International humanitarian law on the threshold of the third millennium : taking stock and looking

to the future
Cornelio Sommaruga, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (1987-1999).

International humanitarian law and the Cold War

The 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent is being held in Geneva from 30
October to 6 November 1999 –- halfway between two symbolicdates. On 12 August 1999, we celebrated
the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. On 1 January 2000, we will be entering a new century
and a new millennium.

These two events should prompt us to cast a retrospective eye over the past, to learn the lessons that it
holds for us. But they should also cause us to turn our gaze ahead, in order to better understand the
opportunities, the dangers, the hopes and the fears for the future.

First, the past.

On 12 August 1949, the governments, meeting at a diplomatic conference convened by the Swiss
government to review the humanitarian conventions in the light of Second World War experience,
adopted the four Geneva Conventions, which are still in force today.

In terms of humanitarian law, the 1949 Conventions brought considerable progress. Two successes in
particular should be highlighted:
• adoption of a new convention protecting civilians in wartime, and
• adoption of a special provision –- Article 3 com-mon to all four Conventions –- protecting the
victims of non-international armed conflicts.

The adoption of these new Conventions may be regarded as a response –- belated, certainly, but one full
of hope –- to the unspeakable suffering endured by civilians during the six years of carnage that had just
ended.

But it must be remembered that it was also a major political success.

For we must not lose sight of the fact that the anti-Axis alliance that had crushed Hitler's regime fell apart
as soon as the common enemy collapsed, leaving two antagonistic blocs facing one another, two
coalitions of States opposed on everything.

Over the four years that followed the war's end, relations between the West and the Soviet Union
deteriorated at a dizzying rate. With the blockade of Berlin and the Chinese civil war, the world seemed
ready to plunge into a Third World War long before it had recovered from the Second.

And yet, despite this menace-laden environment –- or perhaps even because of the threat of imminent
disaster –- the States managed to rally around the red cross and red crescent emblems and adopt new rules
to protect the victims of war. This political success was all the more remarkable as it was achieved in the
most unfavourable of circumstances.

It must be said, however, that the universality of the new Geneva Conventions was more apparent than
real. In becoming party to them, many States, in particular the Soviet Union and its allies, made
reservations that seriously restricted the extent of their commitment.
In reality, the division of the world into two antagonistic blocs hindered compliance with humanitarian
law in almost all the conflicts spawned by the Cold War, while both the ICRC's role as a neutral
intermediary and the principles underpinning its work were rejected.

We need to remember this and rid ourselves of the mistaken idea that things used to be easier. The
obstacles were different, but they were no less real than those facing us today.

The Second World War also led to the collapse of the old colonial empires and the emancipation of
countries and peoples who were demanding the freedom that was their due.

The new States emerging from decolonization resented being bound by Conventions that they had not had
a hand in drawing up, and demanded a new international humanitarian order that would take greater
account of their legitimate aspirations. This objective was largely attained with the adoption, on 8 June
1977, of the two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions. These Protocols updated the rules
governing the conduct of hostilities and restored the principle of immunity for the civilian population
which underpins all humanitarian law.

From the collapse of the Berlin Wall to the conflict over Kosovo

The Cold War ended ten years ago with the pulling-down of the Berlin Wall, followed shortly thereafter
by the break-up of the Soviet Union. We have no cause to miss the Cold War period, with its many
horrifying conflicts. It was a time when humankind lived under the constant threat of its own annihilation.

But we do have to acknowledge that the end of the Cold War did not bring on the worldwide peace that
people everywhere had been hoping for. While political solutions did put an end to several major conflicts
in Central America, Asia and southern Africa, other conflicts have persisted as home-grown factors have
taken the place of the former ideological confrontation. Above all, the ending of the Cold War gave free
rein to tensions and hatred that had been accumulating over the years. These have produced exceptionally
violent conflicts, particularly in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Though the world has overcome its old divisions, though the extraordinary development of transport and
communications media has bound it ever more tightly together in a dense network of exchanges, and
though before our very eyes a new world is taking shape in which interdependence is stronger than ever,
we are also seeing a rising tide of identity-driven claims for group recognition, too often leading to
bigotry, to rejection of outsiders, to exclusion from society, to war, and sometimes to the extreme form of
intolerance that we thought had been banished for good: genocide. The tragic events in Rwanda and the
terrible events in Cambodia are still fresh in everyone's memory.

But while the Cold War imposed a somewhat uniform model on all armed conflicts, both international
and non-international, the international community and humanitarian agencies today find themselves
confronted by situations involving a proliferation of armed groups, the collapse of all State structures and
the ever-closer intertwining of political and criminal activity. In a number of countries, we are witnessing
a return to forms of private war that we thought had been abolished: warlords carving out for themselves
fiefdoms over which they reign supreme, pillaging the resources of the areas under their control and
holding to ransom their own population and the humanitarian agencies.

