News

News

start date
end date
317 Results
sort by:

Published

February 26, 2024

Written by

Airwars Staff

Palestinian civilians allegedly killed every day in the two weeks following the International Court of Justice's ruling on Gaza, Airwars finds

On January 26th, the International Court of Justice ordered provisional measures in a case brought by South Africa alleging that Israel was violating its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention in Gaza. Israel refuted the claim, stating it was taking all possible measures to protect civilians during its attempts to destroy the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The ICJ found that a plausible risk of genocide in the Gaza Strip exists and that Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent genocide, to prevent and punish incitement to genocide, make provision for access to humanitarian aid, ensure preservation of evidence related to South Africa’s allegations, and must report back to the Court within a month about how it was complying with this order.

However concerns have mounted over the destruction of evidence related to civilian harm claims given widespread attacks on healthcare facilities and the highly restrictive operating environment.

To provide independent incident-based research to support investigations into civilian harm claims, Airwars’ research team carried out an expedited assessment process gathering and reviewing all civilian harm allegations in the first two weeks of the month-long period.

Airwars research identified more than 200 alleged incidents of harm from January 27th 2024 to February 9th 2024, originating from more than 1,500 open source claims. These claims include local media outlets, testimonies from family members, and other witness testimonies posted online. Each incident was identified by corroborating at least five sources detailing the civilian harm event.

There are likely to be other incidents that were not publicly reported upon, however this research intends to provide a starting point for further investigation.

Among the claims, Airwars has identified attacks on journalists, on civilians while sheltering in displacement centres, on civilians waiting for humanitarian aid and on healthcare workers.

Airwars is still reviewing these cases through our rigorous casualty recording methodology, which means that no overall fatality estimates will be produced at this time. However these incidents still reveal some key patterns of harm.

Among the key trends were:

    Civilians were reported killed every day in incidents during the two-week period, with an average of 16 casualty incidents recorded per day. In 190 of the incidents, civilians were reported killed or injured following the alleged use of explosive weapons. In 36 incidents, civilians were allegedly shot and killed or injured by live fire. Healthcare workers and first responders were reported killed in six incidents. Civilians waiting for humanitarian aid were reported killed or injured in five separate incidents. Civilians in education centres were reported killed or injured in eight separate incidents, often while taking shelter. Journalists were reported killed in at least five of these incidents, often alongside members of their family. In 13 separate incidents, at least ten civilians were alleged to have been killed. Geographically the largest number of incidents occurred in the governorate of Khan Yunis, which Israeli forces were seeking to take control of during the time period.

Out of the 233 incidents identified by Airwars, our geolocation teams were able to locate 213 to governorate level – key administrative units in Gaza. These incidents are reflected on the map. Further precision on geolocations will be part of Airwars’ forthcoming and comprehensive assessment of each incident.

Incidents include harm from explosive weapon use and to the extent possible from the use of small arms or light weapons. Each incident has not yet been through Airwars’ rigorous assessment process, and therefore data points should be treated as provisional only, including on civilian status and casualty ranges.

Chronology of harm

Key incidents are described chronologically below, and full datasets can be provided on request including with digitally archived links. The following should not be understood as an exhaustive list, but rather a brief summary of each day’s events – as reported by local sources.

More comprehensive analysis will be released once we have completed our full documentation efforts, including the more than 2,000 incidents yet to go through our review process.

January 27th 2024

Civilians alleged to have been killed while waiting for humanitarian aid, as well as in shootings in a hospital courtyard.

January 28th 2024

More than ten civilians reported killed in a single incident in a refugee camp, dozens reported injured while waiting for humanitarian aid, and at least one civilian killed in a school. A journalist was also reported killed.

January 29th 2024

More than ten civilians reported killed in at least three separate incidents, including while sheltering in a school. At least two incidents of identified civilian casualties in a hospital due to shootings. One journalist also reported killed.

January 30th 2024

More than ten civilians reported killed during one incident, as well as other incidents recorded of casualties during aid distributions.

January 31st 2024

Civilians reported killed while sheltering in a collective displacement centre, as well as harm reported on ambulance and first responder crews.

February 1st 2024

Healthworkers reported killed near a hospital entrance, as well as widespread reporting of 22 bodies recovered in Khan Younis.

February 2nd 2024

At least two incidents identified where health workers were reported killed.

February 3rd 2024

More than ten civilians reported killed during an alleged Israeli bombing on a family home.

February 4th 2024

Multiple reports of civilians killed and injured while waiting to receive humanitarian aid. Additional casualties reported in a kindergarten.

February 5th 2024

Civilian casualties reported in education facilities in Khan Younis.

February 6th 2024

At least two incidents where more than ten civilians were reported killed, including in an alleged strike on a family home. Two journalists also reported killed.

February 7th 2024

More than ten civilians killed in a single incident, and additional casualties reported in medical facilities. Several civilians also reported killed while waiting for humanitarian aid.

February 8th 2024

More than ten civilians killed in a single incident, and at least two incidents recorded where healthcare workers were killed, and one incident where civilians were killed in a health centre. One journalist also reported killed.

