Afghanistan

[Laura]

On the other hand, watching how the story is morphing in the usual "damage control" way, it seems that the afghan doctor's claims may be planted propaganda.

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/05/the-radically-changing-story-of-the-u-s-airstrike-on-afghan-hospital-from-mistake-to-justification/

“MSF is disgusted by the recent statements coming from some Afghanistan government authorities justifying the attack on its hospital in Kunduz. These statements imply that Afghan and US forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were present.

“This amounts to an admission of a war crime. This utterly contradicts the initial attempts of the US government to minimize the attack as ‘collateral damage.’

“There can be no justification for this abhorrent attack on our hospital that resulted in the deaths of MSF staff as they worked and patients as they lay in their beds. MSF reiterates its demand for a full transparent and independent international investigation.”

And after the story morphed even more, to blaming on the Afghans:

“Today the US government has admitted that it was their airstrike that hit our hospital in Kunduz and killed 22 patients and MSF staff. Their description of the attack keeps changing—from collateral damage, to a tragic incident, to now attempting to pass responsibility to the Afghanistan government. The reality is the US dropped those bombs. The US hit a huge hospital full of wounded patients and MSF staff. The US military remains responsible for the targets it hits, even though it is part of a coalition. There can be no justification for this horrible attack. With such constant discrepancies in the US and Afghan accounts of what happened, the need for a full transparent independent investigation is ever more critical.”

 

[angelburst29]

I never really looked into the background of the organization, "Doctors without Borders" but came across this article:

Doctors Without Borders Aiding Globalists in Syria
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/10/doctors-without-borders-aiding.html

Back dated - October 17, 2013

[...] It is true, however, that the Syrian government has not granted DWB permission to operate inside Syria at this time. However, there may be a more justifiable reason for Assad’s refusal to allow the organization to set up camp in Syria than first meets the eye.

This is because Doctors Without Borders, along with several other internationally recognized and renowned human rights and medical charity organizations, have been clearly implicated in their cooperation with Anglo-American interests in the ginning up of a case for Western military action against Syria by misreporting and even outright lying in regards to massacres having taken place inside the country.

Indeed, DWB is maintaining a highly questionable operation in Syria – with aid distribution almost exclusively established within “rebel controlled” areas, thus allowing the death squads to soak up much of the humanitarian supply line.

Even in the AP report, DWB admits that it is currently operating six “field hospitals” in “rebel-controlled” areas and is supporting medical facilities in both areas that are controlled by the death squads and the government. Still, both the AP report and DWB imply that the Assad government is to blame by suggesting that it is stalling further aid to the Syrian people – despite recent events which prove quite the opposite.

It is important to point out, as Tony Cartalucci has done in his excellent article “’Doctors’ Behind Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims are Aiding Terrorists,” that, despite media claims that DWB is “independent,” the fact is that the organization itself is being bankrolled by many of the financier interests that clearly support Western military action against Syria.

As Cartalucci writes,

To begin with, Doctors Without Borders is fully funded by the very same corporate financier interests behind Wall Street and London’s collective foreign policy, including regime change in Syria and neighboring Iran. Doctors Without Borders’own annual report (2010 report can be accessed here), includes as financial donors, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Google, Microsoft, Bloomberg, Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital, and a myriad of other corporate-financier interests. Doctors Without Borders also features bankers upon its Board of Advisers including Elizabeth Beshel Robinson of Goldman Sachs.

In a telling interview with NPR, which Cartalucci partially quotes in his own article, the Executive Director of DWB, Stephen Cornish, admitted the fact that the organization largely has provided medical aid to the death squads not just as a matter of unbiased Hippocratic Oath-based treatment, but what appears to be a “rebel”-based program.

[...] As Cornish revealed,

Over the past months, we’ve had a surgery that was opened inside a cave. We’ve had another that was opened in a chicken farm, a third one in a house. And these structures, we’ve tried to outfit them as best as we can with enough modern technology and with full medical teams. They originally were dealing mainly with combatant injuries and people who were – civilians who were directly affected by the conflict. [emphasis added]

Even assuming that the “civilians” Cornish mentions are truly civilians, Cornish’s team has also been focused largely on “combatant injuries” which is an interesting focus considering that the teams are mainly located within death squad controlled territory.

Indeed, Cornish removes all doubt about whether or not the death squads are receiving priority care as the interview continues. Cornish states,

So it is very difficult for civilians to find care. And one of the difficulties also is that a number of smaller surgeries that have been set up are either overwhelmed with combatants or primarily taking care of combatants. And what we would certainly urge is that all surgeries and all health posts also are accommodating the civilian population.

BLOCK: You mean, in other words, that the fighters are getting priority for medical care and the civilians are suffering for that.

CORNISH: Unfortunately, that is sometimes the reality on the ground. Some of the surgeries we visited, you could tell that because not only there were no civilians on the wards, but there were also no beds or toilet facilities for women. So it’s kind of a dead giveaway.