And at a time when the plight of war victims is perhaps more desperate than ever before, the work of the
humanitarian agencies is all too often paralyzed by lack of security. In recent years the International
Committee of the Red Cross, like other organizations, has paid a very high price for its determination to
come to the aid of victims of conflict despite an increasingly chaotic work environment. I would like to
pay tribute to our own expatriate and local staff as well as those from the National Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies whose humanitarian commitment has cost them their lives in the crime-ridden flash-
points of Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America in which they were working. I would
also like to express my solidarity with all the other humanitarian agencies that have, like the ICRC, been
the victims of violence.

Kidnappings, assaults, murders –- all these tragic acts unfortunately reflect a growing contempt for
international humanitarian law, for the protective emblem and for the dignity of the individual.

In too many conflict-ridden places, the ICRC is confronted day after day by serious and repeated
violations of humanitarian law.

Africa remains one of our chief concerns owing to the many wars tearing that continent apart and the
particularly cruel suffering caused by them, especially among civilians who, even in peace time, are
barely able to keep themselves at subsistence level.

To be sure, we must welcome the outcome of the negotiations that have enabled three African countries –
- South Africa, Mozambique and Mali –- to put an end to conflicts that seemed intractable and to carry
through, each in its own way, processes of national reconciliation that can serve as examples to other
countries and other conflicts.

But while three conflicts have come to an end, there are countless new eruptions of violence on the
African continent, and above all the many that seem never-ending, in which the warring parties appear to
be locked into the confrontations in which they are at once perpetrators and victims: Sudan, Somalia,
Congo-Brazzaville, Congo-Kinshasa, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Angola, Sierra Leone. Nor should we
forget the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The list of conflagrations that is keeping the continent
plunged in grief is a long one indeed.

In Sudan, Somalia and Angola, the sheer endlessness of the fighting creates particularly dreadful
circumstances for the civilian population –- all too often the victims of violent excesses committed by the
combatants –- who long ago exhausted the last of their reserves. The rest of the world grows accustomed
to a conflict that goes on and on; it ends up forgotten. But for those in its grip, for the civilians who are its
hostages and its victims, it means suffering that is renewed every day over again.

In Sudan, the civil war has destroyed the means of subsistence –- and even survival –- of the population
of much of the country. The medical and agricultural infrastructure has been wiped out, and investment in
the civilian economy is virtually non-existent. The famine of 1998 once again demonstrated the need for
impartial, neutral humanitarian action, and no doubt it will continue much the same in the future, until
such time as political dialogue makes it possible to find a way out of the conflict devastating that vast
country.

In Somalia, every vestige of State structure, every manner of public service and, especially, all forms of
security other than a system of clan-based protection vanished several years ago. The entire population is
being held to ransom by the warlords who have divided up the country between them. We must admit that
outside intervention, the deployment of United Nations forces, has not made it possible to rebuild the
foundations of the Somali State, which exists in law but no longer has any concrete reality. The truth is
that the solution can come only from the Somalis themselves, and time is running out as unfavourable
climatic conditions threaten to aggravate even further the appalling plight of the civilian population.
In Angola, over 30 years of civil war have left an incalculable relief requirement. Although it possesses
an enviable abundance of natural resources, the country is one of the poorest on the continent. Like other
humanitarian organizations, the ICRC now finds itself denied access to the areas controlled by UNITA,
even though all indications are that the situation there is an appalling one. We are ready to come to the
assistance of the civilians living there, and indeed to all other people who find themselves in need as a
result of war, provided that access routes are opened to us.

In Burundi and Rwanda, the lack of any reconciliation between the communities disputing rights to the
same country makes prospects for a settlement dim indeed. And in Rwanda, the plight of detainees
remains one of the ICRC's main concerns. True, we cannot ignore the fact that among them are
individuals who took part in the genocide and thus have much blood on their hands. We cannot forget the
scale of the massacres that were committed or the need to identify those responsible, to punish the crimes
committed. Humanitarian law fully recognizes that need, while reminding us that each person must be
presumed innocent until convicted by a regularly constituted court. But humanitarian law also prescribes
that every human being, however serious the wrongs he is accused of, must be treated humanely, with
respect for his physical safety and for his dignity. When people are packed into cells where they do not
even have room to sit down, we are far removed from this principle. No judicial exigency could possibly
lend legitimacy to such conditions of detention.

