September, 08 2008, 12:20pm EDT
Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes on the Rise
Airstrikes Cause Public Backlash, Undermine Protection Efforts
NEW YORK
Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, with recent deadly airstrikes exacerbating the problem and fuelling a public backlash, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The report also condemns the Taliban's use of "human shields" in violation of the laws of war.
Though operational changes advocated by Human Rights Watch have reduced the rate of civilian casualties since they spiked in July 2007, continuing tragedies, such as the July 6, 2008 strike on a wedding party and the August 22, 2008 bombing in Azizabad, have greatly undermined local support for the efforts of international forces providing security in Afghanistan.
The 43-page report, "'Troops in Contact': Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan,"
analyzes the use of airstrikes by US and NATO forces and resulting
civilian casualties, particularly when used to make up for the lack of
ground troops and during emergency situations. Human Rights Watch found
few civilian deaths resulted from planned airstrikes, while almost all
deaths occurred in unplanned airstrikes.
"Rapid response airstrikes have meant higher civilian
casualties, while every bomb dropped in populated areas amplifies the
chance of a mistake," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights
Watch. "Mistakes by the US and NATO have dramatically decreased public
support for the Afghan government and the presence of international
forces providing security to Afghans."
The report documents how insurgent forces have contributed
to the civilian toll from airstrikes by deploying their forces in
populated villages, at times with the specific intent to shield their
forces from counterattack, a serious violation of the laws of war.
Human Rights Watch found several instances where Taliban forces
purposefully used civilians as shields to deter US and NATO attacks.
In 2006, at least 929 Afghan civilians were killed in
fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 699 died
during Taliban attacks (including suicide bombings and other bombings
unlawfully targeting civilians) and at least 230 died during US or NATO
attacks. Of the latter, 116 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. In
2007, at least 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related
to the armed conflict. Of those, some 950 died during attacks by the
various insurgent forces, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least
321 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. Thus, civilian deaths from US
and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.
In the first seven months of 2008, at least 540 Afghan
civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of
those, at least 367 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces
and 173 died during US or NATO attacks. At least 119 were killed by US
or NATO airstrikes. For all periods cited, Human Rights Watch uses the most conservative figures available.
Human
Rights Watch criticized the poor response by US officials when civilian
deaths occur. Prior to conducting investigations into airstrikes
causing civilian loss, US officials often immediately deny
responsibility for civilian deaths or place all blame on the Taliban.
US investigations conducted have been unilateral, ponderous, and
lacking in transparency, undercutting rather than improving relations
with local populations and the Afghan government. A faulty condolence
payment system has not provided timely and adequate compensation to
assist civilians harmed by US actions.
"The US needs to end the mistakes that are killing so many
civilians," said Adams. "The US must also take responsibility,
including by providing timely compensation, when its airstrikes kill
Afghan civilians. While Taliban shielding is a factor in some civilian
deaths, the US shouldn't use this as an excuse when it could have taken
better precautions. It is, after all, its bombs that are doing the
killing."
Human Rights Watch found that few civilians casualties
occurred as the result of planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban
targets. Instead, most cases of civilian deaths from airstrikes
occurred during the fluid, rapid-response strikes mostly carried out in
support of "troops in contact" - ground troops who are under insurgent
attack. Such unplanned strikes included situations where US special
forces units - normally small in number and lightly armed - came under
insurgent attack; in US/NATO attacks in pursuit of insurgent forces who
had retreated to populated villages; and in air attacks where US
"anticipatory self-defense" rules of engagement applied.
The effects of airstrikes go beyond civilian deaths. For
example, an investigation by the Afghan government found that two
battles over a three-day period starting April 30, 2007 in Shindand
district resulted in the destruction of numerous homes. In every case
investigated by Human Rights Watch where airstrikes hit villages, many
civilians had to leave the village because of damage to their homes and
fear of further strikes. People from neighboring villages also
sometimes fled in fear of future strikes on their villages. This has
led to large numbers of internally displaced persons.
To respond to public concern and complaints from President
Hamid Karzai, in July 2007 the NATO-led International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) announced several changes in targeting tactics.
These changes include employing smaller munitions, delaying attacks
where civilians might be harmed, and turning over house-to-house
searches to the Afghan National Army. A review of available evidence
suggests that the changes had some impact, as there was a significant
drop in civilian casualties due to airstrikes in the last half of 2007,
even as the overall tonnage of bombs dropped increased.
Human Rights Watch welcomed these changes in targeting, but
remained concerned by continuing civilian casualties from airstrikes,
particularly as the number of airstrikes has increased dramatically and
the number of deaths and injuries has spiked this summer.
