ICAR Hosts Civilian Devastation in War Conference
Caught in the wake of martial forces, civilians live a strange kind of existence. Cast as objects defined only in their relation to the activities and objectives of military campaigns, civilians are war’s weakest participants who, simultaneously, endure the greatest degree of suffering. Military fatalities represent a fraction of those of civilians—their deaths in comparison are calculated at a ratio of one-to-eight on a global scale. Seeking to draw attention to the plight of civilians in war, ICAR sponsored a conference on March 27th, 2009, entitled “Civilian Devastation in War.”
Researchers, scholars, and practitioners addressed the scale of civilian casualties in war, the sources of such casualties, the current state of practices seeking to reduce civilian causalities, and alternative practices for civilian protection. The conference opened with a keynote address by Chris Hedges whose experience as a war correspondent provided the backdrop for explaining how “good people” at home can succumb to deep psychological instincts and strongly favor violence as a means of solving global problems. Hedges powerfully illustrated how war fosters a kind of religious vigilance in the name of a secular or religious god. Dr. Hugo Slim, who has written extensively on civilians in war, discussed a new form of consciousness that allows insight into the processes that drive a nation to condone collective violence, as well as inflict and then deny the resultant civilian suffering.
Other speakers addressed the promise and the problems linked to the international humanitarian laws of war. According to Dr. Aaron Fellmeth, such laws seek to minimize civilian casualties by constraining the actions of military leaders and placing limits on the targeting of civilians. Marc Garlasco, a senior analyst at Human Rights Watch, explained how his organization relies on such laws when confronting military leaders with cases of civilian brutality at the hands of their troops. Humanitarian peace operations also seek to address such suffering, as Georgetown's Donald Daniel demonstrated. Ira Houch, Chaplain in the U.S. Army, discussed how international laws and enforcement mechanisms around humanitarian issues can be strengthened.
The failings of international law to protect civilians in modern war are legend. In his riveting account of the war in Darfur, ICAR's Suliman Giddo recounted atrocities perpetrated by members of the Janjaweed tribe, who work in concert with the Government of Sudan on an ideological mission to Islamize and Arabize Darfur. Their collaboration shows how inadequate international laws are in enforcing restrictions on state-sanctioned violence. Neta Crawford, professor of political science, characterized civilian casualties in state-sponsored wars as systematic, routine, and structural. Her research on U.S. military history revealed patterns of massive civilian devastation in U.S. wars.
Dr. Karina Korostelina offered an original conception of civilians in war, replacing the dualism of groups in enmity with a triplet model involving the ingroup in their relations to BOTH the enemy Other and the civilian Other. This new framing of conflictual relations was illustrated by Neta Orens’ narrative analysis of testimony given by the Israeli leadership during an investigation of decisions made in the Second Lebanon War.
The conference concluded with accounts of two modes of practice. Sarah Holewinski, President of Campaign for Innocent Civilians In Conflict, summarized a project in which civilians receive compensation from military forces. Dr. Christopher Mitchell explained how zones of peace have been created to protect civilians who are engulfed by war's tumult. The success of the conference has prompted ICAR to launch a new program—Civilian Devastation in War—which will serve as a forum for both research and practice.