Tony Cartalucci expertly responds to the alleged “charity” provided by DWB when he writes,

In other words, the Wall Street-funded organization is providing support for militants armed and funded by the West and its regional allies, most of whom are revealed to be foreign fighters, affiliated with or directly belonging to Al Qaeda and its defacto political wing, the Muslim Brotherhood. This so-called “international aid” organization is in actuality yet another cog in the covert military machine being turned against Syria and serves the role as a medical battalion.

Indeed, following in the footsteps of corrupted and compromised “human rights” and “charity” organizations like Human Rights Watch (see here and here) and Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders is sacrificing whatever legitimacy and trustworthiness it ever had for the benefit of wealthy donors and their Anglo-American imperialist desires.

In polite society, it is incredibly difficult to criticize an organization that uses charity, real or imagined, as a cover for more nefarious means. Although Doctors Without Borders may have done legitimate work in the past, its current position as the medical wing of the Syrian destabilization will forever mar the organization, and it should therefore be discredited as a source of information from this point forward.

 

[luc]

Well, concerning DWB I think we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater here, this may be not that black and white. Sure, it's not unlikely that the organisation is infiltrated and/or deluded about many political issues (like the majority of the population) and as such is used by the pathocrats to further their agenda, like so many other well-meaning organisations. However, this doesn't mean that there aren't good people there, doing good things. So I think instead of accusing DWB of being "agents", it might be more fruitful to take their outrage seriously and spread the word - because outraged they are, and rightly so. Maybe more people within such organisations will wake up to the fact that the chief troublemaker on the world stage is the US? That the very reason why they have to do their humanitarian work lies in the incredible inhumanity of the Western bullies? My 2 cents.

 

[angelburst29]

Speaking of the story morphing ... or I should say - Headlines.

Media Are Blamed as US Bombing of Afghan Hospital Is Covered Up
http://rinf.com/alt-news/newswire/media-are-blamed-as-us-bombing-of-afghan-hospital-is-covered-up/

A US-led NATO military coalition bombed a hospital run by international humanitarian aid organization Doctors Without Borders (known internationally as Medecins Sans Frontières, MSF) in Afghanistan, killing at least 22 people—12 staff members and 10 patients, including three children—and wounding 37 more.

AFP, the first network to report the story, in the early hours of October 3, quoted NATO saying, “US forces conducted an air strike in Kunduz city…. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility.”

MSF promptly issued a statement (10/3/15), revealing that it had been “hit several times during sustained bombing and was very badly damaged.” In an update hours later, MSF said it “condemns in the strongest possible terms the horrific bombing of its hospital in Kunduz, which was full of staff and patients.”

The humanitarian organization also indicated multiple times—and in bold capital letters—that “all parties to the conflict, including in Kabul and Washington, were clearly informed of the precise location (GPS Coordinates) of the MSF facilities in Kunduz, including the hospital, guesthouse, office and an outreach stabilization unit.” MSF says the US “repeatedly and precisely” hit the hospital.

Morever, the aid group explained that the “bombing in Kunduz continued for more than 30 minutes after American and Afghan military officials in Kabul and Washington were first informed by MSF that its hospital was struck.” That is to say, the US persisted in bombing a hospital that it explicitly knew before and during the attack was a hospital.

If you read US corporate media coverage of this incident, however, US culpability would likely not be evident. Instead, readers would learn that a hospital was bombed in Afghanistan, and that people died. Who exactly carried out the bombing would not be clear.

“Air Attacks Kill at Least 19 at Afghanistan Hospital; US Investigating,” wrote CNN (9/3/15). Who carried out those attacks? Never asked is who else could possibly have bombed the hospital. What other air forces are attacking Kunduz? Did the bombs magically fall from the sky? CNN provides no answer.

“Aerial bombardments blew apart a Doctors Without Borders hospital in the battleground Afghan city of Kunduz about the time of a US airstrike” CNN said. The blowing apart of the hospital just appears to be a temporal coincidence.

Fox News‘ headline (10/3/15) reads “US Officials Investigate Airstrike in Afghanistan That Killed at Least 19 at Doctors Without Borders Hospital.”

The New York Times completely rewrote and changed the title of its report on the bombing seven times. Early on October 3, the Times published an article headlined “Airstrike Hits Hospital in Afghanistan, Killing at Least 9.” Minutes later, it changed the headline to “Airstrike Hits Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan.” Two hours after, it became “Afghan Hospital Hit by Airstrike, Pentagon Says.” Then “US Investigates After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital,” before finalizing as “US Is Blamed After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital.”

The over 20 versions of the article published in the Times‘ website can be seen at the website NewsDiffs, which monitors edits to pieces published in large new outlets. Because the Times changed the web URL for the article when changing the headlines, there are three separate entries on NewsDiffs. (graph)

Not one of the five New York Times headlines indicated that the US was responsible for the bombing. The final title, “US Is Blamed After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital,” which was published in print, fails to acknowledge that it was the US who dropped those bombs, which explains why it is blamed.

The New York Times‘ other story (10/4/15), “Doctors Without Borders Says It Is Leaving Kunduz After Strike on Hospital,” was also substantially edited and rewritten numerous times. It’s likewise full of weasel words and quotes from the US government.