February 9th 2024

One incident where more than ten civilians were reported killed, another incident where casualties were recorded in medical centres, at aid distributions and also, separately, in an education facility.

Airwars’ ongoing casualty recording efforts

Following the brutal October 7th Hamas attack, Israel launched one of the most intense military campaigns in modern history in Gaza. In the months since, almost every fact emerging has been in dispute.

In an attempt to combat mis- and disinformation and build a permanent public record of civilian harm, Airwars has been recording incident-by-incident civilian harm allegations since October 7th. By utilising Airwars’ open source-led primary language methodology – used to document civilian harm caused by different belligerents in multiple conflict zones including Iraq, Syria and Ukraine – researchers have so far identified more than 2,500 separate allegations of civilian harm in Gaza. These range from incidents in which one or two civilians were reported injured to those in which more than 100 Palestinians have been reported killed.

To date more than 280 incidents have been through a rigorous six-stage verification process and are available on our website in a new archive. Due to the scale of the task and the rigour of the process, most of these relate to the first month of the war. Dozens more are published each week once they have completed the full review process. A forthcoming report will highlight key trends from those published incidents.

▲ Palestinian News & Information Agency (Wafa) in contract with APAimages, reproduced under Creative Commons

Published

January 31, 2024

Newly released documents definitively link Danish war planes to strikes that killed Libyan civilians

A joint investigation by Airwars, the Danish news site Altinget and The Guardian has sparked a review of civilian harm allegations from Danish airstrikes in the 2011 war in Libya.

Published on January 25th, the two-year investigation revealed the existence of a previously secret Danish internal review of allegations of civilian harm from its more than 900 bombs dropped as part of the NATO campaign against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The military review found Danish pilots conducted strikes in incidents in which at least 14 civilians were killed. The document was produced in 2012, a year after the war, but kept from the Danish public for more than a decade.

The revelations are the first time a particular NATO country has been definitively linked to specific airstrikes that harmed civilians in Libya. You can read the news stories in English (Guardian) or Danish (Altinget), and find the full story behind the investigation.

The investigation was lead story on The Guardian’s website on January 25th

In a direct response to the investigation, Danish Minister of Defence Troels Lund Poulsen ordered the Danish Armed Forces to commit a formal review of the allegations. A top Norwegian official said such civilian harm was “unsurprising” as NATO’s targeting information was limited during the campaign in Libya.

Several Danish political parties have called for the government to establish a compensation model for civilians harmed, with Christian Friis Bach from the Radikale, emphasising: “If Danish soldiers become aware that they have conducted an airstrike resulting in unintended civilian casualties, then you should proactively take responsibility and reach out with a compensation model that has been established before the incident takes place”.

The investigation also sparked an intense conversation on the possibility of a ‘cover up’ in Copenhagen – with a focus on who knew about the internal review and when. Both the foreign minister and the defence minister at the time that the Danish armed forces concluded their review said they do not recall being briefed about the reports. The foreign minister emphasised he would have remembered, had he been told, while the defence minister referred follow-up questions to the ministry.

Then head of NATO, Rasmus Fogh Andersen – a former Danish prime minister – has refused to comment. Former Danish defence minister Hans Engell hailed the “skilful” investigation, but said the apparent cover up “threatens the credibility of the armed forces” in Denmark.

In Libya, the renowned Arabic paper Asharq Al-Awsat reported a number of politicians and human rights activists calling for action against Denmark to seek compensation for the victims.

Since the 2011 air campaign in Libya, Denmark has contributed to several international coalitions, including the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq and Syria, which Airwars estimates led to at least 8,199 civilian casualties.

In late 2023, Denmark joined the US-led ‘Operation Prosperity Guardian’ campaign targeting the Houthi forces in Yemen, in a supporting capacity. It is unclear what civilian harm mitigation tools are applied in this campaign and whether systems have been established for civilians to report potential harm from airstrikes.

Emily Tripp, Airwars’ director, said: “This investigation reveals once again that a failure in transparency over civilian harm allegations does a disservice both to the citizens in whose name such wars are fought, and to those civilians who deserve answers about which nation killed their loved ones.

“The fact that Danish officials went to the trouble of reviewing these allegations is actually a positive: very few NATO allies engage with external allegations at this level. But refusing to then share those findings with the public raises serious questions about political processes and practices both in Denmark and in the wider NATO campaign.”