The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is of particular concern because of its
consequences from a humanitarian point of view and the risk of destabilization that could come from the
disintegration of this enormous country at the heart of the continent. Five years of bloody fighting have
led to a de facto division of the State. The ICRC is active there, it is true. But the huge size of the country
and the poverty of a large proportion of its population make the needs for humanitarian aid so immense
that no one humanitarian organization can cope with them all.

West Africa, finally, has been racked by two particularly cruel conflicts, in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Though hostilities have officially ended in each of those countries, the atrocities committed during the
conflicts, especially in Sierra Leone, are still fresh in our minds, including the unbearable images of
children who were mutilated –- not accidentally but deliberately, with an axe or a machete. We need to
keep these horrors alive in our memories and, above all, we need to learn the lessons they hold. They
show, yet again, the need for preventive action, because once violence has free rein, it is too late to stop it.

Although African countries have been shaken by numerous crises following their independence, and
devastated by all too many civil wars, they long managed to spare their continent the scourge of wars
between States. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. The intervention by neighbouring countries in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo has involved large stretches of the region, linking up a number of
different flash-points and dimming even further prospects for a settlement.

More than all else, however, for over two years now two African countries have been waging war
relentlessly: position warfare, trench warfare, a war of attrition –- there loom before us images from a
distant past that we thought buried deep in the recesses of history. This conflict, which is being fought in
barely accessible areas, attracts little media attention. And yet it has already claimed more victims than
the events in Kosovo. Recently I had the opportunity to meet some of them on a mission that brought me
not just to the capitals, Asmara and Addis Ababa, but also near the combat zones, to camps for displaced
persons, aid centres and hospitals. Let us not turn a blind eye to their suffering.

Yet much of this suffering would have been avoided if humanitarian law had been fully complied with.
For this is an international conflict to which most of international humanitarian law is applicable, even
though Eritrea has not yet acceded to the Geneva Conventions. Those Conventions largely codify rules of
customary law that are, as such, already binding on all the parties to the conflict. The ICRC is particularly
anxious about the situation of the prisoners of war to whom it does not have access, especially the
Ethiopian prisoners in Eritrean hands. I recently voiced this concern to that country's highest authorities.

Turning now to North Africa, we should remember the victims of the conflict in the Western Sahara, in
particular the plight of the prisoners of war, some of whom have been held for a quarter of a century now,
even though active hostilities ended years ago. No less tragic is the fate of several thousand refugees, who
are eking out a living in makeshift shelters in the middle of the desert –- a particularly inhospitable
environment. The ICRC makes regular representations on their behalf, and will persistently renew them
until the prisoners of war have finally been repatriated and a definitive solution has been found for the
refugees.

After years of confrontation and violence that have taken tens of thousands of lives, Algeria is at last
glimpsing a ray of hope amid the unspeakable suffering. The ICRC was very pleased recently to be able
to resume its work in conjunction with the Algerian Red Crescent to help women and children affected by
the violence in that country weighed down by so much grief. In addition, following an agreement with the
Algerian authorities, ICRC delegates last October began visiting persons deprived of their freedom.

For 32 years the ICRC has been working in the countries of the Middle East because for 32 years the
aftermath of the June 1967 conflict has continued to torment their populations –- in Israel, in the
territories occupied by that country, in those under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority and in
neighbouring countries. To be sure, the ICRC heartily welcomes the peace treaties that have been signed
between Israel and two of its neighbours as well as the peace negotiations that recently resumed between
Israel and the Palestinian authorities. Yet serious concerns remain. I am thinking in particular of the plight
of detainees and that of Palestinian refugees, many of whom were uprooted over half a century ago –-
some twice in two successive conflicts, in 1948 and again in 1967 –- and who fear being left out in the
cold by current or future negotiations. We must not lose sight of these long-term victims, and that goes
for other conflicts as well. There can be no peace except that brought about by people for people. We
cannot find a lasting solution to the political problems of our day unless we manage to remedy the
tragedies caused by war. Humanitarian law offers not only a means of limiting violence in war –- it also
points the way forward on the path to peace. And in the Middle East like everywhere else, that path
necessarily leads first to relief from the suffering that every war leaves in its wake.

The same applies to the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, and especially the painful issue of those who
disappeared. Despite periodic meetings, the fate of these people remains a cause for concern.

In a region riddled with so many tragedies, I am pleased to note the progress made towards resolving a
situation that has caused untold suffering. Following discreet negotiations, Iraq and Iran have arrived at
agreements on the release of prisoners captured during the long conflict between those two countries.
Some of these prisoners had been detained for almost 20 years. Arrangements were made to enable those
who so wished to return home, and the ICRC was happy to be able to offer the assistance of its delegates
in bringing this about.