The Washington Post (10/4/15) also changed headlines and URLs for its reporting, making it difficult to track. It did choose a title acknowledging the US role in the attack, but attributed it to MSF, writing, “Doctors Without Borders Says US Airstrike Hit Hospital in Afghanistan; at Least 19 Dead.”

AP headlined an article (10/4/15) updating the death toll, “Doctors Without Borders Leaves Afghan City After Airstrike.” The piece says, “A deadly airstrike destroyed its hospital and killed 22 people, as the US and Afghan governments vowed to get to the bottom of the carnage.” Not mentioned is that the US government is responsible for the carnage.

Ambiguous, misleading and even downright dishonest language abounds throughout the coverage. US media spin the story to reflect positively on the culprit; they report that the US is investigating the atrocity, while failing to acknowledge that the US itself is responsible for the atrocity.

This technique is very reminiscent of the loaded language police departments use to downplay police brutality—language that is often repeated verbatim by journalists who just uncritically quote government press releases.

Not all media were as biased in the interest of the Pentagon, however. Even some US news outlets were clear and honest in their reporting.

Slate (10/3/15) was one of the few publications to report without the equivocation. “US Airstrike on Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan Kills at Least 19,” it said. The next day, Slate (10/4/15) followed up with the piece “Doctors Without Borders Says US May Have Committed War Crime.”

US: We Accidentally Bombed Hospital to Kill Taliban

After the attack, MSF released a statement saying “All indications currently point to the bombing being carried out by international Coalition forces”—that is to say, NATO.

As details became clearer, the media narrative began to shift from one of obfuscation or even denial of the US bombing to one of apologism and justification. When it was obvious that the US and NATO were responsible for killing and wounding scores of people at a hospital, the US and Afghan governments began to fall back on the “human shields” excuse.

A Washington Post article (10/4/15) first titled “Afghan Official: Hospital in Airstrike Was ‘a Taliban Base,’” and subsequently changed to “Afghan Response to Hospital Bombing Is Muted, Even Sympathetic,” quotes Afghan government officials who claimed the “hospital has a vast garden, and the Taliban were there.” Yet MSF’s aforementioned statement makes it clear that the US “repeatedly and precisely” bombed the hospital, not the surrounding areas, which were “left mostly untouched.”

The aid organization also explicitly denied fighters ever being anywhere inside the hospital compound.

The aid organization also explicitly denied fighters ever being anywhere inside the hospital compound.

❝
Not a single member of our staff reported any fighting inside the hospital compound prior to the US airstrike on Saturday morning #Kunduz

— MSF International (@MSF) October 4, 2015

In a statement titled “MSF Response to Spurious Claims That Kunduz Hospital Was ‘A Taliban Base,’” the aid organization wrote:

❝
MSF is disgusted by the recent statements coming from some Afghanistan government authorities justifying the attack on its hospital in Kunduz. These statements imply that Afghan and US forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were present.

This amounts to an admission of a war crime. This utterly contradicts the initial attempts of the US government to minimize the attack as “collateral damage.”

There can be no justification for this abhorrent attack on our hospital that resulted in the deaths of MSF staff as they worked and patients as they lay in their beds. MSF reiterates its demand for a full transparent and independent international investigation.

MSF also made it clear that its hospital “is the only facility of its kind in the whole northeastern region of Afghanistan,” and that its “doctors treat all people according to their medical needs and do not make distinctions based on a patient’s ethnicity, religious beliefs or political affiliation.”

Despite MSF’s explicit denial of the allegations, US media continued to reiterate the claims of US and Afghan government officials.

Anonymous US military officials told Fox News (10/3/15) they “regret the loss” of scores of innocent lives, but “say the incident could have been avoided if the Taliban had not used the hospital as a base, and the civilians there as human shields.”

But wait, which was it? Was the bombing an accidental incident of “collateral damage,” as the government claimed at first, and as the media reverberated? Or was it a deliberate attack on the Taliban, who were supposedly firing from the hospital? It can’t be both; the two explanations contradict each other.

The fact that, when MSF’s points—and not just those of the US and Afghan governments—are considered, the human shields argument does not withstand close scrutiny aside, a blatant contradiction emerges in this narrative. The answer to this critical question remains unknown; the government, and the media that so obediently echoes it, do not clarify.

Striking, too, are are the similarities to US reporting on Israeli airstrikes. In order to justify bombing hospitals in Gaza, the US-backed Israeli government often claims Palestinian militants use the medical facilities as bases. Israel’s military—which has itself used human shields many times—then says it is justified to bomb hospitals, UN shelters and other civilians areas.

US ally and NATO member Turkey borrowed Israel’s hasbara (public relations) tactic and claimed the same about leftist Kurdish militants in order to justify its killing of Kurdish civilians.

The Wall Street Journal (10/4/15) boldly steered clear of any posturing and openly justified the US bombing of the hospital. The unsigned editorial justified the mass killing of MSF aid workers by shifting the blame onto the Taliban insurgents. It even brought up the specter of Hamas, writing, “Like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the terrorists hide near civilians. These Taliban tactics put the medical personnel and patients at risk.” The piece waxes poetic, and hagiographic; in a moment of undiluted American exceptionalism on blast, the Journal claimed that “no force in the history of warfare has done more to avoid civilian casualties than the American military.”

