NEWS
4 Obiter Dicta
American Attack on Kunduz Hospital
When is a war crime not a war crime?
ê Photo credit: Médecins Sans Frontières
shannon corregan › staff writer
O
n 15 Oc tober, international medical
humanitarian organization Médecins
Sans Frontières (MSF)—better known in
the English-speaking world as Doctors
Without Borders—launched a petition to encourage
the United States to consent to an independent
investigation into the American bombing of a hospital
in Afghanistan.
On 3 October, American airstrikes targeted the
MSF-run trauma hospital in Kunduz. The missile
strikes killed twenty-two people in the hospital–
twelve staff members and ten patients, three of
whom were children–and over three-dozen others
were injured in the hour-long barrage. In the hours
after the attack, the survivors’ stories that emerged
were visceral and gut-wrenching; one hospital nurse
described “patients burning in their beds.”
In reaction to the airstrikes, MSF has pulled out
of Afghanistan. Civilians in Kunduz who require
medical aid now must walk hours to the nearest
hospital.
The American and Afghani responses to the
airstrikes have been murky and poorly
coordinated. Various US military officials
initially reported that the attack was
accidental. On 3 October, the NATO line was
that the Kunduz airstrikes were designed to
target the increasing Taliban forces in the region, and
“may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby
medical facility.”
This story was vociferously rejected by MSF;
the aid organization declared that it had reported
to NATO the precise locations of its operations
several times over the past months, and had even
phoned Washington during the airstrikes in a lastditch attempt to stop the bombing. Afghan officials
retracted their story, and next implied that the
bombing was intentional, claiming that the Taliban
were using the hospital grounds as a base, a claim that
MSF has entirely rejected as “spurious.”
While the official US narrative is still unclear, it’s
undeniable that US forces knew the location and
nature of the hospital before the strike was called.
MSF, meanwhile, immediately initiated the
steps required for a formal independent inquiry.
On 14 October, MSF received official confirmation
that the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding
Commission (IHFFC) was prepared to investigate the
bombing. The IHFFC is the only body mandated to
investigate violations of international humanitarian
law, but it will require American and Afghani consent
to continue.
Initiating a petition to encourage President Obama
to provide his consent is the first stage of the process,
since it is currently uncertain whether or not the US
will cooperate with the IHFFC.
On 7 October, Obama telephoned MSF Chief
Joanne Liu to apologize for the attacks. He confirmed
that the airstrike was not mere collateral damage,
but a mistake, and promised a complete American
investigation into the matter. Currently, three
separate investigations have been promised by US
military, NATO and Afghan officials. But in the
context of continuing contradictory stories, MSF
even criminal,” he stated, and observed that “if
established as deliberate in a court of law, an airstrike
on a hospital may amount to a war crime.”
Although US and Afghani officials have not
directly addressed this accusation, reports on the
bombing indicate that there is a strong possibility
that American forces have broken their own rules of
engagement.
Typically, medical services are held to be
sacrosanct in conflict zones. MSF depends on the
presumption that medical facilities are neutral,
protected spaces. They state on their website that,
“If not for the recognition of these principles, MSF
and other humanitarian organizations could not
work in conflict zones and other places rife with
violence.” This is not an uncontested presumption
(What about situations where the people receiving
aid are supporting enemy agents? What does it mean
to provide medical services and medical services
alone to a population that is facing other dangers,
like starvation?), but it’s roughly held to be true. The
presumption is strong enough that the international
community was swift in its condemnation of the
American action.
This condemnation might not be enough
to outweigh the reality of American military
weight or, more importantly still, the rhetorical
power of American exceptionalism. In his essay
“Why sorry isn’t enough,” CBC analyst Neil
Macdonald forwards the thesis that the American
conviction that they only conduct “just wars”
prevents the nation’s leaders from opening their
processes to external review, and consequently from
being held accountable for their mistakes.
Macdonald refers to a showdown between
journalist Matt Lee and Mark Toner, spokesman for
the US State Department at a press conference two
days after the bombing. Toner apologized for the
bombing in vague terms, but was unwilling or unable
“He confirmed that the airstrike
was not mere collateral damage...”
insists that an independent inquiry is necessary.
“Apologies and condolences,” said Dr. Liu, aren’t
enough. “We are still in the dark about why a wellknown hospital full of patients and medical staff
was repeatedly bombarded for more than an hour.”
MSF has said that it is proceeding under “the
clear presumption that a war crime has been
committed,” and that the attack was in any case a
“grave violation of International Humanitarian Law.”
Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, added to the call for an independent
and transparent inquiry into the attack. “This
event is utterly tragic, inexcusable, and possibly
» see kunduz, page 20