At the same time, we should remember the situation inside Iraq. For over nine years that country has been
subjected to an economic embargo whose effects are growing steadily more serious. It is not for the
ICRC, of course, to pronounce on sanctions decreed by the United Nations Security Council, nor is it my
intention to do so. And we should mention the measures that have been proposed, in particular in Security
Council Resolution 986, to relieve the effects of the embargo on the civilian population. The ICRC is
duty-bound, however, to draw attention to the embargo's consequences in humanitarian terms, which are
disastrous. Agricultural production has slumped for lack of fertilizer, the availability of drinking-water
has fallen sharply for lack of means of maintaining the distribution networks, public services are
paralyzed, and hospitals and dispensaries are short of medicines. A large country with almost 20 million
inhabitants is in the process of sinking into the abyss before our very eyes. We urgently need to show
imagination, to devise new solutions if we are to find a way out of the present impasse; for there is no
shortage of examples to prove that once a situation becomes unmanageable, it is extremely difficult to
contain. The ICRC has significantly stepped up its relief work in Iraq, in particular in the medical sphere,
and will continue to do so while fully respecting United Nations resolutions. But the real problems are
political ones, and call for political solutions.

I should also mention the situation in south-eastern Turkey. However one describes the events there –-
and the ICRC is careful to avoid a legalistic wrangle on this question –- fighting is taking place. That
fighting involves armed forces and military means and is leaving many victims in its wake. The ICRC is
prepared, as it has always been, to come to the aid of the people affected by these events, impartially and
on the sole basis of their needs.

In Abkhazia, Nagorny Karabakh and Tajikistan, hostilities have been suspended by cease-fire agreements
signed two, three or even four years ago, and the ICRC is very pleased to see that blood has ceased to be
spilt. We are concerned, however, at the lack of a political settlement to any of these conflicts, and the
dearth of any significant progress in the negotiating process. Hostilities have ended, but the negotiations
are making no headway. And the problems from a humanitarian point of view caused by these conflicts
remain unsolved: refugees and displaced persons do not dare to return home, it is impossible to throw
light on what has happened to those who have disappeared, economic networks have broken down, and
some areas remain under blockade, whether de jure or de facto. As we well know, destructive forces are
at work. In the absence of fruitful negotiations, the incidents multiply, frustration grows and the risk of
resumed hostilities grows with it. As everywhere else, building peace in the former Soviet Union means
alleviating the suffering caused by war. The terrorist attacks carried out recently in Moscow and
Volgodonsk and the bloody clashes taking place at the moment in Chechnya show how very real the risk
of resumed hostilities is when there is no political progress. War is once again ravaging the northern
Caucasus, and no one can predict the course it will take.

For almost 20 years now, Afghanistan has been put to fire and sword, and it is still impossible to see even
the slightest hope of peace. Twenty years! An entire generation has been born into war and has never
known anything else. The international community has long despaired at the way this interminable
conflict flares up again and again. And yet the needs of the victims are immense. The ICRC is determined
to carry on its work, but alone it does not have sufficient resources to meet those needs. The fact that there
seems no prospect of a political settlement, however, is no excuse for abandoning Afghanistan.

Despite the limited stakes in territorial terms, the Kashmir conflict recently brought two major Asian
countries –- two nuclear powers –- to within a hair's breadth of fresh confrontation, with all the horrors,
all the destruction that any war leaves in its path. The worst was avoided, fortunately, but this does not
mean that the threat of further clashes has been removed. Humanitarian law offers solutions to the human
problems caused by war, thereby making it possible to relieve tension. The tools are available. We should
try to use them.

The interminable conflict bedevilling Sri Lanka stands out from most modern-day wars in that the
fighting is mainly between combatants and the civilian losses are less numerous than those in the
opposing forces. It is nevertheless a merciless war. Virtually no prisoners are taken on either side. Let us
not mince our words: an ancient rule applies to this concept of war. It is found in all countries and all
civilizations, and codified in Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Convention (IV): ''It is ... forbidden to declare
that no quarter will be given'' or to kill an enemy who surrenders.

After a war –- or rather a succession of wars –- stretching over almost half a century, peace has finally
come to South-East Asia thanks to the political settlement of the civil war that was tearing Cambodia
apart. This fact deserves to be emphasized, even though wounds still run deep. It is to be hoped that, now
that peace has been restored, the peoples of this region will find the path to reconciliation and prosperity.

The situation in Indonesia, on the other hand, calls for special vigilance as that vast country, made up of
over 13,000 islands, is riddled with flash-points threatening its stability. Aceh, Irian Jaya, Ambon and
Kalimantan are all simmering, while economic and social tensions reveal the threat of fresh violence
lurking beneath the surface.