Remove references to the US and the Taliban in such media coverage, replace it with blanks, and you have a template media can use any time a US ally bombs civilians—A Guide to Defending War Crimes Committed by US Allies: “[Ally] did not actually want to bomb [civilian area], but [enemy] forced it to.”

Double Standards

When US enemies like Russia carry out airstrikes, all nuance is thrown out the window; US media drop their standards and gleefully accuse the enemies of war crimes. Yet when the US and NATO carry out airstrikes, journalists suddenly have a newfound skepticism. Their language immediately becomes ambiguous, their writing unclear; murky passages written in the passive voice are ubiquitous.

Official international bodies have not minced words about the bombing, nevertheless. The UN says the US attack on the Kunduz hospital was “inexcusable and possibly even criminal” (Australia’s ABC, 10/4/15). UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein remarked, “If established as deliberate in a court of law, an airstrike on a hospital may amount to a war crime.”

MSF said the attack “constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law.” The aid group called the bombing a “war crime” and “a grave violation of International Humanitarian Law.”

The humanitarian organization is demanding an investigation “by an independent international body,” not by the US, noting that “relying only on an internal investigation by a party to the conflict would be wholly insufficient.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald (Intercept, 10/3/15) pointed out the hypocrisy of the US warning about civilian casualties of Russian airstrikes while it bombs scores of doctors and patients in Afghanistan, a country it has militarily occupied for close to 15 years.

When Russia denies killing civilians in its airstrikes on Syria, US media are suddenly skeptical and thorough; yet when the US government makes the same claims, journalists just recycle its press releases.

Is the job of the media to just uncritically report what favored governments say? Or is it supposed to examine the truth of official claims? If it is supposed to be the latter, US media have abysmally failed in their duties in reporting on the US bombing of MSF’s Kunduz hospital.

 

[mabar]

Is the job of the media to just uncritically report what favored governments say? Or is it supposed to examine the truth of official claims? If it is supposed to be the latter, US media have abysmally failed in their duties in reporting on the US bombing of MSF’s Kunduz hospital.

Is the job of the (payed/embedded) media to just uncritically report what favored governments say, to me is an statement, and I do not think the US media (and so worldwide media that goes with the same line, in this country is same) are failing in their duties, they should be giving an star, they do it quite well to deceive people, is their purpose on life. I wonder, as if the author wouldn't had known.

 

[angelburst29]

If I'm reading this news idem correctly, U.S. and NATO may have shot themselves in the foot again, by bombing the Kunduz Hospital?
Afghanistan is requesting Russian assistance to counter terrorist activities.

Afghanistan needs Russia’s military-technical assistance to combat terrorism — senator
http://tass.ru/en/world/826624

Afghanistan asks for help and support in military equipment, ammunition, helicopters stressing that terrorists would not have succeeded in Kunduz, if the Afghan military had helicopters.

MOSCOW, October 6. /TASS/. Afghanistan needs Russia’s military-technical assistance to effectively counter terrorism on its territory, member of the Federation Council upper house committee on International Affairs Igor Morozov told TASS on Tuesday commenting on the results of today’s meeting with members of the Afghan parliament.

According to the senator, the Afghan parliamentarians "fully supported Russia’s actions in Syria." They also voiced concern over the intensification of terrorist activities in the Middle East. "Our Afghan counterparts asked Russia to provide military and technical assistance," Morozov said. "Today they ask for help and support from Russia in military equipment, ammunition, helicopters stressing that terrorists would not have succeeded in Kunduz, if the Afghan military had helicopters," he added.

The senator recalled that "it was the Americans who stopped the joint [Russian-Afghan] program to train helicopter pilots, to equip the Afghan armed forces with Russian helicopters, spare parts and ammunition." According to him, the Afghan lawmakers complained that during the period of time the US military stayed in Afghanistan "life did not change for the better, and the army remained unprepared."

Morozov noted that there were no restrictions now for providing military and technical assistance to Afghanistan. "Since Islamic State [a terrorist group banned in Russia — TASS] openly declared the transfer of its terrorist activities to other countries, for us a danger emerges of militants’ transition to the territories of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan," the senator said. "We need to suppress terrorism far away from Russia’s borders, so cooperation with Afghanistan should be organized by all means," the senator said.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

From Gawan

There is another story unfolding and at least in Germany where Sputnik reported from a doctor, who doesn't like to be named and claims he is Afghan origin and a doctor not on duty during the said attack of the US. He claims, that all international doctors fled the hospital before and only Afghan doctors where left in the hospital. He further claims that the hospital was overtaken by the Taliban and taken then back again recently and that they treated Taliban soldiers from time to time too.

As some may know I have been working for many years for DWB, and still am. I posted on DWB on several occasions on the forum and am critical of them. there is a lot to say about the organization, such as their policy on vaccination, HIV treatment for all, and many more medical issues, where they are clearly advocating traditional western medicine. For me I tend to choose work for them where I consider them the best - as an ambulance in areas where there are no ambulances, where wounded and sick are picked up, saved and given a chance to live on. This said, I might be biased, despite the critical attitude I have.

