Q+A: ActionStation National Director Marianne Elliott
Q+A: ActionStation National Director Marianne
Elliott interviewed by Corin Dann
Human
Rights lawyer calls for an independent inquiry into the NZ
SAS raid in Baghlan, Afghanistan in 2010.
Lawyer and National Director of ActionStation Marianne Elliott who has worked for the UN in Afghanistan is not surprised by the NZ Defence Force’s admission that the 2010 raid in Baghlan involved a “suspected civilian casualty”. It comes in a response to an OIA request sent to the Human Rights Foundation of New Zealand ten days ago.
“The evidence is really mounting from a range of sources that there were suspected civilian casualties. So there’s obviously some contradiction, something going on within the Ministry of Defence,” she says.
Speaking to political editor Corin Dann on Q+A she also said that she also wasn’t surprised that the NZ Defence Force didn’t hold a copy of the investigation undertaken by a joint Afghan Ministry of Defence, Afghan Ministry of Interior and ISAF assessment team into the raid.
“Our troops deserve this inquiry. It is not fair to ask the people who experienced this or who knew about it to lie. It doesn't help them,” she said.
Please find the full transcript attached and you can watch the interview here.
Q+A, 9-10am
Sundays on TVNZ 1 and one hour later on TVNZ 1 + 1. Repeated
Sunday evening at 11:35pm. Streamed live atwww.tvnz.co.nz
Thanks to the support from NZ On
Air.
Q+A is on Facebook,
http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA
and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA
Q + A
Episode
3
MARIANNE
ELLIOTT
Interviewed by CORIN
DANN
CORIN Joining me now is
Marianne Elliott, who has worked for the UN in Afghanistan.
She’s currently the national director of ActionStation, a
not-for-profit that connects people to campaign issues. Good
morning to you, Marianne. Now, I just want to start with
some news that has come in overnight that was sent to us.
The New Zealand Defence Force has admitted there was, in
fact, a suspected civilian casualty in the SAS raid in
Baghlan. It comes in an Official Information Act Response
that was sent to the Human Rights Foundation of New Zealand
10 days ago. Now, it also says – and this is very
interesting – that the NZDF doesn’t hold a copy of the
investigation undertaken by joint Afghan Ministry of
Defence–ISAF assessment team that was undertaken into the
raid. Now, as soon as we received this information, we did
approach the New Zealand Defence Force for comment. We were
told this morning the Defence Force has nothing more to add
than what they have already said. All right, there’s quite
a bit to unpick here. What do you make of this? This would
seem to contradict what they have been telling us even this
week – that they didn’t believe there were any civilian
casualties.
MARIANNE It
doesn’t surprise me that the Official Information Act
contains this admission that there were suspected civilian
casualties, because the evidence is really mounting from a
range of sources that there were suspected civilian
casualties. So there’s obviously some contradiction,
something going on within the Ministry of Defence. But,
really, there’s no surprise that that has come out in the
OIA.
CORIN That
is going to cause some controversy – the change in
language here. I think it's pretty extraordinary the comment
in here that they don't hold – and I think we should
emphasise that world ‘hold’ – a copy of this inquiry
report. Now, that would seem very odd.
MARIANNE That also
doesn't surprise me, because I went back and looked at the
UN report that was published in 2011 that covered all
alleged instances of civilian casualties in 2010, and it
includes a report on this instance on the 22nd of August.
And it describes this joint ISAF assessment mission as
having effectively failed completely. They weren’t able to
get to the location of the incidents; they weren’t able to
interview any victims or survivors. So what that’s
describing to me is not a successful, completed ISAF
assessment but a failed
one.
CORIN So
you don't believe we can have faith in that inquiry
anyway?
MARIANNE No,
I mean, there are clearly very specific
problems with this assessment mission that didn’t
manage to talk to anybody. On top of that, I think it’s
important to note that an ISAF assessment is not the same as
an independent investigation and that there are numerous
instances where ISAF assessments have come to one conclusion
about whether or not there were civilian casualties, and an
independent investigation have come to a different.