The conflict in East Timor was foreseeable –- and occur it did. This too was a war directed against
civilians. All the warning signs were there, the humanitarian agencies on the ground had sounded the
alarm in good time –- why did we have to wait until we actually saw pictures of the outrages committed
by the militias, and tens of thousands of innocent civilians fleeing, before the international community
decided to react? The measures finally taken did halt the excesses and enabled thousands of refugees to
return home. But the question remains: Why, when there was no shortage of warning signs, did action
come so late? Thousands of lives would have been spared if the measures taken in the end had been taken
earlier.

Most of the conflicts that afflicted Latin America were terminated through political settlement, mainly
thanks to the ending of the Cold War. Nevertheless, two situations remain of concern to the ICRC.

In Peru, while the armed clashes that burdened the country for so long have, mercifully, ended, the
situation of the people arrested in connection with the conflict remains a matter of concern. But above all
the situation in Colombia, ravaged as it is by interminable conflict, merits our attention. Not only has war
taken firm hold over the past 50 years or more, virtually becoming a part of national life in a society that
has gradually forgotten what it is to live in peace, but worst of all there is a growing infiltration of
organized crime into the paramilitary forces in the service of the government on one side, and the
opposition movements on the other.

On the European continent, finally, the endless Yugoslav conflict persists. The deep wounds left by
previous confrontations still gape, and recent events in Kosovo must not blind us to the need for solutions
to the problems caused by the conflicts that devastated first Croatia and then Bosnia-Herzegovina. Here
too, there are many refugees and displaced persons who have been unable to return to their homes, but
who have found no lasting places in host countries. There are many families of missing people still
waiting to find out what has happened to their loved ones and who, in the absence of certainty, are unable
to resign themselves to the cruel fact of death in order to mourn them.

The tragic events in Kosovo are still fresh in all our memories. For the ICRC, the conflict began with a
painful setback as, a few days after the airstrikes started, we had to withdraw our delegates from the
province, where their safety was no longer guaranteed. The ICRC nevertheless managed to renew contact
with the authorities concerned and was even able to resume its field operations, which meant that our
delegates were on the spot as the fighting ended and the refugees began flowing back into Kosovo.

Visits to Kosovar refugee camps in Macedonia and Albania made clear to me the scale of the disaster
caused by the events of last spring, and shortly thereafter I raised the plight of these refugees with the
highest authorities in Belgrade. I also made personal representations to NATO officials in order to voice
my concerns about the consequences of the airstrikes.

It is too soon yet to draw all the lessons from this conflict, whose exceptional nature the ICRC was quick
to grasp, both in terms of the military resources available to the NATO countries and the underlying
factors linked to the organization's intervention.
The reasons put forward by the 19 NATO countries included not just the determination to impose a
political settlement, which the Rambouillet negotiations had not succeeded in bringing about, but also to
halt the excesses committed against the Albanian-speaking population of the province. War to restore the
rule of law, war as a sanction for massive violations of human rights and of the laws and customs of war –
- this was indeed one of the objectives of NATO's action.

It is not for me to express an opinion on the grounds cited to justify resorting to armed force, and I will
strictly confine myself to the standpoint of humanitarian law.

Insofar as it ended the violence that caused the exodus of nearly a million of Kosovo's inhabitants and
thus allowed those refugees to return home, the NATO intervention no doubt attained one of its
objectives. From the viewpoint of humanitarian law, however, it raises questions to which it would be
presumptuous to attempt answers without the benefit of hindsight.

Despite the precautions taken and the precision of the weapons used, the NATO operation left victims
among the civilian population. It destroyed large swathes of the Yugoslav economy; nor did it spare the
economic infrastructure of Kosovo itself. We thus have to ask ourselves how much suffering it prevented
and set that against the suffering it caused.

One thing NATO's action did not do was restore coexistence between two communities laying claim to
the same territory but separated by a bottomless chasm of mistrust, which the events of recent months
have widened even further. Serb and Roma refugees have now replaced the Kosovo Albanians on the
road to exile.

Finally, the use of the term ''humanitarian'' to describe and even justify resorting to armed force cannot
but cause concern to all humanitarian organizations –- and in particular the ICRC –- who base their work
on the consent of the parties to conflict. The fact that a war has as its principal goal to put a stop to serious
violations of human rights and international humanitarian law is not enough to qualify it as
''humanitarian''. As we know only too well, all war means bloodshed, and every war claims victims.
Whatever the grounds cited, strictly speaking there can be no such thing as a ''humanitarian war''.