The above quote seems from my experience to refer a pretty standard situation. It was 2 am and probably the night shift in the OT, operation theatre, was indeed working with Afghan staff only. In fact after 30 years of war the best war surgeons are to be found in Afghanistan and other similar contexts - no Western doctor can match them - especially when not all the modern gadgets are available. The international staff existing out of coordinators (logistics, administration, supply, negotiation) where probably at the time asleep in the bunker in the guest house, close to the hospital but not in the hospital.(the organization on the ground exists often out of more then 50% non medical staff) A international doctor on duty, supervisor, on call, would probably in the bunker inside the hospital or more likely was doing triage, where is decided who needs to be operate on first, who can be stabilized, and who not and will just receive palliative medication. In a war situation the triage is the most crucial aspect - and the hardest - it is there where it is decided who makes a change to survive, and who don't. It is also there, in the triage, where possible hostilities can occur, when soldiers bring in their commander and demand priority treatment, even if the commander is beyond saving. It is crucial that international staff are at all time present in the triage as local people might be put under pressure that they cannot handle. the triage is not done in the area of the operation theatre - probably it was in another building in the compound. Note that all the bomb fell on one particular building (which is the main argument why Taliban were NOT present in the compound, as you would have to be utterly stupid to remain for one hour in the same building and not spread out. After decades of fighting the Taliban for sure know how NOT to be sitting ducks)

That the hospital was treating wounded taliban, in that period of active fighting, is obvious. But once a fighter is wounded, no matter to who he belongs, is no longer consider a active combatant, and is protected by the Geneva conventions regulating the conduct of war. A wounded combatant does no longer belong to a faction, he is a non combatant. So DWB was not treating Taliban as such, it was treated wounded soldiers that cannot longer belong to a faction. Of course with the stance of the US on non legal combattants, they would still consider a wounded Taliban as a non legal combattant - as for the US the geneva conventions do not apply to non legal entities.

Consider the funding - although 80% of the funding of DWB comes from private donations, there is still about 20% coming from governments and large corporations (which they donate for their corporate image). Despite the fact that DWB has very strict rules on this kind of donations, most importantly that it cannot buy any influence on operational decisions, especially the funding coming out of the US branch can raise questions. And indeed also the supervisory board of the US branch has some members that might be questionable. It is clear that over the years the work of DWB in Gaza and the Westbank has received intense scrutiny and that some statements on the conflict have received massive pressure from certain groups in the US.

I am not very familiar with the work of DWB in Syria, but it is true that despite intense negotiations with the Syrian Government the organization was never allowed to work on the Government side, not because they did not want to, but because permission was never granted. As such they ended up on one side of the frontline, which is never good, and which DWB always tries to avoid.

 

[Joe]

Well, concerning DWB I think we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater here, this may be not that black and white. Sure, it's not unlikely that the organisation is infiltrated and/or deluded about many political issues (like the majority of the population) and as such is used by the pathocrats to further their agenda, like so many other well-meaning organisations. However, this doesn't mean that there aren't good people there, doing good things. So I think instead of accusing DWB of being "agents", it might be more fruitful to take their outrage seriously and spread the word - because outraged they are, and rightly so. Maybe more people within such organisations will wake up to the fact that the chief troublemaker on the world stage is the US? That the very reason why they have to do their humanitarian work lies in the incredible inhumanity of the Western bullies? My 2 cents.

Exactly, and the doctors in this case were simple Afghan doctors that were simply "members" of that international org. and had received funding from them. The fact that the doctors in question are stridently calling the bombing a "war crime" argues for their honesty.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

MSF demands Kunduz war crimes probe - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34463608

Aid agency Medecins Sans Frontieres is seeking to invoke a never-used body to investigate the US bombing of its hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz. MSF said it did not trust internal military inquiries into the bombing that killed at least 22 people. The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission was established in 1991 under the Geneva Conventions.

emphasis mine

She clarified that the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC) was "the only permanent body set up specifically to investigate violations on an international humanitarian law". "We ask signatory states to activate the commission to establish the truth and to reassert the protected status of hospitals in conflicts," she added.

about the IHFCC - http://www.ihffc.org/index.asp?Language=en&page=home

The legal basis for the Commission's existence is Article 90 of the First Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions. When the Protocol was adopted in 1977, a number of safeguards for State sovereignty were built into the text, in particular that only a State having agreed by declaration to recognise the competence of the Commission can unilaterally request an inquiry, and only against another State having made the same declaration. So far, 76 States have made that declaration: about half of the parties to Protocol I and more than a third of the parties to the Geneva Conventions. But in addition, the Commission may offer its good offices in order to re-establish a situation of respect for international humanitarian law. This gives the Commission an active role in the settlement of disputes concerning the respect of international humanitarian law - which the Commission uses.

The Commission is well positioned in the international community. It enjoys the support of the United Nations, expressed in a number of General Assembly resolutions, of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent movement as well as of intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations.

