• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Responsibility of governments to aid their citizens in a warzone

commandlinegamer

Philosopher
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
9,686
Location
Mazes of Menace
Currently there are attempts by various countries to extricate their nationals from the ongoing conflict in Sudan, but it's not a unique situation, see also the flight from Afghanistan not too long ago for one.

How much responsibility ought a government to have for the safety of its citizens who freely choose to live, work or visit a foreign land which succumbs to conflict?

Specifically, an area which is already unstable. Forget about situations which occur with little or no warning such as natural disasters.

I'm sympathetic to people in that situation, but I'm sure there are those who are of the attitude: they've made their bed, they need to lie on it.
 
Currently there are attempts by various countries to extricate their nationals from the ongoing conflict in Sudan, but it's not a unique situation, see also the flight from Afghanistan not too long ago for one.

How much responsibility ought a government to have for the safety of its citizens who freely choose to live, work or visit a foreign land which succumbs to conflict?

Specifically, an area which is already unstable. Forget about situations which occur with little or no warning such as natural disasters.

I'm sympathetic to people in that situation, but I'm sure there are those who are of the attitude: they've made their bed, they need to lie on it.

I think it depends on why they are there and how much warning they had...
 
We should aid everybody who wants to leave in every way possible.

If they don't want to leave, they don't have to.
 
For me there would have to be extraordinary circumstances for a government to NOT help.

What would be a good reason for the UK government NOT to help a UK citizen in Afghanistan or Sudan?

Maybe if they joined the Taliban or the Janjaweed, I can see them being put to the back of the line, but otherwise, no I think governments have a duty to their citizens if they see themselves as being legitimate authorities.
 
Those who are sent in the service of our government should get priority.
Followed by those who want to leave and make some effort to do so.

In both Afghanistan and Sudan, many of those Americans left behind either chose to stay, or just didn't cooperate with the evacuation effort. In both countries Americans were warned for years previously that it was very dangerous and unwise to travel there. Those State Department travel advisories are there for a reason.

I know a little about this, it was covered when I served in the Peace Corps. We were in Nepal during that nation's civil war. At the time the war was small and localized, we just stayed out of the districts with fighting and it was perfectly safe. (it really was, never felt the least threatened by that war, even as it expanded and got worse.)

But we did have plans for what to do if the situation deteriorated. So did State Department and other U.S. government staff. It called for a gradual staged tightening of security. First we would all meet up with the other PCVs in our district in the district capitol. If things didn't resolve then from there travel to the national capital. If things still didn't resolve we would all move into a State Department compound. If things still didn't resolve, fly out of the country, possibly via U.S. military.

Later we modified it and suggested that if things went bad very fast, then volunteers posted near the Indian border could just cross the border and check in from there, presumably to travel to Delhi and from there back to the U.S. The problem (the civil war) was in Nepal, not India. It was not dangerous to take a bus from the border to Delhi. I was posted a 15 minute bike ride from an Indian border crossing, but it took me 27 hours by bus to get to Kathmandu, so the India evacuation option seemed pretty sensible to me.

And that kind of thing usually works, unless things go bad very fast. That happened in Albania in 1997. Things went bad so fast that the PC and State Department dependents couldn't get out of the country before it became unsafe to try. They did have enough time to get to the capital and into the embassy (guarded by the embassy's Marine Corps detail and Albanian guards supervised by those Marines). They stayed there a couple of nights until a larger Marine Corps force showed up at the door. The Marines drove them in an escorted convoy of busses to a beach where helicopters picked them up. The choppers flew them out to chartered passenger ferries and they were in Italy by the next morning. From there they flew commercial back to the states, most within 48 hours.

They can move fast when they need to.

So as best as I can tell, most of the Americans in Sudan are there because they ignored all advice to get out earlier or to just not go there in the first place. Many of them will be dual citizens who live there, it is their home. Others are missionaries or aide workers who either understood the risk or were naïve and blind to the risk - even though it would have been explained to them many, many times. The plans for getting people out exist and usually work, start with dependent families and non-essential personnel (so the Peace Corps gets evacuated early, if they are there). Then more state department until it runs a skeleton crew. Then finally the Ambassador and the last top tier staff and the Marines. That usually works, nobody but nobody wants to fight the Marine detail.
 
Last edited:
For me there would have to be extraordinary circumstances for a government to NOT help.

What would be a good reason for the UK government NOT to help a UK citizen in Afghanistan or Sudan?
Maybe if they joined the Taliban or the Janjaweed, I can see them being put to the back of the line, but otherwise, no I think governments have a duty to their citizens if they see themselves as being legitimate authorities.

If they have already ignored their own government's advice not to go there, ignored their own government's advice to get out earlier, and then try to bargain to set conditions upon which they will agree to leave.

Conditions like bringing along boyfriends and girlfriends, cousins and in-laws and other relatives not eligible for U.K. (or in my case, American) citizenship by way of marriage. Or they bargain to bring along all their possessions. When **** like this happens, you don't use your citizenship as leverage to bargain with your own government. You do what they say and don't ninnypick while they save you from your own risky decisions.
 
there's also the consideration of how many lives to risk to move people

Both as part of the rescuing force and among civilians (and even the armed forces) of the country in which the rescue is taking place.
 
If they have already ignored their own government's advice not to go there, ignored their own government's advice to get out earlier, and then try to bargain to set conditions upon which they will agree to leave.

Conditions like bringing along boyfriends and girlfriends, cousins and in-laws and other relatives not eligible for U.K. (or in my case, American) citizenship by way of marriage. Or they bargain to bring along all their possessions. When **** like this happens, you don't use your citizenship as leverage to bargain with your own government. You do what they say and don't ninnypick while they save you from your own risky decisions.

I agree with you about possessions, but I heard yesterday that the British Government won't even evacuate the spouses and children of British citizens if they don't have UK passports. Yesterday Sunak dodged a question about legal routes that someone from from Sudan could use to enter the UK to claim asylum, because there aren't any. I'm ashamed of my government.
 

Back
Top Bottom