Syria: “Our bombs are smarter than yours”
Shocking numbers of civilians are being killed and injured in Syria, with little accountability from the States involved – and in particular the United Nations Security Council, the majority of whose members are backing rival sides in the war. In the diplomatic blame-game that has developed, a new arms race has emerged. In the past, Cold War powers went out of their way to claim that ‘my bombs are more powerful than yours.’ Today, these same Cold War powers now argue over whose bombs are smarter.
The double attack on the Médecins Sans Frontières-supported hospital in Idlib Governorate, Syria on Monday killed 9 staff and 16 patients, a death toll expected to rise as the rubble is cleared. It did not take long for the states involved in the conflict to blame each other for the destruction of this hospital, which was an apparent targeted assault. Turkey was quick to blame the Syrian government and its allies, Russia denied involvement, while Syria squarely placed the blame on the US-led coalition.
The skies above Syria are congested with various air forces that support two different military coalitions – the Syrian government backed by Russia, and the US led coalition, which includes two additional UN Security Council members, UK and France. None of the parties to the conflict are willing to take responsibility for the destruction of schools, hospitals and other protected sites. But destroyed they are, on a horrifically frequent basis. MSF-supported medical staff are equipped to diagnose medical conditions, not recognise military hardware. An independent investigative body needs to determine the facts.
Last week U.S. Secretary of State Kerry claimed that Russia was using “dumb bombs” in Syria, implying that U.S airstrikes were smarter and could not possibly have caused civilian casualties in Syria. For MSF, this is difficult to take at face-value. In October, our Kunduz Trauma Centre in Afghanistan was destroyed in a U.S. airstrike, whilst between October and January three MSF-supported health facilities in Yemen were hit, two confirmed as being attacked by Saudi-led airstrikes, operating with UK equipment and U.S. targeting advice. These attacks were all presented as ‘mistakes’, indicating either a lack of precision, or worse, a lack of respect for health structures.
http://www.msf.org/article/syria-%E2%80%9Cour-bombs-are-smarter-yours%E2%80%9D
= new reply since forum marked as read
For the first time since 1953 in Korea, four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are now active in the same conflict. This same Security Council has unanimously passed motion after motion, most recently in December 2015, vowing to protect civilians in Syria. So far, there is little evidence their own militaries and their allies, whether the Syrian government or the ‘moderate’ opposition, are upholding this pledge.
Instead, each of these four nations presents its forces as terrorist-fighting humanitarians, pledging to use the same air force that drop bombs to also drop food in besieged zones in Syria. Food drops in besieged areas – with a total population estimated at nearly 2 million people – bring very little volume of aid, and cannot replace food convoys, a fact acknowledged by the US government spokesperson last week. In addition to this, people in besieged areas are primarily dying from war injuries and a lack of medical care. In practical terms, proposed food drops are little more than a public relations exercise, which only creates more confusion. For the Syrian people it is also dangerous - when hearing a jet engine, how are they to know whether the plane brings food or bombs? Or both?
------------
I've given up thinking the UN's purpose serves anything more than "look the other way" when the powerful countries invade and wage war."