Conversely, it is obvious that inaction in the face of grave breaches of humanitarian law, of contempt for
human rights, of ''ethnic cleansing'' or genocide –- wherever these crimes are committed –- can only sap
the obligatory force of the rules protecting human dignity and lead to fresh violence. The mass graves
discovered in Kosovo show that this risk cannot be taken lightly.

There is no doubt but that, like the setting up of international tribunals for the repression of war crimes,
NATO's initiative opens up new perspectives on compliance with international humanitarian law and
respect for human rights. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to think that this model for intervention
can be applied easily to other conflicts or other continents.

Finally, the needs for humanitarian action that resulted from the Kosovo crisis (a very real need to which
the ICRC did its best to respond as the last international humanitarian organization to leave the province
after bombing started and the first to return as soon as security conditions permitted) must not be allowed
to overshadow the needs of the victims of other conflicts. Refugees and displaced persons in Africa, Asia
and Latin America require our help, and the Kosovo crisis must not deprive them of the necessary
assistance.

I have mentioned the main conflicts of which the ICRC is endeavouring, in one way or another, to protect
and assist the victims. But this litany of war and other tragic situations casting a pall over our planet has
by no means been exhausted. As we know, there are still many other instances of confrontation, violence
and tension within countries which are very often the warning signs of conflicts to come, or the aftermath
of inadequately resolved conflicts.

After this rapid review of today's conflicts, I would like to stress five issues of concern that they present
in common.

The first is the plight of the civilian population. There was a time when war decimated only the armed
forces: soldiers were easy to recognize from their uniforms; they fought against one another and would
have regarded it as the height of cowardice to attack defenceless civilians. Today we increasingly see
civilians themselves deliberately targeted. The aim of war is no longer merely to achieve military victory
but rather to alter the ethnic make-up of a coveted territory by deliberately attacking civilians, either to
force them to flee, or to eliminate them. ''Ethnic cleansing'' and genocide are extreme forms of these
criminal policies. Recent events in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor are
fresh in our memories.

This development undermines the very foundations of humanitarian law, for the immunity of the civilian
population is one of its cardinal principles. But the threat goes far deeper. It is the very basis on which we
humans live together –- our very civilization –- that is being threatened by policies of ''ethnic cleansing''
or genocide. The international community has been duty-bound to react. And it has done so –- with
varying degrees of success, it is true.

The second issue is the matter of anti-personnel mines, and though we have discussed this at length in
recent years, I must once again speak out against any weapon that strikes indiscriminately, that mutilates
without offering any hope of healing, and that continues to maim and kill long after the hostilities have
ended. In fact, it is in the very nature of these weapons to claim more victims among civilians, who are
obliged to till the land, than among combatants. And in many countries the number of victims of these
hateful weapons actually increases after the fighting has ended since farmers are anxious to return to their
pre-war way of life.

The ICRC does not pretend to know the number of anti-personnel mines infesting the earth of our planet.
We do, however, know the number of people who have been fitted with artificial limbs in our prosthetic
workshops over the past 20 years: more than one hundred thousand people fitted with prostheses by the
ICRC alone! And at least half of them were victims of anti-personnel mines.

The adoption of the Ottawa treaty represented a great victory in the struggle against these cowardly
weapons, and it gives me tremendous pleasure to express my personal thanks and that of the ICRC to the
governments, National Societies and non-governmental organizations who campaigned for this treaty's
acceptance. But it still has to be universally ratified; as of today, only 89 States are bound by its
provisions. And effective compliance with those provisions has yet to be achieved. A fresh mobilization
is needed to bring this about.

The third issue is the trade in light weapons, which cause unspeakable suffering and destabilize the
countries into which they flow without any control. It is up to the international community to find ways to
control trafficking in arms of all kinds, and to curb a business that is all too often immoral, as a blind eye
is turned to the real destination of the weapons exported. Here the States have a definite duty, and this
applies most particularly to the five permanent members of the Security Council, who are also the main
weapons producers. The States and the companies that export weapons need to remember that they share
with the combatants who wield those weapons the responsibility for the use to which they are put.

Finally, I would like to mention the plight of those particularly innocent victims: children caught up in the
turmoil of war. I am thinking first and foremost of child soldiers, of all those children who are recruited,
sometimes by force, and often assigned the most perilous missions as they fail to grasp the danger
involved. Many are killed or maimed; all are deprived of their childhood as it is wrecked amid the thunder
of gunfire and the horror of combat.

Nor must we forget the actual assaults on children: the murders, the rapes and other forms of violence.
Sadly, there have been too many examples in recent years for it to be possible to mention all of them here,
and it would be unfair to stigmatize any particular country. We must condemn all attacks on children. No
reasoning can possibly justify such crimes.

