November, 20 2012, 10:52am EDT

Keep Soldiers Out of Schools and Universities
Military Use Risks Students Lives, Safety, Education
WASHINGTON
The use of schools and other education institutions for military purposes by armed forces and non-state armed groups during wartime endangers students and their education around the world, said the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack in a study released today.
The 77-page study, "Lessons In War: Military Use of Schools and Other Education Institutions during Conflict", examines the use of schools and other education institutions for military purposes by government armed forces and opposition or pro-government armed groups during times of armed conflict or insecurity. Schools are used for barracks, logistics bases, operational headquarters, weapons and ammunition caches, detention and interrogation centers, firing and observation positions, and recruitment grounds.
"The moment troops establish a base inside a school, they can turn it into a target for attack," said Diya Nijhowne, director of the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack. "When soldiers use schools and universities they are often putting their own convenience over the safety and education of students."
Countries around the world should adopt policies and laws to restrict military forces and armed groups from using schools and other education institutions during times of armed conflict, the coalition said.
Between January 2005 and October 2012, the study found, armed forces and armed groups used education institutions in at least 24 countries, a substantial majority of the countries with armed conflicts during this period. The list included countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and South America.
Sometimes soldiers take over a school entirely, but often they use just a part of the school or university - some classrooms, an entire floor, the playground -and in doing so expose students to attack and other violence. In the worst cases, children have been injured and killed and schools damaged or destroyed as belligerent forces attack schools because military forces had been using them.
Students' safety may also be jeopardized by the misconduct of poorly trained or undisciplined soldiers within their school or university. The risks include sexual abuse and harassment and the accidental or misdirected firing of weapons or explosion of ordnance.
"When countries go to war, education facilities usually end up on the battlefield," Nijhowne said. "Governments need to send a clear message that even during times of armed conflict, access to a safe education should be a priority, and armed forces need to respect students' right to education.
Military use of education institutions can cause damage to already-fragile education infrastructures and systems, the coalition said. The educational consequences of military use of schools and other education institutions include high dropout rates, reduced enrollment, lower rates of transition to higher education levels, overcrowding, and loss of instructional hours. Girls are particularly negatively affected.
Access to safe learning facilities provides important protection for students during times of armed conflict, the coalition said. Safe schools and universities provide lifesaving information, mitigate the psychosocial impact of war, and protect children from trafficking and recruitment by armed groups. In the long term, a quality education promotes peace and post-conflict reconstruction and helps young people develop the skills and qualifications they need to build lives for themselves and prosperity for their communities.
While international humanitarian law contains no general ban on the use of school buildings for military purposes, it does prohibit armed forces and armed groups using them at the same time as they are being used by students and teachers for education purposes. Under international law military use of an education institution can convert it into a legitimate military target, placing students and teachers at risk of attack by opposing forces. Even when there is no physical attack, the deterioration in access to schools and universities, quality of teaching, and opportunities to learn can lead to violations of the right to education under international human rights law.
The study highlights examples of good practice, in which governments have adopted policies that explicitly ban or restrict militaries from using education facilities. For example, Ireland and the Philippines have domestic legislation banning military forces from using schools. In India and Colombia, courts have ordered troops out of schools they were occupying. The Philippines and Colombia have adopted military policies that prohibit military forces using schools. And the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations has just released a new Infantry Battalion Manual that requires peacekeeping troops to not use schools in their operations.
The study also calls upon states, local organizations, and relevant international agencies to rigorously monitor military use of education institutions to devise effective, coordinated responses, including preventative interventions, rapid response, and both legal and non-legal accountability measures for those individuals or groups who contravene existing laws, judicial orders, or military orders.
"Governments that have learned from their own experiences of war that they can pursue military operations without endangering schools should encourage other countries to follow their lead," Nijhowne said. "Schools and universities should be places of learning and safety, not soldiering and fear."
The countries with reported military use of education institutions between 2005 and October 2012 are:Afghanistan, Burma/Myanmar, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Georgia, India, Iraq, Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory, Libya, Mali, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Uganda, and Yemen.
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
Trump Slashes US Humanitarian Aid Pledge as His Cuts Kill Hundreds of Thousands Globally
One tracker estimates that the Trump administration's assault on foreign aid programs has killed more than 700,000 people so far—a majority of them children.
Dec 29, 2025
The Trump administration on Monday announced a commitment of $2 billion to United Nations humanitarian assistance efforts, a fraction of what the US has previously provided as President Donald Trump's foreign aid cuts continue to wreak deadly havoc worldwide.
The US State Department said the funds will be tied to reform efforts pushed by the administration, as it warns individual UN agencies to "adapt, shrink, or die"—all while giving massive handouts to billionaires.
