Civilian deaths are unacceptable
More cartoons online at
‘Accidental’ killings should be questioned – as should whether
there is an alternative to war
Angela Mudukuti is an International Criminal Justice
Lawyer
ON SATURDAY, a suspected US-led force bombed a hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz. In addition to killing 22 people (three children included) and wounding 37 patients, doctors and aid workers, attacking hospitals is a possible violation of international humanitarian law.
This is not the first time that US-led forces have attacked non-military targets, killed many civilians and sought to dismiss it as collateral damage. This act once again forces the international community to think seriously about the damage, death and destruction caused by US forces in their military campaigns abroad.
The latest reports indicate the US has confirmed it was conducting raids in that area but a full investigation is under way to determine exactly what transpired.
Doctors Without Borders, who had medical staff working in that hospital, has confirmed the US forces were aware of the hospital’s exact location and that it had confirmed its location last on September 29.
The organisation has also confirmed there were no combatants in or around the hospital and is calling for independent investigations of the attack.
How is it possible that air strikes could be conducted so recklessly – and what is the US still doing in Afghanistan?
It started when the US administration declared “war against terror” after the September 11 attacks. They began by invading Afghanistan in 2001. Their publicly stated objectives were to dismantle al-Qaeda by removing the Taliban (who reportedly protected and sympathised with al-Qaeda) and to save the people of Afghanistan.
Some would say this increased the suffering of the people of Afghanistan, while others would disagree as they view US and international intervention as necessary to save the people from the Taliban.
Whatever the case, there is no doubt the US invaded Afghanistan to protect its own foreign and domestic interests and not necessarily to save the people of Afghanistan.
This year’s statistics indicate over 2 000 people have died since the invasion and the numbers continue to rise with reckless attacks on civilians in hospitals.
Although the US and Nato formally ended their combat mission in Afghanistan on December 28, they continue to provide air support to the Afghanistan military forces and to send military advisers to assist with war tactics and strategy.
Sadly, Afghanistan is not the only coun- try where the US has been accused of killing innocent civilians.
Washington has been accused of similarly reckless attacks in Iraq.
The US government invaded Iraq in 2003 to “disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism and to free the Iraqi people”. Once again, US foreign policy interests were at the forefront and their main excuse was the alleged Iraqi programme for developing weapons of mass destruction.
As we know, questions about whether those weapons and such a programme ever existed remain, as do questions about how much Hussein’s government actually had to do with acts of terrorism in the US.
Other pertinent questions would be whether the Iraqi people consider themselves to have been “liberated” by US forces and, most importantly, questions must be asked about the senseless loss of Iraqi civilian lives due to reckless US attacks.
There are discrepancies with regard to the number of civilians who died during the US led invasion in Iraq. This is exacerbated by allegations of the US deliberately underreporting the civilian death toll.
According to the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University in Rhode Island, from 2003 to April about 165 000 civilians had died from direct war-related violence caused by the US and its allies, and the Iraqi military and police and opposition forces.
The same questions surround US conduct in Yemen and Pakistan. In Pakistan, in particular, drone attacks have caused many civilian deaths. Again, figures differ, depending on the potential political and legal ramifications. Civilian deaths due to drone strikes are either boldly reported or conveniently swept under the rug.
Civilians are killed as they walk home, in marketplaces, and as we saw over the weekend, in hospitals. The number of civilian lives lost during war remains disturbingly high and the attack on the hospital in Kunduz serves as a reminder of this.
With missile-guided technology and upto-date information on what constitutes a legitimate target and what doesn’t, the international community should be increasingly less tolerant of “accidental” attacks on civilians.
Indeed, wars are complicated and collateral damage is a reality but surely one should thoroughly assess whether the ends justify the means and if there isn’t an alternative solution to waging war?