British secrecy around tracking civilian casualties in its military campaigns has raised serious concerns over public confidence.
A recent ruling by a UK tribunal highlighted the need for greater transparency in the assessment of civilian harm in conflicts. The case was brought by Airwars, a conflict monitor, which sought to uncover more information on alleged civilian deaths caused by UK strikes against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
In contrast to its closest ally, the US, the UK has no established guidelines for reviewing and assessing allegations of civilian casualties in military operations. The US has acknowledged killing over 1,400 civilians with its strikes during the war on IS, whereas the UK has only officially acknowledged one civilian death in such an operation.
The lack of publicly available information on this process led to heightened public interest in the strike being investigated by Airwars. A tribunal judge ruled that the absence of a published procedure for assessing harm has significant implications for public trust.
"It's not high-level assurances that provide confidence, but rather a published procedure that can be scrutinised," the judge stated. UK politicians are ultimately responsible for accepting assessments of civilian casualties, whereas in the US, a dedicated "civilian harm assessment cell" makes this judgment.
Airwars has welcomed the tribunal ruling as a landmark validation of the need for greater transparency on civilian harm in UK military campaigns. "The British public have a right to know when civilians are killed in our names," said Emily Tripp, director of Airwars.
This decision highlights the damaging effect of the UK's lack of publicly available policies for assessing civilian casualties in conflicts, which can undermine trust not only among the public but also within the military and towards civilians.
A recent ruling by a UK tribunal highlighted the need for greater transparency in the assessment of civilian harm in conflicts. The case was brought by Airwars, a conflict monitor, which sought to uncover more information on alleged civilian deaths caused by UK strikes against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
In contrast to its closest ally, the US, the UK has no established guidelines for reviewing and assessing allegations of civilian casualties in military operations. The US has acknowledged killing over 1,400 civilians with its strikes during the war on IS, whereas the UK has only officially acknowledged one civilian death in such an operation.
The lack of publicly available information on this process led to heightened public interest in the strike being investigated by Airwars. A tribunal judge ruled that the absence of a published procedure for assessing harm has significant implications for public trust.
"It's not high-level assurances that provide confidence, but rather a published procedure that can be scrutinised," the judge stated. UK politicians are ultimately responsible for accepting assessments of civilian casualties, whereas in the US, a dedicated "civilian harm assessment cell" makes this judgment.
Airwars has welcomed the tribunal ruling as a landmark validation of the need for greater transparency on civilian harm in UK military campaigns. "The British public have a right to know when civilians are killed in our names," said Emily Tripp, director of Airwars.
This decision highlights the damaging effect of the UK's lack of publicly available policies for assessing civilian casualties in conflicts, which can undermine trust not only among the public but also within the military and towards civilians.
... like how can we trust our government if they're keeping secrets on something as big as killing innocent ppl? i mean, the US has a whole civilian harm assessment cell thingy... why can't the UK have that?! 
it's not just about transparency, it's about accountability too. what's wrong with having rules in place to make sure we don't end up like this again? 
and btw, 1,400 civilians killed by US strikes is still a huge number... shouldn't the UK be able to say more than "one civilian death" on their record? 
I'm low-key shocked that the UK doesn't have guidelines for reviewing civilian casualties like the US does 
! It's wild to think that they're basically flying blind into conflicts without any concrete measures in place 
. And can you imagine if this had happened in, like, 2015 or something? 
The lack of transparency is giving me major anxiety about the whole thing 
it's not about trusting the government, it's about knowing what's going on in our name 
. i mean, a published procedure would be way better than just some top-secret assurances from politicians 
. it's not like we're naive or anything, we want to know what our tax money is being used for 
and how many civilians are getting caught in the crossfire 
. the fact that the us has a dedicated "civilian harm assessment cell" is just rubbing salt in our wounds 
. it's time for the uk to step up its game and be more transparent about this stuff 
The US has this dedicated "civilian harm assessment cell" and it's all public knowledge 
. But the UK is just doing things on the fly and not sharing their process with anyone. I think Airwars is totally right that we have a right to know when civilians are killed in our names... transparency matters, you know? 
I mean, can you even imagine if we didn't know how many civilians were affected by UK strikes? It's like, what are they hiding?! 
The fact that there's no published procedure for assessing harm is just not right. We need transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to our military actions. The US may have a "civilian harm assessment cell" but the UK should follow suit too! 
. I mean, it's not just about the public having trust in the government, but also about holding those in power accountable for their actions 
.
. It's time for the government to get real and publish a procedure for assessing harm 
. We deserve to know what's happening behind those closed doors 
.
. We need to trust those in power to make the right decisions, but we also need them to be transparent about their methods and consequences.
. how can you guys even claim to be fighting for something if you don't even know if your own bombs are killing innocent people? 
Newsflash: they've got a system in place for dealing with civilian casualties, and we just can't seem to figure it out 
. The fact that the UK has no guidelines for reviewing and assessing allegations of civilian casualties is just plain sketchy 
. I mean, think about it - if you're gonna drop bombs and potentially kill people, shouldn't there be some way to figure out who might get hurt? 
A published procedure for assessing harm is super important, or else you're just gonna end up with people saying "we didn't know" when, in fact, they should've been looking into it 
It's like a big ol' mess! 
We need to get some clarity on this ASAP, or else trust will be lost forever