"The agreement requires the UN to consolidate humanitarian functions to reduce bureaucratic overhead, unnecessary duplication, and ideological creep," said the State Department.
Al Jazeera reported that the reduced commitment "is a sharp contrast to the assistance of up to $17 billion the US has provided as the UN’s leading funder in recent years."
"The $2 billion will create a pool of funds that can be directed at specific countries or crises, with 17 countries—including Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Syria, and Ukraine—initially targeted," the outlet noted. "Afghanistan is not included on the list, nor is Palestine, which officials say will be covered by money included in Trump’s yet-to-be-completed Gaza plan."
The Associated Press observed that "even as the US pulls back its aid, needs have ballooned across the world: Famine has been recorded this year in parts of conflict-ridden Sudan and Gaza, and floods, drought, and natural disasters that many scientists attribute to climate change have taken many lives or driven thousands from their homes."
The new funding pledge comes after the Trump administration's lawless dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which was the United States' primary body for foreign aid.
Experts say the destruction of USAID at the hands of billionaire Elon Musk and others inside the Trump White House has killed hundreds of thousands of people across the globe—and could kill millions more in the coming years.
A conservative tracker maintained by Boston University epidemiologist Brooke Nichols estimates that the Trump administration's assault on foreign aid programs has killed more than 700,000 people—a majority of them children.
In a blog post for the Center for Global Development earlier this month, Charles Kenny and Justin Sandefur wrote that "while quantification is difficult, there is little doubt many people have died as a result, and without action many more will die in the future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netanyahu to Press for 'Another Round of War With Iran' in Meeting With Trump This Week
Amid a growing rift between Israel and the White House, one foreign policy analyst says the meeting "will signal whether Washington is prepared to continue underwriting open-ended escalation."
Dec 28, 2025
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heads to Mar-a-Lago to meet with US President Donald Trump on Monday, amid a growing rift with the president and his advisers, reports say he'll seek to push the US back toward war with Iran.
Last week, NBC News reported that at the meeting, "Netanyahu is expected to make the case to Trump that Iran’s expansion of its ballistic missile program poses a threat that could necessitate swift action" and that "the Israeli leader is expected to present Trump with options for the US to join or assist in any new military operations."
"Netanyahu plans to press Donald Trump for US backing for another round of war with Iran, now framed around Iran’s ballistic missile program," said Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. “Netanyahu’s pivot to missiles should therefore be read not as the discovery of a new threat, but as an effort to manufacture a replacement casus belli after the nuclear argument collapsed."
He noted criticisms levied against Netanyahu by Yair Golan, chair of the Democrats, a center-left party in Israel, earlier this week: "How is it possible that last June, at the end of the war with Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu solemnly declared that ‘Israel had eliminated Iran’s nuclear threat and severely damaged its missile array’; and that this was a ‘historic victory’—and today, less than six months later, he is running to the president of the United States to beg for permission to attack Iran again?" Golan said.
Iran is just one of several areas the two will likely discuss on Monday. According to Israeli officials who spoke to the Washington Post, Netanyahu also reportedly wants Trump to "take a tougher stance on Gaza and require that Hamas disarm before Israeli troops further withdraw as part of the second phase of Trump’s 20-point peace plan."
The chief of Israel's armed forces suggested earlier this week that its occupation of more than half of Gaza would be permanent, but walked those comments back after reported behind-the-scenes outrage in the White House. Meanwhile, Trump—invested in his image as a peacemaker—has reportedly balked at Israel's routine violations of the ceasefire agreement he helped to broker in October.
Near-daily strikes have resulted in the death of at least 418 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Media Office. Meanwhile, Israel's continued blockade of humanitarian aid has left hundreds of thousands of people—displaced from homes destroyed by Israeli bombing—to languish in the cold without tents. Desperately needed fuel, food, and medicine have entered the strip at far lower numbers than the ceasefire agreement required.
As Axios reported on Friday, Trump's advisers increasingly fear that Netanyahu is intentionally slow-walking and undermining the peace process in hopes of resuming the war.
Netanyahu also seeks Trump's continued backing of Israel's territorial expansion in Syria. Earlier this month, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) pushed through a UN-monitored demilitarized zone between Israeli and Syrian-held positions in the Golan Heights, which Israel illegally occupies.
This push into southern Syria went against the wishes of the Trump administration, which feared it could destabilize the Western-backed government that rules in Damascus following the ouster of former President Bashar al-Assad.
Israel has also routinely struck Lebanon in violation of the US-brokered ceasefire it signed with Hezbollah in late 2024, with bombings becoming a near-daily occurrence in December. Last month, the UN reported that at least 127 civilians, including children, had been killed in Israeli strikes since the ceasefire began.