The Commission has a specific profile. It is composed of fifteen personalities elected as individuals by the States having recognised its competence. They are diplomats, military officers, medical doctors and academic specialists in international humanitarian law from four continents. It is an impartial body which has no political agenda of its own. It is not related to the Security Council with its enforcement powers (unless the Security Council decides to have recourse to the services of the Commission) nor to the International Criminal Court with its powers to initiate a criminal prosecution. Its approach to fact-finding is co-operative. It will assist the parties to a conflict to redress a situation where international humanitarian law may have been violated, and thus help to promote the rule of law in international relations and create conditions conducive to peace.

the member states - the US is not a member.

Country Member since
Algeria 16.08.1989
Argentina 11.10.1996
Australia 23.09.1992
Belarus 23.10.1989
Belgium 27.03.1987
Bolivia 10.08.1992
Bosnia and Herzegovina 31.12.1992
Brazil 23.11.1993
Bulgaria 09.05.1994
Burkina Faso 24.05.2004
Canada 20.11.1990
Cape Verde 16.03.1995
Chile 24.04.1991
Colombia 17.04.1996
Cook Islands 07.11.2002
Costa Rica 02.12.1999
Croatia 11.05.1992
Cyprus 14.10.2002
Czech Republic 02.05.1995
Democratic Republic of the Congo 12.12.2002
Denmark 17.06.1982
Estonia 20.02.2009
Finland 07.08.1980
Germany 14.02.1991
Greece 04.02.1998
Guinea 20.12.1993
Hungary 23.09.1991
Iceland 10.04.1987
Ireland 19.05.1999
Italy 27.02.1986
Japan 31.08.2004
Kuwait 21.06.2013
Laos 30.01.1998
Lesotho 13.08.2010
Liechtenstein 10.08.1989
Lithuania 13.07.2000
Luxemburg 12.05.1993
Madagascar 27.07.1993
Malawi 10.01.2014
Mali 09.05.2003
Malta 17.04.1989
Monaco 26.10.2007
Mongolia 06.12.1995
Namibia 21.07.1994
Netherlands 26.06.1987
New Zealand 08.02.1988
Norway 14.12.1981
Panama 26.10.1999
Paraguay 30.01.1998
Poland 02.10.1992
Portugal 01.07.1994
Qatar 24.09.1991
Republic of Korea 16.04.2004
Republic of Montenegro 02.08.2006
Romania 31.05.1995
Russia 29.09.1989
Rwanda 08.07.1993
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 04.11.2013
Serbia 16.10.2001
Seychelles 22.05.1992
Slovakia 13.03.1995
Slovenia 26.03.1992
Spain 21.04.1989
St. Kitts & Nevis 17.04.2014
Sweden 31.08.1979
Switzerland 17.02.1982
Tadjikistan 10.09.1997
The F.Y.R. of Macedonia 01.09.1993
Togo 21.11.1991
Tonga 20.01.2003
Trinidad and Tobago 20.07.2001
Ukraine 25.01.1990
United Arab Emirates 06.03.1992
United Kingdom 17.05.1999
Uruguay 17.07.

current members - including one Russian (this will become interesting)

Vice-President Prof. Shuichi Furuya (Japan), First Vice-President Dr. Thilo Marauhn (Germany), President Dr. Gisela Perren-Klingler (Switzerland), Vice-President Prof. Jeannette Irigoin Barrenne (Chile), Vice-President Dr. Mohamed Mahmoud Al Kamali (United Arab Emirates)

Col. Hugo C. Corujo Sanseviero (Uruguay), Dr. Youssef Mehdi (Algeria), Dr. Elzbieta Mikos-Skuza (Poland), Dr. Justinas Žilinskas (Lithuania), Ambassador Susana M. Ruiz Cerutti (Argentina), Prof. Charles Garraway (United Kingdom), Prof. Flavia Lattanzi (Italy), Prof. Stelios Perrakis (Greece), Prof. Eric David (Belgium), Capt. Valery S. Knyazev (Russian Federation)

 

[angelburst29]

I wasn't aware that DWB was opposing TPP, mainly due to drug costs - “The effects of these new obligations would limit generic competition and therefore increase the cost of medicine."

Did Obama Bomb Doctors Without Borders for Opposing TPP?
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/10/did-obama-bomb-doctors-without-borders-for-opposing-tpp.html

Reports from the scene indicate MSF had not only notified all warring parties in the region of the exact GPS coordinates for the hospital and its outlying buildings, but that doctors immediately notified forces the moment the hospital came under fire from a U.S. airstrike — and, even then, the attack continued for a full 30 minutes.

If circumstances of any incident appear not to add up, it’s pertinent to thoroughly examine the current narrative for signs the State is attempting to mold public opinion — because it is there you will find the truth that you’re not being told.

In the case of MSF, a massive treaty cum trade deal involving U.S. interests in another part of the world from the tragedy in Kunduz can offer, perhaps, insight which might otherwise seem unrelated. As it turns out, MSF have been particularly vocal critics of the impending Trans-Pacific Partnership — and their criticism hasn’t gone unnoticed.

