RED CROSS REVISION
By it. G. DAME:Ls Geneva
THE International Conference on the Rcd Cross Conventions, which has just concluded a four months' session in Geneva, had to revise the three international conventions which have hitherto regulated the lot of the wounded and prisoners in war, and to produce a fourth which should govern the protection of civilians in war-time. Red Cross conventions are among the most widely ratified of all. Consequently no fewer than 62 nations were sufficiently interested to send delegations, apart from the representa- tives of the central Red Cross organisations. Revision involved the minute examination of some 30o Articles in the light of experience gleaned from the Second World War. Spade work had been done at the Red Cross Conference at Stockholm, but there a wholly humani- tarian atmosphere had prevailed. At Geneva it was more realistic; documents for signature bf Governments need above all to be precise. The Convention for the Protection of Civilians in War Time breaks entirely new ground in international relations and naturally offered a wider field for a clash of opinions. The Conference, how- ever, worked in an excellent spirit. Though the Iron Curtain States were present in full strength there was little of the Communist- Capitalist bickering that so often mars the debates of the United Nations. The genuine desire to reach the maximum of agreement underlay the patient efforts to arrive at a compromise wherever vital interests were in opposition, if only because of a conviction that Red Cross instruments should be as universal as possible.
Among the very few clashes that arose was the question of a preamble and the significance of the Red Cross emblem. The original Red Cross Convention of 5864 had no preamble, and none had ever been added. The Swiss delegation presented a text which contained the sentence: " Respect for the personality and dignity of the human being is binding without contractual undertakings. Religion proclaims his divine origin, and all people consider this principle as one of the foundations of civilisation." The Holy See strongly supported this declaration, and so did Afghanistan, and it might have been thought that such distant poles were sufficient guarantee of its harmlessness. But it brought down the full wrath of ideological commination from the Soviet delegate and his followers, on the ground that to proclaim the divine origin of the human being belonged to the realm of abstract ideas and philosophical and religious reflections. In the circumstances the majority decided that it was best to do without any preamble.
The discussion on the Rcd Cross emblem, though it also engendered some heat, was a highly clarifying process. The Red Cross on a white ground is, of course, the national device of Switzer- land with the colours in reverse (if that be the correct heraldic expression), and the Swiss device is an adaptation of the arms of the founder-canton of Schwyz, from which also the Confederation takes its name. For years past, out of deference to Islam, the Mohammedan countries have been free to use the Red Crescent, which is inter- nationally recognised, and for analogous reasons Iran was authorised to use the sign of the Red Lion and Sun. During the Conference Israel put in for being allowed officially to adopt the device of the Red Shield of David. Claims were raised for the Red Shrine, the Red Flame, the Red Spinning Wheel, the Red Bow, the Red Palm, the Red Trident, the Red Cedar and the Red Elephant. Obviously an A.A. gunner, ranging on a suspected plane, would have to do a lot of selective thinking before he decided it was a fair target, with a wide margin for a mistake—in fact such a welter of protective signs could hardly be expected to afford any protection whatever. Could not the Red Cross be made universal, it was asked, the more so since it had no religious significance but only humanitarian ? To this Egypt and Turkey were strongly opposed, declaring that they could not appeal for charity in their countries under that sign, while the learned researches of the Afghan delegate proved that the Swiss cross had had a religious significance in the thirteenth century to the men of Schwyz. Somebody proposed an inverted Red Triangle on a white ground, and somebody else a Red Circle as the emblem of the continuity of life. Both were rejected. The International Com- mittee of the Rea Cross fought hard, and in the end successfully, for the protection of their emblem. An innovation was that civil hospitals may be marked in time of war with the Red Cross.
The underlying assumption, the basic principle that prompted Henri Dunant, the Swiss who founded the Red Cross system after the battle of Solferino, was that the human being hates human suffering to such a degree that when the armies have carried or retreated from the field of battle their own wounded and those of their enemies should alike be properly cared for. We know that this is too large an assumption. Were it true there would be no need at this time of day to devise rules forbidding the slaughter and torture of wounded, the sinking of hospital ships, the bombing of hospitals, the taking of hostages, deportation of people, collective penalties, and wholesale extermination. Experience in the last war had shown that all these things must be provided against. The Soviet delegate moved for including the atomic bomb in the list because of its blind destructiveness, and would also have included penal sanctions based on the Nuremberg principles. He received a good deal of support, but it was held that it was not the business of the Conference to regulate the laws of war—that is the province of the Hague Convention—but to safeguard the sick, wounded, shipwrecked, prisoners and civilians as far as possible from its effects. It did, however, produce proposals constituting a code of conduct for Governments which go a long way to meeting the second proposal.
Civil and colonial wars presented a great problem. Could the rules framed for wars between nations be applied to wars within national territories ? Many delegations were loth to sign anything that might tie the hands of a Government called upon to deal with a revolt or a rebellion. One group held that the purposes of the Convention were to extend humanitarian protection to the greatest number. To this it was objected that every Government has the right to put down rebellion within its borders, to safeguard its citizens against the subversive acts of minorities seeking to impose their will by violence, and in short to see to its own security. As a compromise a minimum humanitarian code was framed which the contracting parties under- take to apply in such cases, the International Committee of the Red Cross being empowered to offer its services. The problem of security constantly arose. Partisans, for instance, appeared for the first time in the prisoners-of-war convention and proved a highly complex problem. At first sight the extension of Red Cross benefits to partisans resisting an army that has violently occupied their country seems an elementary act of fairness. But who is to decide whether the adverse party in a conflict " possesses an organised military force under responsible leaders," " carries arms openly," &c.? The text designed to meet the case of partisans is ingenious, but it would have covered very few of the maquis or resistance forces in the late war. And at what stage can saboteurs, spies and persons suspected of hostile activities qualify for rights and privileges under the Convention ?
The protection of prisoners of war also proved to be fraught with problems. It was decided that responsibility for them devolves upon the power which actually holds them—a necessary provision because in modern war they are apt to change hands. A lottg and intricate discussion took place as to whether prisoners might be employed on the dangerous work of mine and bomb disposal. Several delegations thought that prisoners belonging to armies which laid the mines
ought to have the privilege of removing them. The United States delegate declared that to authorise the detaining power to use prisoners of war for this purpose would be in contradiction to all the humanitarian principles proclaimed in the Conference. Ultimately it resolved itself into a matter of conscience, and in secret ballot it was decided that they may not be employed on such work, though they may volunteer for it.
The new Conventions certainly represent a great humanitarian advance. They also place many new obligations on Governments, especially in connection with the civilian Convention, which also greatly extends the already heavy responsibilities of the Inter- national Committee of the Red Cross and its associates. The meticulous care devoted to obtaining precise texts may have tended to overload the Conventions with detail, but they also serve the moral purpose of pointing the way. After all, the best hope is that they may never be required.
Previous page