 

Below is a list of some of the articles about the investigation

English

Denmark admits role in Nato airstrikes on Libya that killed 14 civilians in 2011 (Guardian)

How we exposed secretive Danish role in Libyan civilian deaths (Airwars)

 

Danish

Armed forces kept reports secret for years: Denmark likely killed civilians in Libya (Altinget)

After revelations: the Ministry of Defence reopens its Libya investigation after more than 10 years (Altinget)

Parties in the aftermath of the Libya disclosure: Denmark should prepare for possible lawsuits (Altinget)

Podcast: How it was revealed that Denmark likely killed civilians in Libya (Danish)

‘Son of a bitch!’ exclaims former UN investigator: withheld Libya reports includes all the answers we requested (Altinget)

Former Danish Defence Minister Hans Engell: The Libya disclosures once again threatens the credibility of the armed forces  (Altinget)

‘News of that magnitude remains in the mind’: former foreign minister does not recall being briefed about the Libya case (Altinget)

Former top Norwegian diplomat on possible civilian casualties in Libya: ‘unfortunately not surprising’ (Altinget)

https://www.berlingske.dk/internationalt/forargelse-efter-afsloering-af-hemmelig-rapport-om-mulige-danske

Outrage after disclosure of secret report on possible Danish killings of civilians: “Deeply worrying” (Berlingske)

Politiken’s Defence Editor: There was a good reason (minister) Lene Espersen would not guarantee no civilian casualties (Politiken)

 

Middle Eastern media

Denmark to probe 2011 strikes on Libya that killed 14 civilians (Arab News)

New evidence emerges from 2011 (Al Hadath Libya)

Libyans to sue Denmark on charges of killing 14 civilians during the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime (Al Sharq al-Awsat)

Danish revelations about Libya bombing 13 years ago could help victims’ families (MEMO)

▲ Journalists and locals gather next to the rubble of buildings in Tripoli, Libya, on June 19, 2011. During a government-led tour, the group was shown damaged houses and the bodies of civilians said to have been killed in a NATO coalition bombing. MAHMUD TURKIA/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

Published

December 22, 2023

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Header Image

The Dutch Ministry of Defence in the Hague.

In a major step forward, the Dutch Minister of Defence has announced a new mechanism for civilians and NGOs to report harm to civilians from Dutch airstrikes.

The announcement follows several years of advocacy and detailed discussions between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Protection of Civilians team and a consortium of NGOs including Airwars, Pax, Utrecht University, and CIVIC, in the so-called ‘Roadmap process’.

In the letter to parliament, the Dutch format for setting out policy, the Minister of Defence, Kajsa Ollongren, outlined two major commitments; one for operations that have already finished and one for future engagements. To the former, the Minister acknowledged current gaps in the MoD’s approach, emphasising; “At present there is no specific counter for NGOs and victims/next of kin to report suspicions of civilian casualties to the Netherlands. The Defense Department will therefore set up a counter where these parties can report suspicions of civilian casualties in relation to [military deployments] that are already terminated”.

The Netherlands was one of several nations who contributed with air support to the US-led anti-ISIS coalition, Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), in Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2019. Our evidence suggests that at least 8,199 civilians have likely been killed in Coalition airstrikes. The Dutch have admitted to some of these deaths – though often only after major international investigations have exposed Dutch involvement. This includes a strike on the Iraqi city of Hawijah in 2015, in which more than 85 civilians were killed, which prompted an independent inquiry and a major court case with a verdict expected in January 2024.

By establishing a dedicated civilian harm reporting mechanism, the Netherlands is following in the footsteps of the US and setting itself ahead of the other allies which contributed to OIR. This announcement comes shortly after Airwars took the UK Ministry of Defense to a tribunal, in part for its lack of clarity on mechanisms to protect civilians during its role in the same campaign.

If implemented well, this new Dutch mechanism will make it possible for civilians who have been affected by strikes to report the details directly to the Ministry of Defense. It will also provide NGOs, such as Airwars, which gather evidence of harm with a systematic approach to submitting allegations. This has long been identified by NGOs as best practice in civilian harm mitigation and response.

When it comes to civilian harm reporting in future conflicts, Ollongren states in the letter; “I consider it desirable that NGOs and victims/survivors can report to the relevant coalition. Where relevant, the Netherlands will therefore endeavor to organize this well in a coalition before the start of the Dutch contribution. Should a coalition in question be unable to adequately organize a reporting structure, Defense itself will ensure the possibility to report suspicions to the Netherlands“.

Coalitions, which have come to define engagement in recent conflict by Western states, often introduce uncertainty and bureaucratic complexity on the responsibility and accountability for civilian harm. It is notable that the Netherlands commit themselves to setting up a Dutch mechanism if a coalition one cannot be agreed upon.

As with all policy commitments, the eventual effect depends on how well it is implemented. This is particularly relevant in this case, as a new US-led coalition with Dutch participation was announced on the same day that the letter came out. The new coalition, Operation Prosperity Guardian, will respond to Yemen-based Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Yemen has seen some of the most brutal and sustained civilian harm in the last decade, from both the Houthi forces, but also the US-backed Saudi Coalition.

The Netherlands participation in this new coalition does not yet meet the threshold required for an ‘Article-100 letter’, the system by which civilian harm considerations, such as a reporting mechanism, would be announced and established. However Dutch involvement in this and future operations will be a testing ground for these new commitments, which so far puts the Netherlands apart from many of its allies.

▲ The Dutch Ministry of Defence in the Hague.

Published

November 24, 2023

Session on Wednesday November 29th vital for British military transparency

On Wednesday November 29th, the London-based civilian harm watchdog Airwars will take the UK government to a tribunal. The session is to appeal against the refusal of the Ministry of Defence and the Information Commissioner to release any details about the single civilian casualty that the UK has admitted in the past decade.

