THE ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF NATO TO AFGHANISTAN

This article is written by Goutami Solanki of 3^rd Semester of  University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

ABSTRACT

As the sun sets on a tumultuous era in Afghanistan, the echoes of a conflict-ridden past reverberate through the annals of history, leaving behind a nation grappling with uncertainty and the aftermath of a long-standing conflict. The 20-year presence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Afghanistan, marked by military operations, nation-building efforts, and counterterrorism endeavours, has come to a pivotal juncture. As the international community reflects on the repercussions of this intervention, it is essential to examine the ethical obligations that NATO bears toward Afghanistan and its people. This article takes a legal and ethical approach to analysing NATO’s ethical responsibilities toward Afghanistan. It does so through the lens of international law. Despite its purported mission of peace and progress, NATO’s actions in Afghanistan have come under intense scrutiny, leaving a trail of unresolved legal quandaries and questions about the alliance’s true commitment to human rights, civilian protection, and post-conflict accountability.

Keywords: Equality, Gender disparity, Women’s movement, Gender inequality and discrimination, Gender gap index.

INTRODUCTION

For nearly 20 years, NATO Allies and partner countries had military forces deployed to Afghanistan under a United Nations (UN) Security Council mandate. NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States to ensure that the country would not again become a safe haven for international terrorists to attack NATO member countries.” [1]

Throughout the history of NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan, the organization’s ethical commitments have been put to the test, presenting a complicated web of ethical conundrums and legal obstacles. In spite of the fact that the coalition has stated that its objective is to promote democracy and stability, the situation on the ground offers a very different picture—one that is marked by practices that are dubious and conformity with international law that is questioned. The commitment of NATO to defending human rights and civilian life came under intense scrutiny as the number of civilians killed in the conflict increased and charges of war crimes surfaced [2]. Furthermore, the post-conflict nation-building initiatives, which were once regarded as a ray of hope, have show been be riddled with flaws and a severe absence of accountability [3]. As we consider the legacy that the NATO intervention has left behind, it is vital that we investigate the ethical foundations that drove its activities. This will shed light on the disparities between rhetoric and reality as well as the ramifications for future international operations.

Throughout the length of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) engagement in Afghanistan, which has lasted for the better part of two decades, multiple reports have expressed grave concerns regarding the possibility of human rights breaches occurring during military operations. The annual reports that the UNHRC produces on the protection of civilians in armed conflict indicate grave instances of civilian fatalities caused by bombings and ground operations carried out by NATO [3]. According to these accounts, the indiscriminate use of force has resulted in a considerable number of innocent lives being lost, which is a violation of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, most notably the rules of proportionality and distinction [1, 5]. In addition, the documenting of suspected war crimes by the UNHRC, which includes unlawful executions and acts of torture conducted by NATO forces and Afghan allies, contributes to the growing scepticism over NATO’s commitment to maintaining human rights standards [4, 6]. These allegations highlight the urgent necessity for NATO to be held accountable for its activities in Afghanistan and require a comprehensive inquiry into suspected violations to ensure that the alliance fulfils its ethical duties and saves the lives of civilians throughout future military engagements.
ECONOMIC OBLIGATION

Beyond military deployments, NATO’s ethical commitments to Afghanistan include economic facets that have significant effects on the country’s long-term stability and growth. Concerns about the efficacy and openness of NATO’s contributions to Afghanistan’s economic recovery have been addressed in international assessments, such as the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) report on United Nations support for the country’s development and rebuilding [7]. The research identifies examples of fiscal irresponsibility, a lack of coordination, and scant real progress, raising questions about NATO’s commitment to promoting sustainable economic growth [7]. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) investigations also shed light on how insufficient control procedures allowed corruption and money wasting in infrastructure projects backed by NATO [8]. These results highlight the critical need for increased accountability and attention in NATO’s economic support operations, ensuring that financial resources are used effectively to benefit the Afghan population and upholding the alliance’s moral commitments in aiding the country’s recovery.

REAL ESTATE OBLIGATION

The ethical responsibility that NATO has toward Afghanistan extend not only to questions of military and economic concern, but also to concerns of land and property rights, areas in which serious concerns have surfaced. There have been recorded cases of real estate breaches in Afghanistan that have been related to the presence of NATO, with one of the most reputable international journals being the Journal of Conflict and Security Law [9]. These transgressions, which include land expropriation and property destruction during military operations, have caused local concerns and fuelled tensions with communities who feel that their rights have been violated [9]. Land expropriation is the process of taking ownership of land without the consent of the land’s owner. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has also reported on instances of civilians being displaced and property being destroyed as a consequence of NATO activity. These cases raise doubts regarding the alliance’s adherence to principles of proportionality and protection of civilian property [10]. These documented violations of real estate rules highlight the necessity for NATO to confront the implications of its actions and engage in communication with affected communities in order to redress injustices. This would demonstrate a commitment to preserving ethical standards beyond the battlefield.

