I would like to continue the debate on coordination. The classic example is Afghanistan; some members of this committee got back from there two weeks ago.
At the moment, I feel that coordination in Afghanistan has completely fallen apart. It is like a nightmare. If things are going so badly in Afghanistan, it is precisely for that reason. Imagine: the UN asked NATO to get involved. A representative of the UN Secretary General is on the ground in Afghanistan, but there is also NATO and all its member countries, with 150,000 troops. When I ask whether the UN Secretary General's representative or General McChrystal is in charge, I have a lot of difficulty getting an answer.
General McChrystal is a brilliant man. He commands 150,000 soldiers. That is quite a strike force, with a wide range of capabilities. If can do almost anything. There are also 48 countries, all with different national interests. Diplomats and their staff in one embassy are pursuing a national interest that is completely different from the embassy next door.
Among those 48 nations, people doing development work may conceive their activities on the basis of a completely different philosophy from their neighbours. Then there is defence, including the troops on the ground. They all have rules of non-engagement. To get even deeper into the nightmare, there are hundreds of NGOs that do not wish to be associated either with the soldiers or with national interests that they do not approve of.
Do you agree that what is happening in Afghanistan is the perfect recipe for failure? I think that could happen in a number of theatres. We need guidelines and we need to know who is giving the orders. I always thought that a civilian authority directed the military. I feel that the UN should take the initiative to get people around a table to coordinate the action plan. At the moment, that is not happening.
Is there a way out of this nightmare? If not, are we going to let it continue till death do us all part?