CORIN But
that inquiry included the assistance of the Afghan
government.
MARIANNE Well,
there does seem to be some questions about
that. So that is one thing that I think an independent
inquiry would need to look
into.
CORIN Because
surely they would want to get to the bottom of this. So,
you know, shouldn’t New Zealanders have some confidence
that if it’s ISAF and the Afghan government together, then
they’re going to get to the bottom of this?
MARIANNE Well,
it’s ISAF and the Afghan Security Forces. So this is a
military assessment of a military operation. It is not the
same as an independent
investigation.
CORIN All
right, if this Official Information Act document we’ve
seen is correct – they don’t hold a copy of the inquiry
– which seems extraordinary – how would a new inquiry go
about finding anything
out?
MARIANNE Well,
very much in the same way that Jon Stephenson has gone about
it. But, presumably, with also the resources of an official
inquiry process and some of the powers of an official
inquiry process. You would simply start from
scratch.
CORIN Seven
years ago? I mean, is that
possible?
MARIANNE It’s
absolutely possible and not uncommon at all in instances of
investigation of things that have happened, you know, during
conflicts, to be investigating them some time later. At the
moment, the International Criminal Court is still
investigating what happened in Rwanda. So it’s not
uncommon to be going back sometime after the fact. 2010 is
well within the era of digital documentation, so I would
expect that the military fully documented this operation.
And also, as we see in the book, that the Afghan people in
that village were also keeping their own records of it.
CORIN There
will be people watching this morning – and there have been
many people this week – who have said this is the fog of
war. This is what happens in war. Why are we digging this
up again?
MARIANNE And
they’re right – this is what happens in war. And then
you take responsibility for it and you tell the truth about
it. And the reason that you dig it up again and it’s
really important to have an independent inquiry is, first
and foremost, for the sake of the people whose lives were
changed that day. And I use that language to include those
Afghan civilians in that village who lost members of their
families, who were injured and who – and this is no small
thing – may have lost their homes and their property. But
I also include in that the NZSAS soldiers who were there
that day, and their lives were changed in significant ways,
and they also have a right for the truth to come out and not
to be required to lie
CORIN Sure.
And I think New Zealanders can understand that. But what I
think is maybe causing a barrier for some of them is that
they see this as a politically motivated book that came out
on the day John Key gave his valedictory speech, from one
journalist, at least, who’s certainly had a few tussles
with John Key over the years, and they can’t get past
that, so they’re not seeing
that.
MARIANNE Yeah.
Well, I mean, I would say also that this
has been a politically motivated cover-up, because it’s
not in the interest of the NZSAS soldiers who were there
that day to cover up what happened. It’s certainly not in
the interest of the New Zealand public to cover up what
happened and to tell lies about it. So this is a politically
motivated cover-up. In terms of how the information came
out, I think at this point the motivations of the people who
did that are kind of
beyond—
CORIN But
we don’t have evidence that any politicians have covered
this up. I mean, the politicians may have, in fact, been
kept in the dark, because they may not have been given the
full
information.
MARIANNE That
is
possible.
CORIN I
mean, even Nicky Hager suggests
that.
MARIANNE But
we do have senior Defence Force personnel who were involved
in obviously making decisions about this, and they, I would
say, were politically
motivated.
CORIN So,
what sort of inquiry – if that is what is needed – what
would need to be the bottom line for a credible inquiry? A
High Court judge, something like
that?
MARIANNE Yeah.
I mean, there’s a number of forms that a commission of
inquiry could take and have credibility. But it would have
to be fully independent, and it would need to have full
powers of inquiry. I would suggest that because of the
seriousness of the allegations here, and the clear evidence
that there has been an attempt to cover them up, that it
would be useful to have more than one person, so maybe a
three-commissioner commission of inquiry. I also think that
it could be very good for restoring public confidence if one
of those was international – an international human rights
or humanitarian law expert. But I also want to add it’s
very important that this inquiry when it takes place has
credibility with the people whose lives were most directly
affected. So I think it would be appropriate for the
government, if they were putting this together, to consult
with the Afghan civilians who were affected.