As reported in the National Journal in May:

“It’s not usual business for us, and the reason is because we’re very worried,” explained Judit Rius Sanjuan, who oversees Doctors Without Borders drug access campaign, in a phone interview. “We are doing anything we can to make sure the public is aware.”

Though the Nobel Prize-winning group has actively but reservedly opposed the massive TPP deal for years, recent letters to President Obama and a campaign of subway ads on the D.C. Metro show a more urgent, public push. Sanjuan admitted such a robust effort “is not usual practice for us.”

What is so pressing for the public to know that it led the group to abandon its typically subdued tone?

Simply, drug costs. Specifically, the intellectual property and patent laws that will favor drug companies should the TPP take effect

Though the U.S. seeks to keep a 12-year period in place for pharmaceutical companies to retain exclusive rights over clinical data, Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb reportedly won’t budge past a five year limit. At issue is data exclusivity — the longer the information is held, the longer it takes for generics to reach the market.

“Australia’s current arrangements are completely adequate and any proposed changes are non-negotiable, this is a red line issue for us,” asserted Robb.

Protecting Profit vs. Saving Lives

“It would force them to change the law of many of these countries that are currently negotiating to create new intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical drugs, including but not limited to patents,” Sanjuan explained about the deal as exposed by WikiLeaks in 2013. “The effects of these new obligations would limit generic competition and therefore increase the cost of medicine.”

This has put Médecins sans Frontières “at odds with the White House,” as the National Journal delicately described. A recent letter to Obama from MSF clearly alluded to the humanitarian nature of the group’s opposition to the trade deal:

MSF believes this is essential to closing the gap in access to medicines to millions of people around the world. The TPP could be an opportunity to make significant progress toward these goals. Instead, in its current state, the TPP is a threat to the health of millions.

After this attack, MSF decided to pull its operations from Kunduz for the foreseeable future.


TTP - The Most Criminal Treaty in History Is Finally Presented for Signing,
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/10/07/the-most-criminal-treaty-history-is-finally-presented-for-signing.html

As of 5 October 2015, a super-secret 12-nation treaty called TPP (The Trans-Pacific Partnership) is set to be signed by the 12 nations, and the terms of this massive international contract will be kept secret until the contract has been in force for four years, at which time the contents might (but won’t necessarily) be revealed. This will be a large new international government that has been negotiated for years by international corporations, and which is now to be rubber-stamped by corrupt politicians on their behalf. Whereas those international corporations know the contract’s terms, the people who elected and are ruled by those politicians don’t, and (for four years, at least) they won’t.

These are the 12 nations:

* Australia
* Brunei
* Canada
* Chile
* Japan
* Malaysia
* Mexico
* New Zealand
* Peru
* Singapore
* United States
* Vietnam

Everyone who has seen the agreement (the negotiators for those international corporations, and their politicians) has signed a form promising:

“to treat negotiating texts and other documents exchanged in the course of the negotiations as confidential government information,” and “that these confidentiality requirements shall apply for four years after entry into force of the TPP.”

The reason why the publics in these ‘democratic’ countries will not know until four years have passed under those secret terms, what their government had signed to, is that their government will have signed to allow international corporations to sue their government (those taxpayers themselves) for potentially crippling sums, not in a court of law in a democracy to which the public had elected the judges or had elected the people who had appointed the judges, but instead in a panel of, typically, three ‘arbitrators,’ who will be selected in accord with something called the “ICSID Convention”; and “the ICSID Convention provides that the majority of arbitrators should not be the nationals of the parties having dispute” — in other words: most of the arbitrators will be foreigners; all but one of the arbitrators will be chosen by international corporations; and, even the one arbitrator who isn’t, won’t necessarily be chosen by one’s own country; but, in any case, no more than one of the arbitrators can possibly be selected by one’s own country. If the non-corporate arbitrator happens to be selected by a foreign country, then one’s own country will not possibly be represented at all in these proceedings, which might set fines that will cripple the sued nation, and that might enormously enrich the suing international corporation. This will not necessarily mean that the fine, if any, will be higher than it ought to be, but simply that there is no democratic accountability in the process of determining what, if any, fine will be imposed upon the sued country.

Furthermore, the decisions that are reached in these panels, unlike court decisions which may be appealed to a higher court, cannot be appealed (53.1 in the ICSID Convention).

Furthermore, in this TPP contract, no nation will possess the right to sue any international corporation — the right to sue is alotted only to international corporations, and they may, in these proceedings, sue only a national government.

[...] In short: laws and regulations restraining corporations, will be crippled, essentially permanently, within the TPP area, if TPP gets signed. (Etc.)

 

[angelburst29]

"Doctor's without Borders" Hospital surrounded by empty space
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/107136016884794902045/albums/6203038407015375137/6203038403859925362?cfem=1&pid=6203038403859925362&oid=107136016884794902045

This is (was) #Kunduz hospital surrounded by gardens and fields MSF shared with NATO, no other targets in the vicinity.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

I wasn't aware that DWB was opposing TPP, mainly due to drug costs - “The effects of these new obligations would limit generic competition and therefore increase the cost of medicine."

