Shortly before Christmas, I challenged my old friend Peter Oborne over his remark that there was no doubt that Russia has committed war crimes in Syria, contained in this otherwise refreshing article : http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/time-judge-assads-aleppo-campaign-standards-set-mosul/

I view this common belief as an example of the truth that, if you repeat something often enough and prominently enough, most people will assume it to be true without investigation or challenge.

When I asked Peter to justify the assertion, he referred me to this publication by Human Rights Watch:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo

All War is Crime

I think I must insist, for the purposes of serious argument, that we are quite careful about what the term’ war crime’ actually means, as it is one of those expressions much bandied and seldom specified.

In a sense, all war is crime, though there are mitigations for some actions in war. And it seems to me that (to have any meaning beyond rhetoric, the key to the charge of ‘war crimes’ is, above all, deliberate intent. The *deliberately intentional* killing of civilians; the * deliberately intentional* bombing of medical facilities. Most would also include the following : torture; rape; giving no quarter to the surrendered; using outlawed weapons. Has Russia done these things in Syria?

I am leaving out any consideration of Syrian behaviour, because it complicates the issue. I have yet to see independent testable proof that the Syrian Army has (for instance)used poison gas in the civil war. I find this charge hard to believe not because of any special humanity in the Syrian command – far from it - but because such an action would have been politically and diplomatically mad, and militarily futile. And I am unable to see how the so-called ‘barrel bombs’ used by Bashar Assad’s forces and also by ‘our’ then ally Nouri-el-Maliki in Iraq, are any more criminal than the supposedly ‘sophisticated’ weapons used and sold by the major western powers and their clients.

No, I am not an apologist for the Assad Despotism, and I can prove it

As I show here, http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/08/my-response-to-allegations-that-i-am-an-apologist-for-syria.html

I have for many years been a consistent active critic of Syrian atrocities when I could have remained silent and the issue was largely ignored by others. I am not now an apologist for the Syrian state, and never have been. My concern in this matter is and always has been a patriotic one, that our country’s foreign policy should be directed intelligently in our national interests, not diverted into emotional spasms or bought and sold to suit the needs of other powers.

But to discuss the Syrian issue here would distract attention from my main question, which is over the charge levelled against Russia, and apparently accepted by Peter Oborne, a man who has shown himself to be intelligently sceptical about other conventional wisdom of this sort, domestic and foreign.

So, let us go to the Human Rights Watch report

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo

A Bit Vague?

I printed it out and went carefully through it several times. I would say that it very frequently referred to unidentified witnesses, made vague claims which cast no light on the crucial question of intent, reproduced unverifiable statements by partial witnesses, appeared to be completely uninterested in the possibility that some of those witnesses may have *been* partial or not necessarily able to speak freely, (e.g. ‘Local residents and staff said opposition armed groups did not have any bases nearby and that there were no armed groups in the [Al-Sakhour medical centre] hospital’.

This statement may be absolutely and unequivocally true. But I think anyone with knowledge of such areas, and an imagination, can see that it also might be flawed as objective evidence.

It cites a body called the Violations Documentation Centre

http://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/about

I will for the purposes of this article refrain from any inquiry into the independence of this body and assume for the purpose of the argument that its total impartiality has been established. But I think it fair to say that another body frequently cited in this report, the ‘Syria Civil Defence’(the so-called ‘White Helmets’) is not exactly impartial.

In a Civil War, Who and What is a Civilian?

But I would wonder aloud, when the Violations Documentation Centre refers to ‘civilian’ casualties, what exactly it means by this. The groups fighting against the Assad state are not organised into a formal, uniformed or constituted army. Indeed, they are made up of many groups. Does the term ‘civilian’ in this case mean persons definitely not engaged in military activity of any kind? Or does it possibly include members of anti-state militias?

The report states : ‘Airstrikes often appeared to be recklessly indiscriminate, deliberately targeted at least one medical facility, and included the use of indiscriminate weapons such as cluster munitions and incendiary weapons.’

‘Appeared to be’ is an interesting formulation. But objective truth is not a matter of appearance but of demonstrable fact. I am not sure how an airstrike can be independently or objectively judged to be ‘recklessly indiscriminate’, or what the objective criteria are under which this can be stated beyond doubt.