CORIN Or they
could certainly consult with the
lawyers.
MARIANNE Or
their lawyers, to find out what would
constitute—
CORIN But
what is wanted from this inquiry, though? Is it
prosecutions? What are people looking for
here?
MARIANNE I
think that will depend what the inquiry reveals. I mean,
what people want is the truth. People have asked, ‘Why are
ActionStation calling for an independent inquiry into
this?’ It’s because our members wanted to do that. We
sent out a survey. Members of the community came back very
clearly saying, ‘We don’t know what happened, and we
need to know what happened. For us to have confidence in our
military, to have confidence in our government, of what’s
being done in our name, we just need to
know.’
CORIN Coming
back to the point about concerns some New Zealanders have,
was it credible to suggest that this was a possible war
crime, use those
terms?
MARIANNE Yes.
What we have described in the book— If the things that are
described in the book were made out and confirmed by an
independent inquiry, we have the possibility of a failure to
distinguish between combatants and non-combatants before
firing. And we have had this former SAS soldier who has
confirmed that, in fact, at least two of these civilians
were killed directly, probably,
by—
CORIN But
even Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson don’t seem to be
suggesting that there was any intentional desire to kill
civilians.
MARIANNE You
don’t have to have an intention. You have to fail to
adequately distinguish between combatants and
non-combatants. And that is very, very tricky territory,
and I spent a lot of time in Afghanistan trying to establish
whether there was reasonable grounds to assume that you were
dealing with combatants. But that’s only one of the
possible breaches of international humanitarian law here.
Another is the failure to find and care for the wounded.
Another would be any mistreatment of prisoners, obviously,
is a breach of international humanitarian law. And, finally
– and I think it's really important that we don't make
less of this because it doesn’t involve human life – any
destruction of civilian property that wasn't necessary for
military purposes is a breach of international humanitarian
law, which is what a war crime is. I mean, I think we use
that term – it’s an extremely emotive term, and we think
of the very worst end of the spectrum – but what we're
talking about is was international humanitarian law
breached?
CORIN Do
you think New Zealand's reputation is genuinely at stake
here?
MARIANNE Absolutely. I think that
we have an opportunity to put that right. I think that
people are right when they say that these things happen in
way – they do – and if you went back and looked at that
UNAMA Protection of Civilians report, you would see there
were there were 440 civilian casualties
documented.
CORIN But
people also don’t like to think that New Zealand soldiers
would be part of that, do they? I mean, there is a
nationalist element to
this.
MARIANNE There is an element which
surprised me when I came back from Afghanistan to discover
that people in New Zealand seemed to think that we could be
part of, you know, a military
effort—
CORIN Well, everything we’re
told is that our SAS are highly trained, you know,
honourable people. What reason have we got to not believe
that?
MARIANNE You can
be a highly trained, honourable person and make an error of
judgement. You can be a highly trained, honourable person
and act on bad intelligence. You know, I think that the idea
that you can be involved in a war like this and be utterly
exempt from ever making errors of judgement or mistakes that
have tragic outcomes is, you
know—
CORIN So you don't see this as
an attack on our troops?
MARIANNE Not
at all. I mean, in fact, I wrote a book that was about my
experience of being involved in a situation where civilians
were killed. I wrote about the very severe emotional impact
that had on me and the importance of being able to work
through that. Since that book was published, I have been
repeatedly approached by New Zealanders who served in our
military in Afghanistan who have said to me, ‘Thank you
for your book. I related to your feelings. It helped me
process some of them.’ And so I actually feel very
strongly that our troops deserve this inquiry. It is not
fair to ask the people who experienced this or who knew
about it to lie. It doesn't help
them.
CORIN Marianne Elliott, thank you
very much for you time this morning on
Q+A.