘great miscalculation'
SEOUL: North Korea has no interest in any policy or proposals for reconciliation from South Korea, the powerful sister of its leader Kim Jong Un said on Monday in the first response to South Korean liberal President Lee Jae Myung's peace overtures. Kim Yo Jong, who is a senior North Korean ruling party official and is believed to speak for the country's leader, said Lee's pledge of commitment to South Korea-US security alliance shows he is no different from his hostile predecessor. 'If South Korea expects to reverse all the consequences of (its actions) with a few sentimental words, there could be no greater miscalculation than that,' Kim said in comments carried by official KCNA news agency. Lee, who took office on June 4 after winning a snap election called after the removal of hard-line conservative Yoon Suk Yeol over a failed attempt at martial law, has vowed to improve ties with Pyongyang that had reached the worst level in years. As gestures aimed at easing tensions, Lee suspended loudspeaker broadcasts blasting anti-North propaganda across the border and banned the flying of leaflets by activists that had angered Pyongyang. Kim, the North Korean official, said those moves are merely a reversal of ill-intentioned activities by South Korea that should never have been initiated in the first place. 'In other words, it's not even something worth our assessment,' she said. 'We again make clear the official position that whatever policy is established in Seoul or proposal is made, we are not interested, and we will not be sitting down with South Korea and there is nothing to discuss.' There has been cautious optimism in the South that the North may respond positively and may even show willingness to re-engage in dialogue, particularly after Pyongyang also shut off its loudspeakers, a move Lee said was quicker than expected. Still, Lee, whose government is in the midst of tough negotiations with Washington to avert punishing tariffs that President Donald Trump has threatened against a string of major trading partners, has said US alliance is the pillar of South Korea's diplomacy. 'Through efforts in the areas of politics, economic security and culture, we will strengthen the South Korea-US alliance that was sealed in blood,' Lee said in remarks commemorating the anniversary of the Korean War armistice on Sunday. North Korea also marked the anniversary which it calls victory day with events including a parade in Pyongyang, although state media reports indicated it was at a relatively lesser scale compared to some previous years. The two Koreas, the United States and China, which are the main belligerents in the 1950-53 Korean War, have not signed a peace treaty.