It is a sad fact that any armed intervention, noble or squalid, will have appalling consequences for some innocent people. Many people (not I) supported the Western interventions in Serbia and Libya. But they tolerated some very unpleasant consequences. I noted the (for instance) undoubted child casualties, reported by Western journalists, during the British and French bombing of Libya in 2011 http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/06/as-dave-does-the-talking-war-dead-are-sneaked-out-of-the-back-gate-.html

I also recall that Serbian TV’s make-up lady, Jelica Munitlak, 27, ( and the Chinese Embassy) were among the unquestionably innocent victims of NATO bombing of Belgrade in March-June 1999

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters

More recently (and this is worth recalling when discussing the alleged targeting of hospitals by Syrian or Russian air forces) Western forces have unintentionally struck a known hospital in Afghanistan http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/asia/afghanistan-bombing-hospital-doctors-without-borders-kunduz.html?_r=0

I believe Western air forces have also been used to attack built-up urban areas in Fallujah and Mosul in which civilians (probably held against their will, as I suspect they were in Aleppo) are to be found. I’d add that despite the claims of their makers and users, modern air-delivered bombs, missiles and rockets are not ‘surgical’. This is public relations rubbish. Warfare of this kind will kill innocent people, and both the defenders (who have chosen to fight from within urban zones) and the attackers (who have chosen not to be deterred by the risk of collateral damage) know this perfectly well.

If you wish to sympathise with either, then you must accept that you are sympathising with their readiness to accept so called ‘collateral damage’. In that case you must make similar allowances for Russia *unless* you can show an entirely different attitude towards civilians. I do not think any case can be made that Russia, alone of all military powers, has criminal intent when it does this. I mention British and US actions here, and French ones, because senior foreign policy figures from these countries have been prominent in their moralistic condemnations of Russia’s behaviour in Aleppo.

What About ‘What-Aboutery?’

I am sometimes chided for the supposed sin of ‘what-aboutery’, as if there was something perverse and meaningless about pointing out double standards. The whole purpose of making these comparisons is to show that those who make these criticisms of Russia generally do not criticise countries they favour or sympathise with, when they do the same thing. Outrage, unless it is principled and applied in all cases (especially to your own actions and those of friends) is selective. And if it is selective, it is not outrage, it is propaganda. The sneer of ‘what-aboutery’ is not in fact an answer to this charge.

What weapons are illegal?

My understanding, which I agree may be out of date, see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/europe/29cluster.html?em&ex=1212206400&en=0e28528fd0c65072&ei=5087%0A ,, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10829992

...is that cluster bombs are not generally illegal, despite efforts to make them so, and that the proposed ban on them is opposed by several major nations including the USA.

The legal position on incendiary weapons is as follows : ‘Signatory states are bound by Protocol III of the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons which governs the use of incendiary weapons:

prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (effectively a reaffirmation of the general prohibition on attacks against civilians in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions

prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets located within concentrations of civilians and loosely regulates the use of other types of incendiary weapons in such circumstances.

Protocol III states though that incendiary weapons do not include:

Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminates, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.’

So one would need to know more about the alleged uses of incendiary devices to judge the legality of their use in this case.

Any Quantity of Assertion and Detail (without objective fact) is not conclusive

Much of the HRW report, as it continues, consists of exhortation and assertion. It quotes unnamed witnesses whose provenance and independence cannot be established, and includes expressions of opinion which have no real bearing on the charge of war crimes. For example : ‘Local residents, media activists, and medical personnel told Human Rights Watch that the month-long bombardment was the most intense since the start of the conflict. One local journalist said: “Those were bloody days. It was a bloody month. Each day, Russian and Syrian airstrikes killed tens of people. It was the most terrible month since the beginning of the war.”’

Then there is this : ‘Those interviewed also said that the bombardment was particularly terrifying because of frequent use of bombs that they said they had not seen in the city of Aleppo before. Often referring to them as “bunker busting bombs,” local residents said that these weapons were capable of penetrating and demolishing entire multi-story concrete buildings, meaning it was no longer safe to hide in basements and underground shelters. Some of the attacks with the largest number of civilian casualties were from airstrikes that caused entire buildings to collapse.’

This may well be so, though once again one must ask what the word ‘civilian’ actually means in this context, and who was responsible for the continuing presence of civilians in these areas. Has there been any inquiry by HRW or anyone else into how free the unarmed residents of East Aleppo were to leave during the ‘rebel’ or ‘opposition’ period of rule? I have not seen it, though one does occasionally hear the BBC noting how difficult it is for unarmed civilians to leave IS-occupied *Mosul*, as indeed it is for obvious reasons. Such fighters know how hard it is to use airpower in built-up areas with large civilian populations. This benefits them and hampers their enemies. Evacuation of all non-combatants would not suit them.

The HRW report does, interestingly, concede the possibility that what it rather euphemistically describes as the Syrian ‘opposition’ might have prevented civilians from leaving. It notes : ’During the month-long bombing campaign, Syrian military forces surrounded opposition-controlled eastern Aleppo. Although Syrian and Russian authorities declared that civilians and fighters could leave through designated corridors, very few did. Syrian and Russian authorities and armed opposition groups blamed each other for this.’ Indeed they did. But does HRW have no opinion of its own on the subject? It has opinions, often rather passionate ones, on many other aspects of the war.

On the question of the legality of certain types of weapons, my understanding is that ‘bunker-busting’ bombs are not banned by the laws of war, and the USA maintains several such bombs in its armoury.

HRW is careful to state it has ‘strong evidence’(not proof) of alleged attacks on hospitals in East Aleppo. Residents of Western Aleppo likewise allege that ‘rebel’ artillery frequently struck hospitals in the government-controlled part of the city. I have little doubt that these reports are true. The question arises in both cases as to whether the attacks on medical facilities were *intentional*. It may also be important to know whether either side was using known medical facilities for military purposes, which altrs the legal position: 'Article 27 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides:

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible … hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.'(my emphasis).

HRW’s approach to alleged outrages in *west* Aleppo. Is it more measured?

Here, by the way ( and linked to the main report) , is a fascinating HRW report on the sufferings of civilians in West Aleppo, which (by contrast with the main report under discussion) is (rightly in my view) extremely cautious about accepting at face value what its observer is told:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/01/all-aleppo-aching

Note especially this passage : ‘While the atrocities unfolding in eastern Aleppo have rightly sparked international outrage and media attention, any abuses by rebels against civilians in western Aleppo have largely gone unreported. This is partly due to the challenges that independent observers like Human Rights Watch face in getting visas to the west of the city and other government-held areas, but also because many people in western Aleppo are afraid to talk to human rights groups because they fear government repercussions.’

No doubt. And it is quite proper, indeed very necessary, to record this. But was there no comparable difficulty in obtaining entry to *east* Aleppo? Was nobody in *east* Aleppo ‘reluctant to talk’ because they feared ‘repercussions’ from the ever-unseen armed men who actually controlled that area?

In fact the HRW report from West Aleppo notes the use by rebels of unguided rockets aimed at civilian areas. But unlike the main report with its unequivocal assertion of Russian and Syrian ‘war crimes’, it uses interestingly cautious and measured language :

‘Regardless of the injuries inflicted during conflict or while under siege all warring parties, including rebel groups, need to obey the rules of war. That means not deliberately target civilians in attacks; taking care to distinguish between civilians and combatants at all times; and not causing civilian casualties that are disproportionate to the expected military gain. Those who flout these rules could be prosecuted for war crimes.’

Quite.

So why the different tone towards Russia, which Peter Oborne reasonably – but in my view mistakenly - believes licenses him to state unequivocally that Russia has committed war crimes? Perhaps Russia has done so. I certainly don't rule out the possibility that at some future stage this may be proven. But I have yet to see anything which can be described as proof - so far.

I think people just feel they can say what they like about Russia these days. The accusations may of course be true. If they are proven by independent and objective investigation, than I shall be the first to condemn such acts. As I repeatedly say, Vladimir Putin, domestically, is a sinister tyrant. But that does not necessarily mean that his foreign policy, or its conduct, can be declared to be criminal or barbaric without the stringent investigations and proof we would require before saying the same of any other country including our own. Look at the way we still resist and reject condemnations of our bombing of German civilians in World War Two.

As I have many times said, a general and often rather silly prejudice against Russia may be leading us in to several grave foreign policy mistakes, in Europe and the middle east, which will do us needless damage. This has nothing to do with being pro or anti-Russian, and everything to do with being pro-British.

Peter Oborne’s immediate response was to refer me to these two articles

Journey to Aleppo: How the war ripped Syria's biggest city apart

And

Aleppo Notebook: the city’s terrorist besiegers will now be besieged

…which are commendable departures from conventional wisdom, and this is of course why I am concerned that Peter, of all people, would accept the conventional wisdom on Russia. I ask him, and all thoughtful men and women, to reconsider this. I await his more detailed response.