Human Rights Watch called for the US and NATO to address
the rising civilian death toll from unplanned airstrikes, and to fix
continuing problems with field collateral damage estimation and the
inconsistent application of their Rules of Engagement.
"The recent airstrikes killing dozens of Afghans make clear
that the system is still broken and that civilians continue to pay the
ultimate price," said Adams. "Civilian deaths from airstrikes act as a
recruiting tool for the Taliban and risk fatally undermining the
international effort to provide basic security to the people of
Afghanistan."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Sanders: 'The Netanyahu Gov't Should Not Receive Another Penny from US'
The bill passed the Senate in a 74-24 vote at 2:03AM
Mar 23, 2024
Following the passing of the U.S. government appropriations bill early Saturday morning, Senator Bernie Sanders said:
I voted NO on the appropriations bill that the Senate passed last night. While hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children face starvation in Gaza, this bill actually prohibits funding to UNWRA, the key United Nations aid agency delivering life-saving humanitarian support. This will only intensify the already horrific situation in Gaza. This bill also provides another $3.3 billion in U.S. military aid for Netanyahu’s right-wing government to continue this barbaric war. The Netanyahu government should not receive another penny from U.S. taxpayers.
The bill passed the Senate in a 74-24 vote at 2:03AM Saturday morning following hours of intense negotiations.
Later on Saturday, President Biden signed the $1.2 trillion government funding bill to stave off a government shutdown.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Modi Government Crackdown on Dissent Hits 'Crisis Point' Before Indian Elections
"The growing crackdown clearly shows the authorities' blatant disregard for human rights and rule of law," said one Amnesty International campaigner.
Mar 22, 2024
As India's right-wing government cracks down on opposition ahead of next month's general elections, Amnesty International on Friday urged authorities to "stop weaponizing the criminal justice system to intimidate and harass" political candidates, activists, and others.
Protests broke out in the capital New Delhi and other Indian cities after police on Thursday arrested Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, an opposition leader from the Aam Aadmi Party, over corruption allegations AAP members say are politically motivated. Two other AAP leaders were previously arrested in connection with the same case, which involves the alleged favoring of certain alcohol vendors and illegal campaign financing.
Authorities also froze the bank accounts of another leading opposition party, the Indian National Congress, over a tax dispute that dates back to 2018. Party leader Sonia Gandhi accused Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) party of perpetrating "a systematic effort to cripple the party financially."
“They want to know we are corrupt like them, which is not the case.” – AAP chief spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar on the BJP’s crackdown on opposition politicians.
AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal was arrested just today on charges of corruption.
The India Report: https://t.co/rxPr6zKnWx pic.twitter.com/P3eSbxVTVm
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 21, 2024
Gandhi, Kejriwal and others have repeatedly accused of Modi's government of misusing federal agencies and resources to repress opposition figures as elections loom. The BJP denies the allegations.
"The Bharatiya Janata Party-led Indian government's crackdown on peaceful dissent and opposition has now reached a crisis point," Amnesty International India board chair Aakar Patel said in a statement.
"The authorities have repeatedly exploited and weaponized various financial and terrorism laws to systematically crack down on human rights defenders, activists, critics, nonprofit organizations, journalists, students, academics, and political opposition," Patel added. "The arrest of Arvind Kejriwal and the freezing of Indian National Congress' bank accounts a few weeks before India holds its general elections show the authorities' blatant failure to uphold the country's international human rights obligations."
Patel continued:
What we are witnessing is a brutal crackdown on human rights including through the misuse of central investigative and financial agencies, attacks on peaceful protests, arbitrary arrests, use and export of invasive spyware for unlawful surveillance, [and] systematic discrimination against religious minorities to feed into their majoritarian Hindutva politics and targeted suspension of opposition leaders from the Parliament who dare to hold the authorities to account.
"The growing crackdown clearly shows the authorities' blatant disregard for human rights and rule of law," Patel added. "Authorities must respect, protect, promote, and fulfill the human rights of everyone in the country including human rights defenders, activists, and opposition candidates before, during, and after the general elections which are due to begin in April 2024. Authorities must also ensure access to justice and effective remedies for victims of human rights violations."
On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives' bipartisan Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission held a hearing on the situation in India.
The commission noted that in recent years, as Modi and the BJP have consolidated power, "concerns about human rights abuses in India have grown" over "a wide range of significant rights issues, including restrictions on religious and press freedoms, violence or threats of violence targeting members of national/racial/ethnic and religious minorities, harassment of and restrictions on civil society and human rights organizations, corruption, and lack of accountability."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP 'Imploding' as Gallagher Resigns and Greene Moves to Oust Speaker
"House Republicans had a bad day," said one reporter, listing challenges and changes to leadership as a government shutdown looms.
