Afghanistan in particular, and I would say Iraq, may be the only two places where that's the case, because we have seen a deterioration of the security situation for our personnel, both international and national, since the engagement of the NATO forces and intervention in 2001. We do not have proof that these are directly related, but the staffing, the field, often tells us that association with the militaries directly fighting the Taliban makes us a legitimate target, basically, because they see us as allied with the force that they are fighting.
But I have to say, it's very different in all the other places I have been in and have worked in, from the Balkans to Sudan. In Sudan, actually, I have to tell you, in Darfur specifically, our staff has been in daily coordination, even with African Union observers initially. They were literally coordinating who was going to go where. So there was the deterrent effect of international staff being in a different position. The African mission had very few people and they were not able to cover everything, but the coordination was great. It's still happening in Sudan.
It happens in lots of missions, in more missions than you think. It's often done through the United Nations coordinating mechanisms, but as long as it works, it's for the benefit of the people.
The two exceptions, I would say, are Afghanistan and Iraq, and I am afraid that Somalia may become the third one.