The suffering of women concerns us as much as that of children, and the ICRC recently undertook to
devote in future greater attention in all its activities to the plight of the women affected by armed conflict.
In its programmes to promote knowledge of humanitarian law the ICRC will remind people that women
enjoy special protection under humanitarian law. It will also stress their situation in its protection work
and relief operations. This is a solemn commitment that the ICRC has decided to announce at the 27th
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.

International humanitarian law on the threshold of the new millennium

As we look to the future on this threshold of the new millennium, we must acknowledge that there has
emerged no new international order capable of replacing the order forged in Yalta, which fell apart with
the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Ten years ago the world entered a period of transition and instability, a period of new conflicts that do not
fit the models to which we were accustomed and whose main feature is their unpredictability.

Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that in the future these conflicts will claim victims even
more numerous than in the past, if only because populations are expanding and have been made more
vulnerable by growing urbanization and a deteriorating natural environment; and above all because of the
proliferation of weapons of all kinds.

All analysts agree that internal conflicts will in future be far more numerous than wars between States. As
a result of the disappearance of the Cold-War-driven bipolarity that used to prevail within States as well
as at the international level, these new conflicts will no doubt be characterized by a proliferation of the
perpetrators of violence, leading in some cases to the collapse of all State structures and a resurgence of
things we had thought over and done with, as each warlord carves out his own fiefdom over which he
reigns supreme.

We would therefore be seriously deluding ourselves if we imagined that we could expect the future to be
easier than the past. And yet, whatever the outlook, we must not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by
pessimism. The difficulties the future appears to hold in store for us must not cause us to surrender to
passivity or resignation. On the contrary, we mustact.

That is why, at its 27th International Conference, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement is proposing a plan of action designed chiefly to strengthen respect for humanitarian law and
thereby to reinforce protection of war victims. This plan rests on the conviction –- born of the ICRC's
experience in arenas of conflict –- that if we wish to do useful work, we must try to contain violence in
the first place rather than reacting when we are confronted with unrestrained violence.

The first step is, obviously, to ensure the universality of the treaties of international humanitarian law, in
particular the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, the Ottawa treaty outlawing anti-
personnel mines, the Hague Convention for the protection of cultural property and the Statute of the
International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome on 17 July 1998.

The universality of these treaties will serve as an additional guarantee of compliance. Combatants will see
that they reflect the will of the entire international community, and the warring parties will refer to the
same set of rules on both sides of the front.

This being the case, we call on those States that made reservations when they became party to the Geneva
Conventions or their Additional Protocols to re-examine the relevance of those reservations in the light of
present-day circumstances. Any reservation to a multilateral treaty weakens both its binding nature and its
universality since it entails the coexistence of two different rules on the same subject. Many of the
reservations to the Geneva Conventions date from the Cold War and bear its stamp. Re-examining them
now that passions have cooled would no doubt prompt States to withdraw them.

To ensure that humanitarian law is fully complied with, States must bring their national legislation into
line with their international obligations. In particular, they must introduce provisions into their military
and civilian penal codes that make it possible to repress violations of those obligations. Thus, those who
might be tempted to violate international humanitarian law will know that they are also violating the
internal law of their own State, and thereby leaving themselves open to punishment.

But for humanitarian law to be respected, it must be sufficiently familiar to those who are required to
implement it, in particular all members of the armed forces. The States party to the Geneva Conventions
have undertaken to incorporate the teaching of this law into their military training programmes and to
make its principles known to the civilian population. But rare, unfortunately, are the States that take this
obligation as seriously as it deserves to be taken. Rare are those that take practical steps to fulfil it. And
yet it is obvious that this teaching must already be provided in peacetime, that it must be included in
military training, because it is a part of military training in the same way as is the handling of weapons
and other devices. In addition, the law of armed conflict must become an integral part of the forces'
doctrine of engagement. Respecting humanitarian law is also –- perhaps even primarily –- a question of
military command and discipline.

Finally, the political and military authorities are responsible for preventing and repressing violations of
humanitarian law. Prevention means giving clear instructions to officers and troops, and maintaining strict
discipline. Prevention means setting the example by brooking no concessions. But it also means being
firm in repressing any violations that have been committed. It does not matter that those violations have
been committed against an enemy –- murder is murder, whoever the victim, and murdering a defenceless
person is particularly heinous. Turning a blind eye to such crimes means letting the rot develop,
permitting a lack of discipline that will pervade all facets of military life.

It is the duty first and foremost of the States to organize this repression and I must point out that each of
the States party to the Geneva Conventions is under an obligation to prosecute and punish any person
responsible for serious breaches of those Conventions, whatever their nationality and wherever the
breaches have been committed.