In eight years of bombing the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the UK claims to have killed more than 4,000 ISIS militants but only one civilian. In the same timeframe, the US has accepted responsibility for causing the deaths of more than 1,000 civilians.

A strike on March 26, 2018 remains the only time the UK government has officially accepted harming civilians. The Minister of Defence told parliament in May 2018 that “[d]uring a strike to engage three Daesh fighters, a civilian motorbike crossed into the strike area at the last moment and it is assessed that one civilian was unintentionally killed.”

Since then the MoD has refused to release even basic details about the incident – including the location, how it reached that designation and rejected other allegations of civilian harm, and who made the ultimate decision that the allegation was ‘credible.’

Airwars’ head of investigations Joe Dyke first filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) case requesting such details in early 2021. The Ministry of Defence rejected it, saying that releasing this information would threaten national security.

In the past three years a number of developments have made the UK’s refusal look even less transparent.

    In 2021 the United States released to The New York Times more than 1300 civilian harm assessments after a similar freedom of information case. Each document showed how the US military decided whether or not it had killed civilians in a particular incident. These are exactly the kinds of documents Airwars asked the UK to produce. Earlier this year, the Dutch Government released the coordinates of every strike Dutch pilots conducted during the anti-ISIS campaign. This led to an additional civilian harm incident being linked to the Dutch, with the country’s public prosecutor opening a legal case. The Information Commissioner, while siding with the MoD, ruled that the UK’s approach appeared less transparent than the United States. Airwars and The Guardian revealed that the incident in 2018 was not properly recorded either by the MoD or by the US-led Coalition.

The tribunal, in which Airwars is represented by Leigh Day solicitors and barrister Will Perry of Monckton Chambers, will be a vital opportunity to review whether the British public is allowed to understand how the UK decided whether those killed in their name are militants or civilians. Without this oversight, the UK will remain far behind its allies when it comes to transparency on civilian harm.

Emily Tripp, director at Airwars, said: “This tribunal is vital for the sake of basic military transparency. We still have no understanding as to how the UK military assesses whether or not their actions harmed civilians. The UK government insists that even a minimal level of transparency and openness would threaten national security.”

We are only asking for the UK to follow its allies in showing the public how these assessments are made. Without such transparency, there is no legitimacy to the Ministry of Defence’s claim that it only killed one civilian in the war against ISIS – which erodes public trust in our military institutions.”

“Our clients are concerned with a fundamental lack of transparency in how the UK assesses the risk to civilians of its air strikes before they are carried out, as well as how it investigates and assesses civilian harm after the event,” Erin Alcock of Leigh Day said. “Transparency in cases of civilian harm is vital to ensure accountability.”

The tribunal will take place in London on November 29th and 30th, with most of the open evidence to be heard on the 29th.

Journalists interested in covering tribunal that require further details can contact Joe Dyke, who led the initial appeal, on josephdyke [at] airwars.org

▲ A satellite image of the location where the US-led Coalition investigated the strike on March 26, 2018, ultimately concluding there was no Coalition strike that day.

Published

July 14, 2023

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Header Image

UN Headquarters in Geneva (photo from Wikimedia Commons)

New UN Human Rights Council study emphasises importance of casualty recording for human rights

A breakthrough United Nations report outlining the importance of casualty recording for the protection and promotion of human rights has received nearly universal support at the Human Rights Council’s 53rd session.

The report, which linked casualty recording and human rights obligations directly, received widespread support at the council on July 3rd – with 19 states and observers expressing support for the findings and recommendations. Only one state, Venezuela, expressed objections.

The study will create pressure on states – many of which have previously expressed confusion and hesitancy regarding their obligations around casualty recording – to do more to monitor the civilian impact of conflict.

Setting the tone for the Council session, the report from the High Commissioner for Human Rights recommended that states: “ensure that casualty recording systems and policies are in place and report publicly on all casualties believed to have resulted from hostilities or violence and their circumstances, including for reparations and accountability”.

If implemented, such measures would create a global best practice around casualty monitoring. There is currently little transparency about how states record casualties from their own actions, and state militaries often face accusations of undercounting the civilian impact of their actions.

In the United Kingdom, for example, the Ministry of Defence refuses to publicly disclose details on its own mechanism for casualty recording in the war against ISIS. Airwars is challenging this position in a tribunal later this year.

The importance of casualty recording 

The High Commissioner’s report emphasised; “Casualty recording is an important and effective means of delivering on a range of fundamental human rights”. The report further notes: “In addition to disciplinary and accountability measures, such information can be used to foster compliance with international law, including by changing practices and behaviour and enhancing training to this end.”

The US delegation reflected on casualty recording in Ukraine, acknowledging that: “we still do not know the full picture. For that reason, we must advance efforts to create a comprehensive casualty recording system that accounts for all casualties, both civilian and military.”

The delegation went on to emphasise that the US is keen to “aid the international community in developing a casualty reporting mechanism at the international level to contribute to equal access to justice for all”

The support for casualty recording is particularly significant in the context of other successes for civilian protections at the UN last week. In a statement welcoming the report on casualty recording, 56 states of the ‘Group of Friends of R2P’ emphasised the connection between casualty recording and atrocity prevention.

