Voices Between Conflict and Care: The (De)politicization of the Kunduz Hospital Attack
Author
Kejwan, Daiana Micaela
Term
4. semester
Education
Publication year
2025
Abstract
This thesis explores how the 2015 U.S. airstrike on Médecins Sans Frontières' trauma hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, has been described and how responsibility has been assigned. It asks how humanitarian aid is made political—or treated as non-political—when such attacks occur. The study examines two key documents: United Nations Security Council Resolution 2286 and MSF’s internal report on the attack. It uses Carol Bacchi’s 'What is the Problem Represented to Be?' (WPR) approach and Critical Discourse Analysis to study how language and framing shape what is seen as the problem and who is seen as responsible. The analysis finds that legalistic responses, which focus on international humanitarian law (the laws of war), tend to present the airstrike as an isolated violation. This depoliticizes the issue by downplaying the broader political and military conditions that allow violence against aid workers and facilities. In contrast, MSF stresses operational neutrality—providing care without taking sides—and calls for independent accountability, highlighting the limits of legal rules alone. The thesis argues that politicization—when neutrality is eroded and anti-aid narratives question humanitarian actors’ motives—can make aid personnel more likely to be targeted. Depoliticization, by reducing the issue to technical legal compliance, can hide the political responsibility of both state and non-state actors. By placing institutional and humanitarian narratives side by side, the study shows how opposing discourses shape accountability, legitimacy, and public perceptions of the 'humanitarian space' in which aid organizations operate. It concludes that effective protection requires more than following the law; it is a political condition that depends on the credibility and perceived neutrality of humanitarian actors.
Specialet undersøger, hvordan det amerikanske luftangreb i 2015 på Læger uden Grænsers traumecenter i Kunduz, Afghanistan, er blevet beskrevet, og hvordan ansvar er blevet placeret. Det spørger, hvordan humanitær hjælp gøres til et politisk spørgsmål—eller fremstilles som upolitisk—når sådanne angreb sker. Studiet analyserer to centrale dokumenter: FN’s Sikkerhedsråds resolution 2286 og MSF’s interne rapport om angrebet. Det anvender Carol Bacchis 'What is the Problem Represented to Be?' (WPR) og kritisk diskursanalyse til at undersøge, hvordan sprog og indramning former, hvad der opfattes som problemet, og hvem der anses som ansvarlig. Analysen viser, at juridiske svar, der fokuserer på international humanitær ret (krigens love), ofte fremstiller angrebet som en isoleret overtrædelse. Det depolitiserer sagen ved at skygge for de bredere politiske og militære forhold, der muliggør vold mod humanitære aktører og faciliteter. I modsætning hertil betoner MSF operationel neutralitet—at hjælpe uden at tage parti—og efterlyser uafhængig ansvarliggørelse, hvilket peger på grænserne for alene at henvise til loven. Specialet argumenterer for, at politisering—når neutralitet udhules og anti-hjælpefortællinger sætter spørgsmålstegn ved humanitære aktørers motiver—kan øge risikoen for, at hjælpearbejdere målrettes. Depolitisering, der reducerer spørgsmålet til teknisk lovoverholdelse, kan skjule det politiske ansvar hos både statslige og ikke-statslige aktører. Ved at sætte institutionelle og humanitære fortællinger op mod hinanden viser studiet, hvordan modsatrettede diskurser former ansvarlighed, legitimitet og opfattelsen af det humanitære rum, som hjælpeorganisationer arbejder i. Det konkluderer, at effektiv beskyttelse kræver mere end at følge loven; det er en politisk betingelse, der afhænger af humanitære aktørers troværdighed og oplevede neutralitet.
[This apstract has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]
Keywords