DWB has been battling for decades with Big Pharma - one of their initiatives is called Access Campaign - it is a permanent campaign to promote generic drug production and reducing prices for treatment in Africa. DWB was key in reducing prices for HIV treatment in Africa. Another initiative is focused on development of new drugs for tropical diseases, where there is no commercial interest from Big Pharma to develop them, as there is no money to be made.


for more info - http://www.dndi.org/ (research neglected tropical diseases)

http://www.msfaccess.org/ (affordable drugs for all)

 

[Ruth]

Are Doctors Without Borders the same as Medecins Sans Frontieres? I guess they are. Why do they need two names?

 

[luc]

Are Doctors Without Borders the same as Medecins Sans Frontieres? I guess they are. Why do they need two names?

Because Médecins Sans Frontières was founded by French doctors and it's still the official name. However, translations of the name are commonly used for the local organisations (Doctors without borders is the English translation of Médecins Sans Frontières).

Wikipedia is your friend ;)

 

[angelburst29]

I wasn't aware that DWB was opposing TPP, mainly due to drug costs - “The effects of these new obligations would limit generic competition and therefore increase the cost of medicine."

DWB has been battling for decades with Big Pharma - one of their initiatives is called Access Campaign - it is a permanent campaign to promote generic drug production and reducing prices for treatment in Africa. DWB was key in reducing prices for HIV treatment in Africa. Another initiative is focused on development of new drugs for tropical diseases, where there is no commercial interest from Big Pharma to develop them, as there is no money to be made.


for more info - http://www.dndi.org/ (research neglected tropical diseases)

http://www.msfaccess.org/ (affordable drugs for all)

Appreciate the additional links and information, Jeremy, especially on DWB's Access Campaign. Looks like DWB are buckin' horn's with Big Pharma (in general) and giving Bill Gate's Foundation in Africa, a headache? I can see where that would put DWB on the radar and put a couple of strikes against them?

I'm gaining a better understanding of what's behind DWB, their chief principles, mandates and why the organization came into being. In a real sense, it was "created" because there was a need for "balance" in trauma health care in the War Zones. U.S. Military MASH Units only took care of their own Solders. Everything else was looked upon as the enemy and “collateral damage,” and were abandoned and left in care of local emergency management and faculties, often ill equipped to handle the influx and severity of the wounds. (Vietnam comes to mind.) So, DWB does provide a needed critical service. Only, they go one step further - they treat "ALL" in need! That's probably another "strike" against them in a War Zone, where the U.S. Military's main function is to leave everything barren in their path.

As to "why" the Kunduz Hospital was bombed is still veiled, but there seems to be enough reliable information to support, that the bombing was intentional.

U.S. Bombing of a Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan Was No Accident – “It Was the Target”
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/10/06/u-s-bombing-of-a-doctors-without-borders-hospital-in-afghanistan-was-no-accident-it-was-the-target/

In particular, MSF (Doctors Without Borders) quickly publicized numerous facts that cast serious doubt on the original U.S. claim that the strike on the hospital was just an accident. To begin with, the organization had repeatedly advised the U.S. military of the exact GPS coordinates of the hospital. They did so most recently on September 29, just five days before the strike. Beyond that, MSF personnel at the facility “frantically” called U.S. military officials during the strike to advise them that the hospital was being hit and to plead with them to stop, but the strikes continued in a “sustained” manner for 30 more minutes.

– From Glenn Greenwald’s article: The Radically Changing Story of the U.S. Airstrike on Afghan Hospital: From Mistake to Justification

Doctors Without Borders has been calling the attack a “war crime,” which to the average American sounds outlandish and impossible. The justification for this claim is simple — that the airstrike wasn’t an accident at all, and that the U.S. military intentionally targeted the hospital. As the days go by, it becomes increasingly clear that this is indeed the case, and the Pentagon is now scrambling to justify the intentional targeting of a hospital.


(Doctors Without Borders Bombing: U.S. Changes Story Four Times in Four Days
http://theantimedia.org/doctors-without-borders-bombing-u-s-changes-story-four-times-in-four-days/

According to the laws of war, direct attacks on such civilian facilities as domiciles, hospitals, places of worship, schools, etc. is prohibited, except in truly definitive cases whose general circumstances involve the military employment of said facility by opposing forces. Here, of course, MSF personnel on scene at the time refute official claims — no matter what those claims involve at any given moment.

Even in those instances, the attacking party is required to give the targeted facility fair warning it will be subject to bombardment. But advanced warning wasn’t given to the hospital in Kunduz, which by some accounts suffered bombardment for a full ninety minutes — including up to 45 minutes after the military was alerted to the ostensible targeting error.

“Any serious violation of the law of armed conflict, such as attacking a hospital that is immune from intentional attack, is a war crime. Hospitals are immune from attack during an armed conflict unless being used by one party to harm the other and then only after a warning that it will be attacked,” explained Mary Ellen O’Connell, professor of international law at Notre Dame.

MSF International President Joanne Liu concurred, saying the decision to “raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital . . . amounts to an admission of a war crime.”