Seeing through the rubble: The civilian impact of the use of explosive weapons in the fight against ISIS

A joint report ‘Seeing through the rubble: The civilian impact of the use of explosive weapons in the fight against ISIS‘ by Airwars and PAX examines the dire and long-lasting effects of explosive weapons on civilian populations in towns and cities, in recent international military campaigns in Mosul, Raqqa and Hawijah.

Explosive weapons kill and injure people upon use, and often have an impact that extends far beyond the time and place of the attack. They are a major driver of forced displacement – not only because of fear of death and injury and the destruction of homes, but also because of their profound impact upon critical infrastructure services such as health care, education, and water and sanitation services.

In order to better protect civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, the authors of the report call upon States to integrate the direct, indirect and reverberating effects of the use of explosive weapons into their military planning and operations, and to develop and support a strong international political declaration to better protect civilians against the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

Airwars interim better practice recommendations in response to US military assessments of civilian harm

Responding to an ongoing US Department of Defense review process on civilian harm mitigation, Airwars submitted a short interim briefing paper outlining 25 better practice recommendations. These were based primarily on our granular engagement with civilian casualty assessment cells within the US military over several years.

Our recommendations ranged from the US military ensuring wherever possible that it conducts on the ground investigations into harm allegations; to ensuring that grid references for all confirmed casualty events are made public; to rolling out best practice standards across commands and coalitions.

Refusal by The Netherlands Defence Ministry to identify specific civilian harm events impedes natural justice, and runs counter to actions by other Coalition allies

Our third briefing paper for Dutch MPs was issued after the Netherlands conceded civilian harm in Iraq in up to three incidents between 2014 and 2016 – but refused to say where or when. The paper noted that without more detail, affected Iraqis would never know that Dutch aircraft were responsible for their loved ones being harmed – and could therefore never recieve an apology or compensation.This, we argued, ran counter to natural justice, and to the more transparent actions of Coalition allies.

Death in the City – High levels of civilian harm in modern urban warfare resulting from significant explosive weapons use

In response to requests for written submissions to an inquiry by the UK’s All Party Parliamentary Group on Explosive Threats, this Airwars paper examined recent civilian harm reporting from Mosul, Raqqa, Aleppo and Ghouta – arguing that intensity of bombardment and population desnity were the primary drivers of negative outcomes for non combatants, rather than any use of ‘dumb’ versus ‘smart’ munitions.

Renewed Netherlands mission against ISIS risks the lowest levels of public transparency and accountability among allies in a very different war

Airwars was invited to address a committee of Dutch MPs at The Hague on November 29th, to discuss issues relating to the expected resumption of Netherlands airstrikes against ISIS from January 1st 2018. Our short report made clear that the war has become far more destructive in recent months; that civilian harm had worsened; and that Dutch public transparency needed to improve to match that of other allies.

Limited Accountability: A transparency audit of the Coalition air war against so-called Islamic State

A detailed assessment of transparency and accountability issues among the 13-member alliance. The audit – commissioned by UK defence think tank the Remote Control Project – worked with four sample militaries (the US, UK, Canada and Denmark) to build a detailed understanding of how militaries track and assess civilian casualty assessments. It also gauges transparency by partner, measuring whether each ally can be held publicly accountable for its actions.

Improving Belgian transparency and public accountability in the war against Daesh

As Brussels debated whether to extend airstrikes to Syria, we submitted a short report to parliament urging improved public transparency. The report concluded that “The act of waging war rightly places onerous responsibilities upon all combatants. It is surely
right not only that nations are held accountable for their military actions – but that they are also seen to be held accountable for those actions. At present, an Iraqi or Syrian civilian has no means of knowing whether they have potentially been affected by a Belgian airstrike.”

A Reckless Disregard for Civilian Lives: Russian airstrikes in Syria

Our analysis of Russian airstrikes in Syria between September 30th and December 31st 2015 found that despite Moscow’s continuing assertions that no civilians have been killed in its ongoing Syrian air war, there were credible indications from open source reporting that to December 31st 2015 only, between 1,098 and 1,450 non-combatants had likely died in 192 separate Russian events.

Netherlands airstrikes in Syria: Towards improved transparency and public accountability

Our report submitted to the Dutch Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee argued that despite being an advanced democracy with membership both of the European Union and NATO, The Netherlands had also been one of the least transparent partners in the US-led Coalition against ISIS – a situation which has further deteriorated over time. “It is an uncomfortable fact that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have on occasion issued more
information on their anti-Daesh air campaigns than has the Netherlands,” we noted.

Cause for Concern – Hundreds of civilian non-combatants credibly reported killed in first year of Coalition airstrikes against Islamic State

Our first major report challenged claims by the US-led Coalition’s airstrikes against so-called Islamic State were not harming civilians. As we noted at the time, “Efforts to limit the risk to civilians on the ground continue to be hampered by an absence of effective transparency and accountability from almost all Coalition members. It is unacceptable that only one of twelve Coalition partners – Canada – has consistently stated in a timely fashion both where and when it carries out airstrikes.”