A week earlier, a resolution was adopted at the General Assembly creating an independent institution to examine the fate of all people who are missing in Syria. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011, an estimated 130,000 people have gone missing or been forcibly disappeared.

The moves at the UN follow other international assertions on the importance of casualty recording. The Explosive Weapons Declarations, signed by nearly 90 states in November last year, urges states to “record and track civilian casualties, and [ensure] the use of all practicable measures to ensure appropriate data collection.” The US’ Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMRAP), which is widely seen as one of the most ambitious and detailed national policies on this topic, highlights that “developing standardized reporting procedures for operational data to inform civilian harm assessments …will improve DoD’s ability to mitigate and respond to civilian harm.”

The work of independent civil society organisations

Airwars has been collaborating with civil society organisations, particularly Every Casualty Counts and other partners in the Casualty Recorder’s Network, to present evidence for the Human Rights Council report over the last year.

Last year, Every Casualty also released a hard hitting report outlining the requirements for casualty recording across legal regimes. It found that “international humanitarian and human rights law contain extensive requirements regarding states’ duties to account for the dead and missing in armed conflict and other situations of gross human rights violations… these duties are universally binding on all states.”

The work of these organisations was emphasised throughout the report. On the work of Airwars, the report highlighted our work with the US military and Government in particular, highlighting that: “more than 70 per cent of United States internal inquiries into civilian casualties caused by air strikes in the Syrian Arab Republic and Iraq since 2014 have been based on casualty recording submitted by Airwars.”

The report also drew attention to the advocacy work of organisations like Airwars, writing: “…following years of advocacy and engagement based in part on [Airwars’] findings on casualties in Iraq, Libya, Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen, the United States Department of Defense issued the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan in August 2022.”

We welcome the findings of the report on casualty recording and the widespread support it received at the Human Rights Council last week. It brings clarity to the requirements on states and reaffirms, at an international level, the importance of accurately recording and reporting on casualties in warfare.

▲ UN Headquarters in Geneva (photo from Wikimedia Commons)

Published

July 3, 2023

Written by

Anna Zahn and Clarie Alspektor

Header Image

DoD photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Julian Kemper

Civil society demands transparency over latest US military civilian harm investigation

On June 29th 2023, Airwars joined 20 human rights, humanitarian and civilian protection organisations in sending a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin calling for greater commitments to transparency and due process over its on-going investigation into the May 3rd strike in Syria that killed Lutfi Hassan Masto.

Within hours of the US strike local sources reported that Masto was a civilian, not the ‘senior Al-Qaeda leader’ the US military claimed him to be.

▲ DoD photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Julian Kemper

Published

June 5, 2023

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Header Image

Hawijah's industrial area in 2021, showing the damage and destruction that remained widespread (Image via Roos Boer, PAX)

On the eighth anniversary of the Dutch airstrike that destroyed the Iraqi town of Hawijah, the Netherlands faces a crossroad on its approach to the protection of civilians.

On the night of June 2nd 2015, the Dutch military released a munition on an ISIS car bomb factory in the Iraqi city of Hawijah. The strike lit 18,000 kg of TNT hidden in the factory, causing an immense secondary explosion; in an instant, at least 70 civilians were reported killed and an entire section of the city was reduced to rubble.

The pilots who had conducted the strike immediately reported the extensive destruction of Hawjiah to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Just two weeks later, the US Central Command of the coalition that the Dutch were contributing to, submitted a report to the MoD emphasising that reports of over 70 civilians killed were credible. Regardless of these reports, the Minister of Defence made statements to parliament claiming that the strikes had caused no collateral damage.

Four years later, under significant media and civil society pressure, the Government acknowledged the civilian harm that had occurred.

In the years since, the Netherlands has done much work to review its policy framework on civilian harm mitigation, tracking, and response. But the independent inquiry set up to look into the incident in 2020 has yet to release its report, and key members of the investigating team have stepped away from the process. Last month, fresh revelations about civilian harm allegations once again made headlines in the Netherlands – though the Minister of Defense still told parliament that an independent examination of the full Dutch campaign was not needed.

Airwars is one of a small group of NGOs who meet routinely with the Dutch MoD to advise on where improvements could be made with regards to its policies and practices on civilian protection. This article reflects on the steps taken since the deadly Hawijah strike, and highlights some of the critical gaps and questions that remain.

The rubble of a building in Hawijah (courtesy of Roos Boer, PAX)

Accountability to the people of Hawijah

In an effort to hold themselves accountable for the harm caused in Hawijah, the Dutch Government and MoD have taken a dual approach. On the one hand, a commission was launched in 2020, named after its lead, Minister of State Winnie Sorgdrager. The Sorgdrager commission aims to investigate the Dutch strike itself, and the civilian harm that followed, rather than the political decisions around the incident.

In parallel, the Government donated a ‘voluntary compensation’ of €4.4million to two international organisations, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) in order for these to deliver aid and development programmes in Hawijah.

In both processes, the Dutch government has been accused of excluding key local voices. When researchers from the charity PAX travelled to Hawijah in 2021, they read a statement to the Mayor and local NGO coordinators from the MoD on the implementation of the IOM project, which had allegedly started in May 2021 with “local authority…closely involved in every step of the way”, only to look up to shocked faces from the key local stakeholders who were apparently unaware of the project and said that they had never been consulted.

PAX’s findings also emphasised that the priorities for response outlined by the people of Hawijah remained unaddressed by the Dutch Government. Namely: an apology from the Dutch Government, and individual compensation payments. Many of those affected by the 2015 blast lost businesses, homes, and sources of livelihood, while simultaneously facing mounting medical bills. For these individuals, a community wide programme focused on restoring access to electricity and demining the city may provide some benefits – but was said to be inappropriate support to individuals harmed by the Dutch strike.

At the same time, the Sorgdrager Commission is experiencing major challenges in fulfilling its own mandate, with two out of three members of the commission apparently no longer able to give time on a regular basis. There remains little clarity on when the report from the Commission will be published, how the investigation has been carried out, and whether or not the voices of civilians in Hawijah have been listened to and taken into account.

Transparency on targeting and civilian harm tracking systems

In addition to the process of attempting to bring accountability to those in Hawijah, the Dutch MoD has been engaging in a process of reviewing its policy framework on civilian harm mitigation, tracking, and response, with a consortium of civil society organisations including PAX, Airwars, CIVIC, Open State Foundations and experts at the University of Utrecht.

The ‘Roadmap Process’ has led to notable progress in some key areas; this incudes an additional paragraph on the risks to civilians from Dutch military action in the reporting requirements outlined in Article 100 of the Dutch constitution. As a result of consistent pressure from the consortium of civil society groups and pressure from the media, the MoD also recently released details of all strikes conducted during their contribution to the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq and Syria. While this data does not include information on civilian harm, it is an important step in the right direction.

This model of consistent, structured engagement between civil society organisations, many of whom provide a direct link to those affected by Dutch military action, and the MoD serves as a model of inspiration for many of the Netherland’s allies, where Ministries of Defence are less willing to engage in structured engagement, including Belgium and the UK.

However, whilst these are positive steps in the right direction, there are also causes for concern. The same media outlets which revealed Dutch responsibility for the Hawijah blast in 2019, recently published evidence of a further strike in Mosul in 2016, which killed at least 7 civilians. This highlights the importance of continuing to examine allegations of harm from Dutch strikes in the anti-ISIS coalition – as well as the importance of ensuring that the MoD and Government have systems in place to effectively communicate about harm when it is uncovered.

In response to the newest allegations of civilian harm, The Minister of Defence announced a new inquiry into the attack, as well as the aforementioned release of data on Dutch strikes. Yet just a few weeks later, she revealed  that she “see[s] no reason” for wider independent examinations into Dutch involvement in strikes which may have caused civilian harm during the anti-ISIS coalition. A system that is only reactive rather than proactive in addressing civilian harm falls below the standards that Airwars and many of its civil society partners have long identified as best practice.

Moving forward

As we review the Dutch approach to civilian harm mitigation and tracking eight years on from Hawijah, we’re facing positive changes in commitments and outlook, as well as some positive policy reforms. At the same time, we are also facing a city that remains destroyed, with rubble still littering the streets, and a population that is being told that the development programmes which were launched in response to the strike in June 2015 have made great strides – a claim many do not recognise.

This is in no way a unique challenge with Dutch military policy. It speaks to the wider lack of transparency and accountability that permeates so much of modern warfare.

The Netherlands stands out insofar as they now face a crossroads: they can either use the positive changes from the last few years, including the establishment of the Roadmap Process, to become a European leader on civilian harm tracking. Or they fail to implement needed changes in their systems and instead continue to widen the gap between rhetoric and reality on the ground when it comes to civilian harm from Dutch actions.

 

Read more about our coverage of Dutch actions below:

    Dutch Parliament set to debate improvements in policies to protect civilians (2022) After Hawija: Dutch Ministry of Defence maps route forward (2022) Fresh revelations show Hawijah’s people are still far from receiving answers on deadly 2015 Dutch airstrike (2021) After Hawija: The way forward for the Dutch Ministry of Defence (2021) “Some families were completely wiped out”: The Mayor of Hawijah speaks out (2020) Dutch F-16 pilots break their silence on airstrikes and civilian harm (2020) Dutch Ministry of Defence promises significant transparency changes (2019) Investigation accuses Dutch military of involvement in 2015 Iraq airstrike which led to deaths of 70 civilians (2019) ‘That’s just how we do it.’ Minister upholds court’s decision not to identify Dutch civilian harm events (2018) Refusal by The Netherlands Defence Ministry to identify specific civilian harm events impedes natural justice, and runs counter to actions by other Coalition allies (2018) The renewed Netherlands mission against ISIS risks the lowest levels of public transparency and accountability among allies in a very different war (2017) Netherlands airstrikes in Iraq and Syria: Towards improved transparency and public accountability (2016)
▲ Hawijah's industrial area in 2021, showing the damage and destruction that remained widespread (Image via Roos Boer, PAX)

Published

May 18, 2023

Written by

Airwars Staff

Header Image

Співробітник ДСНС дивиться на будівлю мерії на центральній площі міста після обстрілу Харкова, Україна, вівторок, 1 березня 2022 р. (AP Photo/Pavel Dorogoy)

Архів загиблих і поранених мирних жителів Харківської області є на сьогодні одним з найґрунтовніших документів у відкритому доступі.

