A seminar for editors sponsored by The Crimes of War Project and The Freedom Forum

Day One, Panel One: What Will the Next War Look Like and What Will the International Community Do About It?

Moderator/Discussant: Michael Ignatieff, Author

c) The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Perspective
René Kosirnik, deputy Director, International Law and Communication, ICRC, Geneva

RENÉ KOSIRNIK: Thank you. I will start my intervention by giving my own perception as to some characteristics of tomorrow's violence and trying to highlight some of the avenues as to humanitarian responses in these situations.

I would then like to turn to what I call the four confusions, which are characterizing the humanitarian world today. And finally I would like to say a few words as to the ICRC's contributions to prevent and alleviate sufferings in war.

Characteristic of tomorrow's situation of violence of war, I'm of the opinion, that actually we will still see the whole spectrum of situations of violence tomorrow from internal riots, internal troubles, to traditional interstate wars, such as the conflicts between India and Pakistan or Ethiopia and Eritrea these days. But I feel that the bloodiest or most problematic categories of violence that we'll still be facing tomorrow are the three following:

The first, what I call ethnical violence or wars of exclusion. These situations all are quite dramatic because in terms of international humanitarian law, there is a partial or total negation of the basic values that are enshrined in these fundamental treatises.

So what can you do to change the course of action? Quite difficult when the violence is at its peak. From the humanitarian angle we should nevertheless not totally lose hope. And even in these situations I feel that not the whole society is concerned. Enemies all hate each other. Often the leadership is dictating, giving the tones. So there are still areas, elements of powers, groups of civil society where a message can still be passed. So we have to find those avenues and try to ensure respect and promote legal values amongst those that are still receptive to certain messages.

The second important step which has characterized the international reactions during the last couple of years, as far as Rwanda and former Yugoslavia is concerned, is the fight against impunity, to prosecute the worst criminals. I think that course of action has to be pursued, particularly in these dramatic situations where there is this political will to destroy or annihilate whole groups of peoples.

The third avenue, I think, which is correct, but we will see a bit later what kind of form it should take, is some form of international collective answer to it. If a human drama, a massive drama is occurring, no doubt, the rest of the international community cannot remain idle. There has to be some form of response.

And finally, early enough, I think that the fourth avenue, which is essential to pursue, is reconciliation. Work as early as possible in favor of reconciliation. Reconciliation is linked obviously to reconstruction and to prevention.

Anarchic conflict: It isn't too great in conflict as it is sometimes qualified. Happening in failing states is the second category of the bloodiest situation that I'm afraid will still prevail in the future. Occurrences may be not so numerous, but traumatic in terms of victims.

We were speaking before about the zero casualties of war. They do question us but I think we should be more questioned by the conflicts that provoke thousands if not millions of victims, and conflicts of exclusion or exacerbated situations of anarchic violence are those conflicts that today and probably tomorrow will still provoke those thousands or millions of victims.

What can one do in these circumstances? Here, again, the answer is not easy. In most of these situations, the whole infrastructure, framework of the society, has been disintegrated. Where can you link, attach some constructive humanitarian message? Not easy.

I think that we, at least from the humanitarian's angle, but probably you as journalists have an important say in that also, should try to identify the little sparkle of humanity that remains at the individual level or at the group level which certainly still exists somewhere in order to rebuild some form of self-respect and enhance respect as the value for those which have lost all senses of values- of moral values. And linked to that, obviously beyond the message, I think there is some practical answer.

In those situations of anarchic violence where most people are totally destitute obviously the first answer is a practical answer, generally speaking, aid. Help people to survive. The answers can never be single answers or unilateral answers. We have to touch upon these four basic elements of all societies if we want to overcome the situation of anarchy, absence of values, and hate in order to progress.

And even as to the political will, for example, I believe that even we humanitarian workers can do something without indulging into politics as such, but trying to have some influence on the policymakers. The same can be said for the other areas and I'm certainly convinced that you as journalists can also have influence and possibilities to bend the course of action in these five areas.

I come to the third category of situation of use of force-- what I've been calling here, international policy operation. With that I cover the broad spectrum of international responses which use a little bit or a lot of armed force. From a chapter 6 to chapter 7 situation to peacekeeping where the use of force is only incidental or accidental, to massive use of armed force interventions such as we have witnessed recently in Yugoslavia or Kosovo.

I believe that, as I said earlier, towards certain of these dramatic human situations that we are witnessing there need be an international response- an appropriate international response. But these lead me to share the saying of the French philosopher Pascal, who said: "We must combine justice and force and thus ensure that what is just is strong and what is strong is just." I'd like to add to that, however, that it is dangerous to let strengths alone, or strengths mainly, decide what is just.

I'm mentioning these sayings because I'm afraid that during the last three to five years I have observed some rather preoccupying signs and hints that major powers and coalitions tended to develop, possibly, a new concept of just war. That certain forms of international responses because they are just, because they are legitimate, fall outside the scope of international constraint, international regulations, and guidelines.

And I think this is a danger that we should overcome. Indeed, when there is a use of force even in a legitimate and legal international response, if there is use of mortars- a mortar attack is a mortar attack. An air attack is an air strike, and it concerns the applicability of international humanitarian law, for example. There is no discussion that these fall outside the realm of the law of war, for example.

As to the responses in these cases, I think that there are two further elements that I would like you to underline. One is that we should be very careful and here I also share the views expressed earlier that the rule of law be respected and remain the appropriate framework not only at the national level, but also at the international level. That the international responses takes place in the framework of accepted, universal norms, mechanism, institution, even if the implementation takes place at the local or at the regional level using local or regional means.

Such responses should also be proportionate to the odds that you'd like to stop or suppress. And finally, as I already mentioned, one should be prudent not to think that we are in a just operation and therefore that we are outside the realm of law. And in this respect I would like to mention the other risk that we are observing recently, a new mixture of what is called jus in bello and jus ad bellum.

