The Syrian conflict has been characterised by two things: an indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force in populated areas, and a lack of precautionary measures to minimise civilian harm. Civilians are deliberately targeted and trapped under siege with even life-saving assistance refused entry.
Yet while a lack of respect for civilians in Syria is universally condemned, a mirror image of civilian harm is found in Yemen, where the US, UK and others support Saudi-led military operations against the Houthis. And much like in Syria, the scale of destruction, civilian deaths and injuries seen in Yemen illustrates a stunning disregard for the basic rules of international humanitarian law – even if Yemeni civilians are not deliberately targeted, as Saudi Arabia claims.
The unfortunate reality for civilians in Syria and Yemen is that the parties to the conflicts, and their allies, are in a race to the bottom and – as yet – no one is putting on the brakes. There appear to be no incentives for state and non-state parties to rein in even the most harmful military misconduct. Action on Armed Violence reports a 52% global increase in civilian casualties from explosive weapons use in populated areas between 2011 and 2014. In the six months of its air campaign in Syria, Russian airstrikes have reportedly resulted in the deaths of between 1,700 and 2,000 civilians.
This scale of human suffering cannot be dismissed simply as inevitable collateral damage. International humanitarian law protects civilians and requires all parties to distinguish between civilians, and where they live, and combatants. If these rules were respected, we would not see the scale and severity of human suffering we witness today.
With its own commitments to avoid civilian casualties, and in light of its extensive security partnerships, the US is uniquely placed to apply the brakes and reverse this race to the bottom. It is often innovative and adaptable in minimising civilian harm in its military operations. For example, in Afghanistan, presented with evidence that its operations were causing civilian casualties, the US command adopted tactical measures [pdf] that spared many lives.
There are several measures President Barack Obama could take to help protect civilians in conflict. First, Obama should unequivocally reaffirm respect for the protections to which civilians are entitled. The US should be particularly mindful of the global trend of attacks on medical facilities and personnel and set an example. This means communicating clearly and explicitly the disciplinary action, legal proceedings and corrective measures in the wake of US strikes on the MSF hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
Second, the US must push towards adherence to international humanitarian law as a critical component of policy. Obama should not only ensure that harm to civilians is minimised in military operations, he should also call on allies and adversaries to do so. To this end, the US should adopt policies and measures to more systematically mitigate civilian harm across all its armed services and call on others to do the same.
Third, it is essential that safeguards against civilian harm are integrated into all US security assistance programmes. The US extends security assistance – including logistical and intelligence support, “train and equip” programmes, and arms transfers – to state and non-state allies who have mixed or unknown track records of respecting civilians.
Finally, Obama should adopt policies and measures to more systematically mitigate civilian harm across all US armed services while conditioning US cooperation with other forces on compliance with international humanitarian law and explicit efforts to minimise civilian harm. Security assistance should be part of the solution, not part of the problem, especially in relation to Yemen.
For conflicts to end, and for civilians to be safer in the meantime, deliberate effort is needed to restore respect for civilians. Bilateral and multilateral Syria and Yemen negotiations present ongoing opportunities to promote practical measures. Continuous harm to civilians can fuel reprisals and keep parties from negotiating and abiding by agreements. It exacerbates and prolongs a global humanitarian crisis. Conversely, demonstrable respect for the rules cultivates respect by others. It inspires confidence to bring parties to the table and sustain negotiations.
Obama has spoken eloquently of a rules-based international order. To ensure this legacy, now is the time to act. The World Humanitarian Summit in May provides an ideal global platform for Obama to initiate and champion a global effort to this end. Civilians cannot afford indifference to the basic rules meant to protect them.
Sam Worthington is chief executive officer of InterAction, the largest US alliance of international non-governmental organisations. For more information, InterAction’s policy brief, Civilians Under Fire: Restore Respect for International Humanitarian Law [pdf]
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