Мати, яка загинула, тримаючи свою дитину в обіймах; літня жінка, яку вразив уламок, коли вона годувала бездомних котів; сім’я, похована під завалами протягом кількох тижнів – це одні із сотень спустошливих людських історій, які містить новий дослідницький портал Airwars про війну в Україні. На сьогодні він є одним з найбільш детальних документів у відкритому доступі про вплив війни на цивільне населення.

Протягом дев’яти місяців нова дослідницька група “Airwars” по Україні ретельно задокументувала кожне оприлюднене повідомлення про заподіяну шкоду цивільному населенню від вибухової зброї під час “битви за Харків”, що тривала від початку російського вторгнення 24 лютого до 13 травня 2022 року.

Дані можна вивчати на порталі Airwars  за допомогою інтерактивної карти, бази даних щодо цивільних жертв та теплової карти міста. Наші висновки доступні у повному дослідницькому звіті, що супроводжується методологічною нотаткою. Проєкт було створено як приклад для побудови публічно доступної бази даних з відкритих джерел про жертви серед цивільного населення в Україні. Цифри не претендують на вичерпність та остаточність.

Серед ключових висновків були такі:

    Протягом досліджуваного періоду було повідомлено про загибель щонайменше 275 і до 438 цивільних осіб внаслідок використання вибухових засобів. Крім того, було повідомлено про поранення від 471 до 829 цивільних осіб. У випадках, коли  місцеві джерела надавали більше детальну інформацію про жертв, “Airwars” встановив, що щонайменше 30 дітей, 52 жінки і 61 чоловік були ймовірно вбиті російськими військами. Щонайменше у 60 випадках (майже третина усіх інцидентів) цивільні, які загинули або були поранені внаслідок артилерійських обстрілів та ударів російською артилерією, перебували у своїх помешканнях. Війна мала руйнівний вплив на інфраструктуру у всьому місті. Щонайменше 16 випадків завдавання шкоди цивільному населенню пов’язані з обстрілом або ударом російської артилерії по лікарнях та інших медичних закладах. У 95% повідомлених інцидентів про завдану цивільному населенню шкоду  не було жодних супутніх повідомлень про військові жертви або пошкодження військових об’єктів попри заяви Росії про те, що вони атакують лише  військові об’єкти. Найжахливіший випадок заподіяння шкоди цивільному населенню було зафіксовано 9 березня в Ізюмі. Внаслідок ударів і артилерійському обстрілу по п’ятиповерховому будинку загинуло від 44 до 54 цивільних осіб, включаючи до шести дітей. У порівнянні з іншими конфліктами, які відстежувала “Airwars”, було значно менше публічно названих жертв – швидше за все, це результат політики українського уряду щодо захисту даних і конфіденційності.

Знімок інтерактивної бази даних Airwars про жертви серед цивільного населення в Харкові

Битва за Харків

“Airwars” є провідною світовою організацією, яка відстежує вплив військових конфліктів на цивільне населення, і вже десять років відслідковує наслідки військового втручання в конфлікти, в тому числі втручання коаліції під проводом США проти Ісламської держави та російських військових в Сирії.

Війна в Україні призвела до безпрецедентного зосередження уваги на заподіяній шкоді цивільному населенню, але масштаби насильства перевищили всі механізми оцінки жертв. Було запущено численні проєкти, які містять як дослідження з відкритих джерел інформації, так і розслідування на місцевості. Ці спроби підрахунку втрат є кумулятивними, кожна з яких висуває різні деталі на перший план. Метою таких зусиль є, зрештою, створення доказової бази для встановлення справедливості та притягнення до відповідальності, одночасно створюючи  уявлення про масштаби втрат.

Після консультацій з міжнародними та українськими партнерами щодо прогалин у такому обліку втрат “Airwars” зосередила свою пілотну програму на битві за Харків.

Друге за розміром місто України, Харків, є одним з найбільш постраждалих міст під час війни. Розташоване приблизно за 40 км від російського кордону, з великою кількістю російськомовного населення і тісними зв’язками з російською економікою, місто було ключовою ціллю агресора з початку російського вторгнення 24 лютого 2022 року.

Коли російські війська вторглися в Україну з різних напрямків, тисячі військових увійшли до Харківської області. Міста і села зазнали сильних обстрілів. За кілька тижнів ключові міста області, зокрема, Ізюм, Куп’янськ та Балаклія, було окуповано російськими військами.

Сам Харків ніколи не був окупований, але, натомість, став ареною інтенсивних боїв та массової евакуації.

В кінці квітня 2022 року українські війська розпочали контрнаступ у Харківській області. До 13 травня російські війська були витіснені з околиць міста – битва за Харків була оголошена виграною. Ще кілька місяців знадобилося українським військам, щоб повернути інші окуповані Росією  міста в Харківській області.

Людські страждання

Дослідження “Airwars”, яке проводила наша українська дослідницька група протягом дев’яти місяців, передбачало ретельний збір усіх публічно оприлюднених подробиць щодо вчинення шкоди цивільному населенню. Загалом дослідники відстежили 200 випадків завдання шкоди цивільному населенню, заподіяної вибуховою зброєю за цей період. Кожен із них має власну спеціальну оцінку та сторінку на вебсайті “Airwars”. Майже у всіх випадках російська військова агресія зазначалася як єдина відповідальна сторона.

Ці випадки розповідають про загальну картину війни, а також про окремі страждання. Сусіди, які загинули, обідаючи разом, 96-річна жертва Голокосту, яка загинула вдома – жахливі історії, які складаються в більш широку картину.

17 березня 2022 року мати загинула, коли її будинок був обстріляний вночі. За повідомленнями, вона тримала на руках свою чотирирічну доньку, щоб захистити її. Дитина вижила.

Дослідники “Airwars” також відстежували пошкодження інфраструктури, причому заклади охорони здоров’я були одними з найбільш поширених об’єктів атак. “Airwars” задокументувала пошкодження 16 закладів охорони здоров’я під час інцидентів, у яких також загинули чи були поранені цивільні особи. Серед них були лікарні, пункт донорства крові, аптека, а також швидка допомога. 3 березня сирійський лікар, відомий як гінеколог з міста Дейр-ез-Зор, загинув, коли, за попередніми даними, російський міномет вдарив по Харківській обласній лікарні.

За схемою, схожою на ту, про яку часто повідомляють у Сирії, Airwars також відстежила три повідомлення про так звані “подвійні удари”, коли за ударом слідує другий раунд ударів в той час, коли екстрені служби або мирні мешканці перебувають на місці інциденту.

У 95% випадків постраждали лише цивільні особи

Ключовою дискусією протягом війни було те, в якій мірі російські війська завдавали ударів по легітимних військових цілях. Російські офіційні особи звинувачують Україну в розміщенні військових цілей поблизу цивільного населення, тоді як Україна стверджує, що удари є навмисно невибірковими.

Наші дані показують, що в 94,5% випадків, коли було повідомлено про загибель або поранення цивільних осіб (189 інцидентів), місцеві джерела повідомляли, що цивільні особи були єдиними жертвами російської агресії, і не згадували жодних військових об’єктів чи загиблих українських військовослужбовців.

Хоча оприлюдення інформації про втрати серед українських військових заборонено згідно з українським законодавством, що, можливо, пояснює відносно низькі показники військових втрат, цей висновок перегукується з іншими повідомленнями правозахисних організацій, таких як Human Rights Watch.

Українське інформаційне середовище відрізняється від інших конфліктів, за якими стежить “Airwars”, відсутністю відомостей про особисті дані жертв. В українському медіапросторі згадується мало імен жертв, а також наявна лише обмежена інформація про їх стать, вік або професію. Це значно відрізняється від інших конфліктів, які відстежує “Airwars”, включаючи авіаудари США в Ємені та Іраку, російські бомбардування в Сирії та ізраїльські бомбардування в Газі та Сирії, і створює перешкоди у більш грунтовному обліку жертв.

Наприклад, за один інтенсивний місяць бомбардувань сирійського міста Алеппо російськими та сирійськими урядовими військами в липні 2016 року наша команда відстежила 76 різних інцидентів, в яких постраждало цивільне населення, і там ми встановили ідентичність 187 жертв. У березні 2022 року в Харківській області ми відстежили 70 окремих інцидентів, пов’язаних із завданням шкоди цивільному населенню внаслідок російських ударів, але загалом встановили ідентичність лише 37 жертв.

Існує низка потенційних причин цього браку інформації. Ключовим фактором є політика України щодо захисту приватності, яку влада застосовує для захисту особистих даних цивільних осіб. Вона дозволяє оприлюднювати імена лише за згодою жертви або її/його сім’ї.

У Іраку, Лівії, Сомалі та Сирії такі офіційні структури або відсутні, або не викликають довіру серед цивільного населення. У зв’язку з цим цивільні особи були змушені заповнювати прогалини – публікувати дані про загиблих у соціальних мережах, зокрема у Facebook. В той час, Україна має дієву державу зі структурами безпеки, розслідування, судово-експертної та медично-правової експертизи, які працювали над обліком цивільних постраждалих ще з початку російської агресії проти країни.

(Translated to Ukrainian by Igor Corcevoi and Iryna Chupryna)

Основною мовою “Airwars” є англійська. У разі виникнення питань, пов’язаних з цим документом, будь ласка, перегляньте нашу англомовну версію тут або зв’яжіться з нами за адресою info@airwars.org

▲ Співробітник ДСНС дивиться на будівлю мерії на центральній площі міста після обстрілу Харкова, Україна, вівторок, 1 березня 2022 р. (AP Photo/Pavel Dorogoy)