Mar 22, 2024
The U.S. House of Representatives started a two-week recess on Friday, but not before a series of events that provoked fresh declarations of what has become a familiar phrase over the past few years: "Republicans in disarray."
Before leaving Capitol Hill, House members passed a spending package intended to prevent a partial government shutdown that could still occur unless the Senate acts. Fewer than two dozen Democrats and over 100 Republicans opposed the bill. Democratic opposition was largely related to Israel's war on the Gaza Strip.
Meanwhile, far-right Republicans like Texas Congressman Chip Roy have made comments like, "Everyone that I know and trust about the border, about overall spending, see it as a complete and total failure and a capitulation by Republicans. And leadership worked the deal, so it's on leadership."
Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) not only opposed the package but also filed a motion to vacate, hoping to remove House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)—which would only require a simple majority if it came up for a vote.
The \u201cRepublican-controlled\u201d House just passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill that doesn\u2019t secure our border, but funds full term abortion and trans ideology on our youth.\n\nI filed a Motion to Vacate because the House needs a Speaker who\u2019s able to win for Republicans and our\u2026— (@)
House Republicans elected Johnson to the leadership role in late October, after ousting former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)—who then opted to leave office at the end of last year—and rejecting three other candidates for the post: Reps. Tom Emmer (D-Minn.), Steve Scalise (R-La.), and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
Noting that Greene filed a regular motion rather than a privileged one, meaning it could be referred to a committee, "where it would likely languish," NBC Newsreported Friday:
Greene told reporters that her motion to vacate was "more of a warning than a pink slip," saying she does not want to "throw the House into chaos," like the three and a half weeks that the chamber was without a speaker when McCarthy, her close ally, was ousted.
"I'm not saying that it won't happen in two weeks or it won't happen in a month or who knows when. But I am saying the clock has started. It's time for our conference to choose a new speaker," she said.
Johnson's October election led Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)—who filed the motion to vacate targeting McCarthy—to declare that "MAGA is ascendant," a reference to the "Make America Great Again" campaign slogan of former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee for the November election.
While Gaetz voted against the spending package on Friday, he also said that "if we vacated this speaker we'd end up with a Democrat. You know, when I vacated the last one, I made a promise to the country that we would not end up with a Democrat speaker and I was right. I couldn't make that promise again today."
Asked if he thinks Johnson's job is safe, Gaetz responded, "It is."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) also responded dismissively when questioned about Greene's motion on Friday, tellingPunchbowl News, "She's a joke."
A spokesperson for Johnson, Raj Shah, toldPolitico that the speaker "always listens to the concerns of members, but is focused on governing. He will continue to push conservative legislation that secures our border, strengthens our national defense, and demonstrates how we'll grow our majority."
However, Johnson's limited control over the House is dwindling. Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), who backed the spending bill, revealed that he is resigning from his seat effective April 19 after previously saying that he would not seek reelection. Friday was also the last day of Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who announced earlier this month that he would step down from his seat.
The Washington Post noted Friday that "Buck and Gallagher are the sixth and seventh members of the House who are quitting midterm simply to leave for the private sector, a trend we dubbed 'the Great Resignation' last weekend. It's also the highest number of lawmakers quitting public service altogether in at least 40 years."
Responding to Gallager's announcement on social media, HuffPost's Jennifer Bendery said that "House Republicans are imploding in plain sight."
In yet another disruption to the chamber's GOP leadership, Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas)—who announced last year that she wouldn't seek reelection—wrote in a Friday letter to Johnson that she plans to step down as chair of the House Appropriations Committee.
Granger told the speaker she would stay in the post until the Republican Steering Committee chooses her replacement and then remain on the panel through the end of her term to offer "advice and counsel for my colleagues when it is needed."
The Texas Tribunepointed out that "the Appropriations Committee will need to pass another set of federal funding bills before the end of September to keep the government funded. Congress has failed to meet that deadline for nearly 30 years, and Granger acknowledged in her letter that election years in particular often distract Congress from passing spending bills on time."
GOP members of the upper chamber were also accused of sowing chaos on Friday, as the midnight shutdown deadline loomed.
Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said on social media, "Well, it looks like we're headed for a shutdown at the hands of Senate Republican gremlins who (1) know that amendments can't pass because there's no House to send an amended bill back to (they adjourned) and (2) want amendments anyway."
"And (3) can't decide amongst themselves what won't-pass amendments they want," Whitehouse added. "I sure hope I'm wrong. But the Republican Senate caucus is a rudderless ship right now, so the gremlins are running the show."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular