Just finished reading Gretchen Peters' book. What struck me was the similarities to N. Ireland.

We used to say that the difference between the Nationalist (Catholic, PIRA) and the Loyalist (Protestant, UVF, RHC) was that in the former 70% of the take from organised crime went to 'the cause' and 30% to their pockets; with the latter it was the reverse. When I first deployed there in 1994 the police's big worry was that the terrorists would metamorphisise Mafia like to an organised criminal fraternity - something which appears to have happened... although possibly not on the scale envisaged.

One of our most successful organisations in dealing with the Troubles came late and was a joint police/intelligence/customs/revenue organisation which targeted the money.

Violence will continue as long as people have a large stake in ensuring that it continues. While the majority of people in Afghanistan may want to live in peace, so long as the people in power (at all levels) have a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo, then the 'quo is unlikely to be changed. I saw the same in Somalia. the powerful clan chiefs in Somalia had ne real interest in a strong government and the rule of law because they gained their power and profit from Somalia being in a state of lawlessness (lost white goods for central africa seemed to go through Somalia at one point!) The carrot and stick approach needs to be along the lines of:

  • Violence will be met with violence
  • Violence and criminality will not be profitable for you, your family or your associates.
  • The IGoA will provide profitable legal alternatives.


Problem is when the whole system is corrupt where do you start? Top down or bottom up? Patronage is also part of the culture - where does patronage stop and criminality start? Retiring warlords with their ill-gotten gains just encourages others to emulate; criminality must be seen as risky and unprofitable in the long run.

As a matter of interest how has Columbia coped?