Jus ad bellum, as you know, are the rules that say how and when force can be used. It's mainly regulated by the United Nation’s charter. Jus in bello is international humanitarian law, the law of war, the regulations that impose limits on the use of force itself and dictates rules which protect the non-combatants- the civilian, all those out of combat.

One should avoid blurring the difference as it would be wrong to develop a new concept of just war. Those days should be over. Those days when the Christians used to say, when we fight Christians, we will respect certain rules. When we fight non-believers, we will respect other rules or no rules at all. Those days should be completely over.

I would like now to turn to what I mention is the four confusions. I'm afraid international responses, in particular, humanitarian aspect of international responses during the last couple of years in war situations have been characterized by these four, confusions.

First the confusion between the political, the military, and the humanitarian action. We strongly feel at the ICRC that the mixing of those is dangerous. We strongly feel that a soldier cannot be a good relief worker and that a relief worker cannot carry a gun. There are always exceptions possible and there is certainly a gray zone. But that should be the principle.

We are also afraid to see a kind of semantic deviation that we have observed. humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention using massive force necessary in provoking destruction and suffering. It gives the impression that all humanitarian, political, and military means are all intermixed. I think that to pursue this avenue would in the medium and long term impair the possibilities of those mainly concentrating on humanitarian action to deliver or to still deliver properly their services. They are already difficult these days and already today warring factions tend to see the humanitarian actors sometimes as participating or being linked to the warring factions.

The second contributor of confusions is the confusion of principles. Up until three, four years ago, it had become very fashionable for everybody acting in war situations to qualify their intervention as impartial, mutual, and possibly even independent.

Following in that, I would say, is the success, the prestige of the Red Cross principles-fundamental principles which had even been recognized at the international level as characteristic of the humanitarian response by the international court of justice.

Even states, even intergovernmental organizations tend more and more to qualify their role, their action, as mutual and impartial. They may have been, they may not. The fact is that I have difficulty to accept that a state intervention can be and systematically be neutral. It may mean partial if something is not neutral. There is certainly always a national interest, a political interest behind it. So there is a risk there of deviation that one should try to avoid.

I would like just to here also say one word as to neutrality. Neutrality has had a lot of favor up until not long ago. It has a bit less today. And we, the ICRC in particular, are quite criticized these days for being neutral. But often neutrality is equated to silence, to some form of complicity. It is not that. It is not bad. Neutrality strictly means not taking a political side. It doesn't mean not denouncing violation, horrible behaviors if this is an appropriate course of action.

Proliferation of organizations is the third confusion. Compared to the number of actors during the Second World War or the immediate post-Second World War, we are nowadays confronted with the world of humanitarian responses. Non-governmental organizations mushrooming, new ones being created in each new situation of conflict. It's the expression of a very positive good will. But it has a lot of negative side effects: confusion, differences in terms of references of humanitarian action, risk of diminishing the credibility of the actors that try to follow some ethical rules.

And my fourth confusion, and this is the closest to you, is the confusion concerning messages, media. We are all convinced these days that communication- the mass media- is a powerful element in all situations of violence. Even actors have become convinced, and even so-called conservatives as we have now discovered your strengths and your importance.

The adverse effect that I would like to mention here is the following. The humanitarian organizations themselves too often we have observed in the recent years that are more conscious about their image than their actions. They want more to be on the picture, to be seen, rather than to be seen to act.

This is often done at the expense of the credibility of international operation. We have had dirty moments of that nature in the conflicts in Rwanda and Congo, where there was a struggle to be in the picture and the delivery of the essential services that we were meant to provide came secondly. And very often it is at the expense of the ethic of the humanitarian action and of the efficiency of the response.

On the media side, the distortion and the main one understandable to a certain extent, is the market nature of the information you're working on. This very often creates distortion of the reality, of the real needs, of the real challenges. The marketability of a case, of an act.

The other aspect I'd like to mention is the misuse of communication, propaganda, or worse, the use of the media to provoke and develop hate. But finally, I would like to mention, that the mentor role that you have is not only to communicate, but I'm convinced even if it's incidental, it is your adjudicative role that one should promote.

My intervention, as usual, was much longer, double or triple of that which you allow me. But I would just now therefore conclude by mentioning these three conclusive remarks- conclusive hopes I•would like to make.

My final three messages would be the following. One, I think that we should work for the re-appropriation of the Martins clause. What is the Martins clause? Those familiar with humanitarian law know it by heart, because it is a kind of key principal, key element of international humanitarian law. It is a clause first introduced in international humanitarian law a hundred years ago in 1899 at the Hague peace conference, when part of the first humanitarian law treaty was adopted. It was proposed by this man, Frederich de Martens, a Russian diplomat and lawyer.

He proposed this so-called Martens clause. It is still very crucial today, and in its modern form has been taken up again in a recent treaty, such as the second additional protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1977. And in its modern form as enshrined here in the preamble it reads, "Recalling that in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience."

I'd like to hope that these principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience will guide us more strongly and more readily in the future.

My second hope is that there will be more good faith. More good faith at all levels. At the level of the man carrying a gun. Very often, we are told that in the end, this law is not realistic, that international humanitarian law, the law of armed conflict, is much too complicated.

My feeling is that this is a wrong answer. If in good faith the basic principle would be applied, most of the dramas that we have been observing recently would not occur. The same can be said as to policy decisions.

And finally, my third hope would be more accountability. Accountability, again, at all levels. At the individual level, as well as the community level, civil society, and, obviously, governmental and military levels.

Thank you.

MICHAEL IGNATIEFF: I want to thank René Kosirnik for the ICRC perspective.