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION

The ethical responsibility that NATO has toward Afghanistan extend not only to questions of military and economic concern, but also to concerns of land and property rights, areas in which serious concerns have surfaced. There have been recorded cases of real estate breaches in Afghanistan that have been related to the presence of NATO, with one of the most reputable international journals being the Journal of Conflict and Security Law [11]. These transgressions, which include land expropriation and property destruction during military operations, have caused local concerns and fuelled tensions with communities who feel that their rights have been violated [11]. Land expropriation is the process of taking ownership of land without the consent of the land’s owner. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has also reported on instances of civilians being displaced and property being destroyed as a consequence of NATO activity. These cases raise doubts regarding the alliance’s adherence to principles of proportionality and protection of civilian property [12]. These documented violations of real estate rules highlight the necessity for NATO to confront the implications of its actions and engage in communication with affected communities in order to redress injustices. This would demonstrate a commitment to preserving ethical standards beyond the battlefield.

EDUCATION

When one investigates the issue of educational rights, one discovers a sad thread of neglect and violation that is woven into the intricate fabric of NATO’s presence in Afghanistan. Educational rights are an essential aspect of human growth that appears to have been eclipsed by the turbulent dynamics of battle. In her seminal work “Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law,” esteemed legal scholar Martha Minow emphasizes the inextricable link between education and human rights, highlighting how educational opportunities are crucial to the cultivation of a just and equitable society [13]. Education emerges as a ray of light in the aftermath of violent conflict, providing a glimmer of optimism for the reconstruction of communities and the promise of a better future. This paradigm takes on a greater significance in such settings. However, a close analysis of NATO’s engagement in Afghanistan uncovers a convoluted story that is characterized by the violation of educational rights. This nuanced narrative frequently gets lost in the more general discussion of the nature of conflict, but it is made clear by the analysis. The reports that were submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) shed some illuminating light on this subject by providing specific examples of how educational institutions and students have been directly impacted by measures taken by NATO, which have resulted in disruption, relocation, and even attacks on specific individuals [14]. These violations raise serious concerns about NATO’s ethical responsibility to ensure that children living in conflict zones have access to educational opportunities, as well as the alliance’s dedication to the ideals that are established in international human rights law.

Afghanistan’s educational landscape, set against the backdrop of post-conflict reconstruction, stands as both a monument to the country’s resiliency and a conspicuous reminder of unmet obligations. In the book “Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law,” Martha Minow and her contemporaries present scholarly analyses that emphasize the central role that education plays in sculpting a just society. They position education as a fundamental human right that should be protected even in the face of adversity. [15] This book presents these scholarly analyses. On the other hand, the harsh realities that exist on the ground can present a quite different picture. The predicament of Afghan students and educators who have become victims of the repercussions of military operations is brought to the attention of the public by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which does this through the thorough reports it produces. These reports highlight situations in which schools have been damaged or destroyed, and in which students’ access to education has been restricted as a result of issues related to the conflict [14]. These facts point to a worrying divergence from the ethical commitments that NATO apparently bears, and they raise issues about the alliance’s commitment to preserving educational rights within the scope of its operations. As Afghanistan grapples with the task of rebuilding its shattered education system, the disconnect between the rhetoric of humanitarian ideals and the on-the-ground consequences of NATO’s actions necessitates a candid appraisal of the alliance’s ethical responsibilities.

CONCLUSION

As a conclusion, the ethical commitments owed by NATO to Afghanistan have been tainted by a significant number of violations of human rights, as shown by reports from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). These infractions have resulted in catastrophic repercussions for the civilian population, which raises significant issues regarding the alliance’s adherence to ethical standards and international humanitarian law. The recorded reports of civilian losses stemming from NATO’s military actions, including aerial bombings and drone attacks, provided by the UNHRC highlight the urgent need for more accountability and transparency in the alliance’s engagements in conflict zones (UNHRC, 2019, para. 24). These accounts may be found in the report. In addition, reports of extrajudicial killings, torture, and a lack of rights to due process further illustrate the adverse impact that NATO’s actions have had on the fundamental human rights of Afghan civilians (UNHRC, 2020, paragraph 36). In order to keep its ethical requirements, NATO must take tangible efforts to avoid civilian injury, guarantee robust processes for investigation and responsibility, and prioritize the protection of human rights across all of its operations in Afghanistan and beyond. Only then will NATO be able to fulfill its responsibilities as an ethical organization.

REFERENCES:

[1]https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm

[2] Human Rights Watch, “Afghanistan: Events of 2021,” World Report 2022.

[3] United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, “Afghanistan: Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict 2021.”

[4] United Nations Human Rights Council, “Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan,” 2022.

[5] International Committee of the Red Cross, “Customary IHL Database,” Rule 1: The Parties to the Conflict and Rule 14: Proportionality in Attack.

[6] Human Rights Watch, “Afghanistan: Events of 2021,” World Report 2022.

[7] Joint Inspection Unit, “United Nations system support for the development and reconstruction of Afghanistan,” 2019.

[8] Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, January 2022.

[9] McArdle, D., “The Right to Property in Armed Conflict,” Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Volume 24, Issue 2, Summer 2019, Pages 251–281.

[10] United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), “Afghanistan: Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict,” 2021.

[11] PoKempner, D., “Bombs and Bandwidth: The Rule of Law in an Age of Remote-Controlled Warfare,” Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 33, Number 2, May 2011, pp. 461-498.

[12] United Nations Human Rights Council, “Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan,” A/HRC/48/43, 22 July 2021.

[13] Minow, M., “Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law,” Cornell Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, March 1997, pp. 481-516.

[14] United Nations Human Rights Council, “Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan,” A/HRC/48/43, 22 July 2021.

[15] United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), “Afghanistan: Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict,” 2021.