The international community recently gave itself the means to ensure such repression at the international
level too, by setting up the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But it
was above all the adoption, in Rome on 17 July 1998, of the Statute of the International Criminal Court
that marked a decisive step forward in this respect. These will no doubt contribute in exemplary fashion to
strengthening respect for humanitarian law, when all those who might be tempted to violate its rules know
that they may have to answer for their crimes.
As Blaise Pascal wrote, ''Justice without strength is helpless; strength without justice is tyrannical ...''.
Will our era finally succeed in reconciling these two imperatives, which have for too long seemed
mutually exclusive?

The International Committee of the Red Cross unreservedly saluted the setting up of the International
Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and even more so the adoption of the Statute of the
International Criminal Court. It was pleased to have been able to contribute to the completion of the work
that led to the Statute's adoption, even though, owing to the particular nature of its mandate, it cannot
consent to its delegates appearing as witnesses before an international tribunal. The very possibility of
such testimony would destroy the trust that the ICRC has to build with all parties to conflict, with all its
contacts, as a means of providing protection and assistance to the victims of war in accordance with the
mandate it has received from the international community.

Finally, we must bear in mind that, in becoming bound by the Geneva Conventions, the States have
undertaken not only to respect the Conventions themselves but also to ensure respect for them in all
circumstances. Thus, each member of the international community has committed itself to ensuring that
these treaties are universally respected, and to employ to this end all the means at its disposal: diplomatic
influence, leverage from within international organizations, and economic pressure too, insofar as the
provisions stipulating special dispensations for the most vulnerable population groups are respected.

Can this obligation go so far as to authorize the use of force? International humanitarian law does not
provide for this, but neither does it rule it out. The fact is that this question can be resolved only in the
light of the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

The consultation of over 20,000 victims of war carried out by the ICRC this past year has shown that
everyone –- and I do mean every one –- is aware of the need for rules that limit violence in war. Ideas
differ as to what those rules should prescribe, and not everyone is ready to respect them, but all the
women and men we have consulted recognize the absolute necessity for humanitarian rules, and the
necessity for humanitarian protection.

What war victims and humanitarian organizations alike expect from governments is not that they should
act as substitutes for humanitarian agencies by conducting their own relief operations, but that they should
see to it that the rules which they have accepted are respected. It is up to the States to ensure that the
treaties by which they are bound are univer-sally respected, and it is by doing this that they can contribute
–- decisively –- to protection for the victims of war.

These victims have placed their trust in us. Let us send the world a clear message about the need to
restore respect for humanitarian law. This is what it will take to protect human dignity and fundamental
human rights, for there can be no respect for human rights in time of war unless humanitarian law is also
respected.

Let us put the individual and respect for human dignity back at the heart of political thinking, back at the
heart of political decision-making; for it remains the individual who is the ultimate concern of both the
State and the international community.

For the victims of war and similar violence, the Geneva Conventions represent hope, a form of protection
–- a light in the blackness of war.

Let us open our hearts to the appeals of war victims. Let us listen to them and bring them the assistance
they need. Let us afford them the protection demanded by their situation, basing our actions wherever we
can on the Geneva Conventions, and going beyond them when necessary.

''No matter what their intrinsic value and significance, texts rely for their application on the action of
men'', wrote DrMarcel Junod, an ICRC delegate, at the end of a journey that took him to all four corners
of the world. ''Again and again on the missions which took me to many theatres of war, I had the lively
impression that I too was a combatant engaged in battle.''

''A battle must be waged against all those who violate, or neglect, or know nothing of, the provisions of
these Conventions. A battle must be waged for their proper application and for their extension. And if the
texts should prove imperfect then a battle must be waged to secure recognition for their spirit.''

''Whoever accepts such a mission is in no way exempt from the risks of battle, but he must become blind
and deaf to the reasons why it is being waged.''

''There are never more than two adversaries engaged in battle. But these adversaries are apt to find that
suddenly in their midst is a third combatant –- a warrior without weapons.''

This warrior without weapons is the ICRC delegate who ventures out between the lines to organize an
exchange of prisoners or to deliver relief supplies. It is the Red Cross or Red Crescent first-aid worker
who, in Africa, in Asia, in America, in Europe or in the Middle East, agrees to put his life in danger to
come to the assistance of those who are suffering. But it is also each woman and each man of goodwill
who is concerned about the plight of the victims of war and feel solidarity with them in their suffering.
The victims of war have pinned their hopes on us. Let us live up to their expectations.

Courtsey: International Committee of the Red Cross

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/d268e7e7eea08ab74125675b00364294/034cadb190a7e301c12
56b66005e26a1?OpenDocument