My column in the
Indian Express on 13 August 2009:
It is necessary, in regard to any war, to consider not its paper justification in past agreements, but its real justification in the balance of good which it is to bring to mankind,” observed Bertrand Russell in his seminal 1915 essay on “The Ethics of War”. August 12, 2009 marks the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions; respect for Russell’s axiom remains central in international humanitarian law.
In practice that means endorsing these values: minimising suffering of individuals and limiting methods of warfare. The four Geneva Conventions — dealing with protection of the wounded, of sick soldiers on land, shipwrecked military personnel at sea, and of prisoners of war and civilians — were signed in the Alabama room of Geneva’s town hall that August day and have since been adopted by 194 nations.
But the nature of the problems they are meant to address has changed. Post the Cold War, the number of internal conflicts resulting in civilian casualties has skyrocketed. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2008 saw 16 major armed conflicts; most were largely internal. They claimed the lives of millions of civilians, both due to targeted attacks and as collateral effects of attacks on legitimate military targets. Many more were forced to become refugees.
On the eve of the Conventions’ 60th anniversary, the Red Cross conducted thousands of interviews in war-torn countries: Afghanistan, Columbia, the Congo, Georgia, Haiti, Lebanon, Liberia and the Philippines. Their report highlights the disconcerting situation we’re in. Of those surveyed 44 per cent said they had personally experienced armed conflict. The highest figures were in Liberia (96 per cent), Lebanon (75 per cent) and Afghanistan (60 per cent). In Afghanistan, 76 per cent of those who had personal experience of armed conflict said they were forced to leave their homes, while 61 per cent said they had lost contact with a close relative. In Liberia, 90 per cent of the people said they had been displaced, followed by 58 per cent in Congo and 61 per cent in Lebanon.
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan recorded over 1,445 civilian casualties in 2008; the early-January Israeli offensive in Gaza resulted in a high number of casualties, particularly among children; media reports suggest that more than 20,000 civilians may have been killed in Sri Lanka recently. And these numbers do not include deaths that came after, but because of, the war — from disease, malnutrition, lack of access to water and sanitation. Add them in, and the total is staggering. But why is this tragedy a matter for international law? Because many of these instances represent glaring violations of Geneva Convention IV and Additional Protocol I, dealing with the protection of civilians in armed conflicts.
That topic, of protection of civilians in armed conflicts, was placed at the top of the agenda of the Security Council 10 years ago. The recent UN report on the subject (S/2009/277) emphasises the need to further strengthen the civilian protections, as actions on the ground have not yet matched the development of international norms and standards. But the need to strengthen protection further is essentially due to the changing nature of conflicts, from “conventional” warfare to low-intensity conflict — including guerrilla tactics adopted particularly by non-state actors — and the revolution in military affairs in the wake of technological change.
The proliferation of non-state armed groups, and the consequent asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia, is now well understood; what is missed is that it means civilians are even more unprotected than earlier.
The secretary-general’s report to the Council enlists five core challenges: enhancing compliance with international law; enhancing compliance by non-state armed groups; enhancing protection through effective UN peacekeeping; enhancing humanitarian access; and enhancing accountability for violations. These can be effectively addressed only with comprehensive action from institutions involved in humanitarian protection.
One such, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in a 2009 aide-memoire lists a number of objectives for civilian protection: humanitarian access to a vulnerable population, measures against forced displacement, reduction of small arms and removal of explosive remnants of war, including cluster munitions. These are the steps that the Security Council and international organisations must now move forward on, to keep the spirit of Geneva alive. Without them, the protections of the Geneva Conventions in contemporary armed conflicts will not be as far-reaching as originally envisaged.
