Attacking Doctors in Conflict Zones Is a War Crime. So Why Is No One Prosecuted for It?

The US airstrike on an Afghan hospital was part of a disturbing trend.

A Doctors Without Borders employee inside the charred remains of the organization's hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, after it was hit by a US airstrikeNajim Rahim/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


While a United States AC-130 gunship blasted a Médecins Sans Frontières? hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, with howitzer and incendiary rounds early on the morning of October 3, 2015, MSF staff phoned and texted American and Afghan authorities more than a dozen times trying desperately to stop the attack. Medical staff and patients were shot as they fled the building. Others burned to death as they lay in their beds. By the time the half-hour airstrike was over, 42 people—including doctors, nurses, and patients—were dead. The Pentagon later carried out an investigation and determined that while errors were made, no one will face criminal charges.

Though it was horrific, the Kunduz hospital attack was not unusual. It was one of hundreds of assaults on health care workers and hospitals in conflict zones around the globe since 2015, as cataloged in a detailed new report from Johns Hopkins University. The consequences of these attacks have been devastating: In Syria, nearly 30 percent of the health care workers killed in 2015 were executed, shot, or tortured to death. In a single year of war in Yemen, 600 health care facilities, representing a quarter of the country’s health care capacity, were shuttered because of damage or a lack of staff or supplies. Due to what the report describes as the “scorched-earth war” in Sudan, the country’s Upper Nile region is left with only a single hospital to care for 1 million people.

“A deliberate attack on a health facility is a war crime.”

“What really jumped out at me with this report was the sheer geographical scope and pervasiveness of the attacks. It’s so enormous,” says Leonard Rubenstein, who coordinated and edited the report, which also highlights the wider impact of these attacks. “Most of the foreign nurses have left Libya,” says, Rubenstein, a faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health and Human Rights and the Berman Institute of Bioethics. “More than 40 percent of the medical staff have left Iraq—just since 2014. It’s not like we’re going back to 2003.”

Attacks on health care workers and medical infrastructure were recorded in 19 countries in just over a year of warfare. The attacks were as varied as they were widespread. In Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and Yemen, hospitals have been struck by aerial bombs. In Democratic Republic of the Congo, seven patients and a nurse were murdered inside a clinic for seemingly no reason at all. In Sudan, when security forces looted a town in West Darfur, civilians were told to take shelter in the local hospital, only to be detained for weeks, during which time the security forces executed at least three people and raped 60 or more women. “ISIL has its own kind of brutality,” says Rubenstein, “expelling patients so that they can have the hospital for their own fighters,” and forcing doctors to treat their wounded under the threat of murder.

As thousands of health care workers have fled conflict zones, few remain with the skills needed to provide basic medical care for the victims of war, not to mention patients suffering from routine yet life-threatening ailments. In just the six most affected conflict areas, the report estimates, more than 40 million people are now left without adequate access to medical care.

There have been virtually no consequences for the perpetrators of these attacks. Regardless of who is committing these atrocities, Rubenstein says, “the law and the norms are being cast aside.” For more than 150 years, international law has deemed these attacks on medical personnel and infrastructure illegal. The Geneva Conventions provide strict rules for warring parties: Attacks must differentiate between military targets and civilian objects, hospitals can’t be taken over for military purposes, and health professionals cannot be punished for providing health care. “A deliberate attack on a health facility is a war crime—it’s true under the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court,” says Rubenstein. When it comes to crimes against health professionals, he says, “There haven’t been prosecutions, and there should be.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate