US military is increasingly trying to control
public information about conflict, nearly leading to ban on UN staff from Kabul
base
By Sune Engel Rasmussen
 |
|
A US Army soldier patrols
near Baraki Barak base in Logar Province.
Photograph: Munir Uz
Zaman/AFP/Getty Images
|
The US military in Afghanistan is
increasingly trying to control public information about the war, resulting in
strained relations with western organisations offering different versions of
events to official military accounts, the Guardian has learned.
In a recent incident, the most senior US
commander in Afghanistan, Gen John W Nicholson, considered banning or
restricting the UN’s access to a military base in Kabul, according to informed
sources in both organisations.
The dispute followed a UN report in late
September claiming that a US drone had killed 15 civilians. Washington insists
it only killed members of Islamic State.
UN and US military officials declined to
speak to the Guardian, but various sources confirmed that working relations
were “a nightmare”, as a UN staff member put it.
The dispute is a sign that the US military
wants to remain in charge of details about its operations and the overall
situation in Afghanistan, a coalition staff member said, adding that it will
try to “maintain [the official] narrative over anything”.
Since the international coalition ended its
combat mission in 2014 and assumed a more advisory role, security in
Afghanistan has deteriorated markedly. In the past year, the rise of
self-declared Isis franchises in the east of the country has caused some US
officials to worry that Afghanistan may again become a terrorist haven.
On 28 September, an American drone attacked a
private house in Achin, a district of Nangarhar province and a headquarters for
militants loyal to Isis. Afghan authorities initially said the strike killed 15
militants and three civilians. The following day, however, the UN said 15
civilians had been killed.
At the provincial hospital in Nangarhar, the
Guardian spoke to several young men below the usual fighting age who had been
wounded in the strike, including a 12-year-old boy.
Relatives of those killed were gathered at
the hospital without being guarded by intelligence agents, whose presence would
have been expected had the men been suspected terrorists.
The coalition staff member said the Guardian
report relaying the UN’s claim that the victims were civilians was “accurate”.
Since January, the US military in Afghanistan
has had greater authority to target people who have an affiliation with Isis, a
military spokesman said. “We have concluded that those killed were members of
[Isis] and as such, valid military targets,” Capt William K Salvin said.
Gen Nicholson, who assumed command in
Afghanistan in February, was apparently so displeased with the UN’s public
contradiction of the military’s account that he considered revoking UN staff
access to the international coalition’s headquarters in Kabul, but advisers
convinced him otherwise.
A US military spokesman, when asked to relay
questions to Nicholson, declined to confirm or deny the incident.
“Resolute Support works every day with the
United Nations and many other Afghan and international organisations. We share
the common goal of helping the people of Afghanistan and will continue that
work,” said Brig Gen Charles H Cleveland.
Weeks later, during a weekly security
briefing at the military base, a UN staff member was relegated from his normal
seat in the main briefing room to an overflow room, receiving only audio from
the meeting and being denied the opportunity to ask questions. Sources familiar
with the incident assumed the move was a response to the UN drone report.
In a more recent incident, an airstrike
called in to protect US and Afghan troops near the city of Kunduz killed up to
30 civilians.
While the US military says an investigation
is continuing, a spokesman for the Kunduz governor said the civilians were hit
because the Taliban were using their houses as cover. The coalition staff
member refuted this claim, saying although there were insurgents present, it
was unlikely that they were using civilians as human shields.
Perhaps the most tempestuous recent
disagreement between the US military and an international organisation occurred
last year, when a US gunship destroyed a hospital run by Médecins Sans
Frontières, killing 42 people.
A US military report released six months
later left a list of questions from MSF unanswered. The US rejected calls from
the organisation and the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, for an independent
investigation into the incident.
Staff from the UN human rights unit in Kabul
who investigated the drone strike in Nangarhar declined to comment, even on
background for this article.
Liam McDowall, the director of strategic
communications for the UN in Afghanistan, said: “In keeping with established
practice, the mission does not speak to the media about its relations with
Afghan or international parties, other than to say they are conducted to the
highest standard of professionalism.”