"Netanyahu’s visit unfolds against a backdrop of unresolved fronts, with widening disputes with Washington over the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, including postwar governance, reconstruction, and Turkish involvement," Toossi said. "At the same time, Israel is seeking greater latitude to escalate again against Hezbollah in Lebanon, an end to US accommodation of Syria’s new leadership, and firm assurances on expanded military aid."
“Taken together, Netanyahu’s visit is less about resolving any single crisis than about postponing strategic reckoning," he continued. "The outcome will signal whether Washington is prepared to continue underwriting open-ended escalation, or whether this meeting marks the beginning of clearer limits on Israel’s regional strategy.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Hits Back as Silicon Valley Oligarchs Threaten Primary Challenge Over California Billionaires Tax
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where... healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," the San Francisco lawmaker said.
Dec 28, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna defended California's proposed tax on extreme wealth Saturday after a pair of prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists threatened to launch a primary bid for his California House seat.
The proposal, which advocates are gathering signatures to place on the ballot in 2026, would impose a one-time 5% tax on those with net worths over $1 billion to recoup about $90 billion in Medicaid funds stripped from the state by this year’s Republican budget law. The roughly 200 billionaires affected would have five years to pay the tax.
While higher taxes on the superrich are overwhelmingly popular with Americans, the proposal has rankled many of California’s wealthiest residents, as well as California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said earlier this month that he’s “adamantly” against the measure.
On Friday, the New York Times reported that two of the valley's biggest powerbrokers—venture capitalist and top Trump administration ally Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page—were threatening to reduce their ties to California in response to the tax proposal.
This has been a common refrain from elites faced with proposed tax increases, though data suggests they rarely follow through on their threats to bail on cities and states, even when those hikes are implemented. Meanwhile, the American Prospect has pointed out that the one-time tax would still apply to those who moved out of the Golden State.
Khanna (D-Calif.), who is both a member of the House's progressive faction and a longtime darling of the tech sector, has increasingly sparred with industry leaders in recent years over their reactionary stances on labor rights, regulation, and taxation.
In a post on X, the congressman reacted with derision at the threats of billionaire flight: "Peter Thiel is leaving California if we pass a 1% tax on billionaires for five years to pay for healthcare for the working class facing steep Medicaid cuts. I echo what [former President Franklin D. Roosevelt] said with sarcasm of economic royalists when they threatened to leave, 'I will miss them very much.'"
Casado, who donated to Khanna’s 2024 reelection campaign according to OpenSecrets, complained that “Ro has done a speed run, alienating every moderate I know who has supported him, including myself.”
"Beyond being totally out of touch with [the moderate] faction of his base, he’s devolved into an obnoxious jerk," Casado continued. "At least that makes voting him the fuck out all the more gratifying."
Casado's post received a reply from another former Khanna donor, Garry Tan, the CEO of the tech startup accelerator Y Combinator.
"Time to primary him," Tan said of Khanna.
Tan, a self-described centrist Democrat, has never run for office before. But he is notorious for his social media tirades against local progressives in San Francisco and was one of the top financial backers of the corporate-led push to oust the city's liberal former district attorney, Chesa Boudin, in 2022.
Casado replied: "Count me in. Happy to be involved at any level."
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball marveled that “Tech oligarchs are now openly conspiring against Ro Khanna because he dared to back a modest wealth tax.”
So far, neither Casado nor Tan has hinted at any concrete plans to challenge Khanna in 2026. If they did, defeating him would likely be a tall order—since his sophomore election in 2018, a primary challenger has never come within 30 points of unseating him.
But Khanna still felt the need to respond to the brooding tech royals. He noted that he has "supported a modest wealth tax since the day I ran in 2016," which prompted another angry retort from Casado, who accused the congressman of "antagonizing the people who made your district the amazing place it is" with a tax on billionaires.
Khanna hit back at his critics with a lengthy defense of not just the wealth tax, but his conception of what he calls "pro-innovation progressivism."
"My district is $18 trillion, nearly one-third of the US stock market in a 50-mile radius. We have five companies with a market cap over $1 trillion," Khanna said. "If I can stand up for a billionaire tax, this is not a hard position for 434 other [House] members or 100 senators."
"The seminal innovation in tech is done by thousands, often with public funds," Khanna continued. "Yes, we need entrepreneurs to commercialize disruptive innovation... But the idea that they would not start companies to make billions, or take advantage of an innovation cluster, if there is a 1-2% tax on their staggering wealth defies common sense and economic theory."
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where 70% of Americans believe the American dream is dead and healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," he concluded. "What will stifle American innovation, what will make us fall behind China, is if we see further political dysfunction and social unrest, if we fail to cultivate the talent in every American and in every city and town... So, yes, a billionaire tax is good for American innovation, which depends on a strong and thriving American democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


