International Humanitarian Law and the Red Cross

by Uzzah 5 Replies latest members adult

  • Uzzah
    Uzzah

    In another thread, this issue of the Red Cross not having standing and not being a governmental agency was raised and given as a reason why the Red Cross has been refused access to the prisoners held in Cuba.

    I can't think of any other organization better suited to have such standing. This argument also flies in the face of logic. If it wa a governmental agency it would no longer be a neutral observer would it?

    Some interesting links can be found here: http://www.redcross.ca/sites/english/limits/

    So does the Red Cross have standing? Should they? Why would a country not want such a group to come and verify conditions?

    The following is a quote from that Red Cross' website:

    International Humanitarian Law

    International Humanitarian Law - more commonly known as the laws of war - is a body of law that exists to protect people in times of armed conflict. It regulates the treatment of the wounded, prohibits attacks against civilians, the use of certain weapons, and ensures the protection of non-combatants, Red Cross and medical personnel, and prisoners of war. International Humanitarian Law protects all of us, regardless of our race, sex, religion, nationality, political opinion, culture or social status.

    War has changed since the signing of the First Geneva Convention in 1864. Most conflicts today are within a country or region, not between two countries. An added characteristic of the tragedy of modern conflicts is that many of today's casualties are civilians. Television images and newspaper stories make us painfully aware of the carnage and cruelty of conflict. Disrespect of International Humanitarian Law worsens the human suffering.

    The goal of the Red Cross is to teach people that Even Wars Have Limits for combatants and military leaders, lawmakers and politicians the general public. The more we know about International Humanitarian Law, and the more we understand its impact on human life and dignity, the more likely we are to respect it.

    "For the Red Cross there is no just war and no unjust war - there are only victims in need of help." (Jean Pictet, 1979).

    Our work at the Red Cross protects and promotes the rights of all people affected by armed conflict. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), working under the Red Cross Fundamental Principle of neutrality, enters conflict areas and negotiates on behalf of the wounded, prisoners of war, and civilians. The distinctive Red Cross emblem, first used in 1864, symbolizes our neutrality and humanitarian mandate. The person or object bearing the Red Cross is entitled to protection from attack under International Humanitarian Law.

    The only bodies legally entitled to use the Red Cross emblem are the medical services of the military of each country, the ICRC, the Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies all over the world organize workshops to teach lawmakers, police, security forces, the military, and the general public about International Humanitarian Law. We believe that:

    "to humanize war is not to encourage it, but to spread a spirit of peace in the midst of war which can contribute towards its conclusion." (Yves Sandoz, International Committee of the Red Cross.)

  • Seven
    Seven

    Uzzah,

    Are you speaking of the Guantanamo detainees or Castro's(political)prison that the Red Cross has been denied access to since 1989?

    seven

    http://www.thenation.com/outrage/index.mhtml?bid=6&pid=601

    :Why would a country not want such a group to come and verify conditions?

    I don't know how we got here, but the government of the United States of America admits it is interrogating children at a secretive camp in Cuba, where the interrogations include beatings and sleep deprivation; but it won't say how many children, or reveal their ages or nationalities, much less offer details such as whether we're in contact with their parents. The government has denied all detainees at this camp access to lawyers, refused to charge them, and refused to set a timetable for doing so or releasing them. The Red Cross has access to the detainees but flatly refuses to discuss publicly what goes on in the camp. -Matt Bivens

  • Uzzah
    Uzzah

    Seven:

    Excellent point! The question would apply to both situations imo.

    It would also apply equallt to the Iraqi leadership who refused access to legitimate prisoners of war during the opening stages of the conflict.

    This was not meant to be yet another America bashing thread. There are far too many of those already.

    So is there a problem with the International Red Cross that is resulting in these refusals? Is there another humanitarian organization or neutral party better suited to conduct these types of visits?

    Should Countries be opening their detainment camps, prison camps, prisons to such groups in the first place?

    Uzzah

  • Uzzah
    Uzzah

    Seven:

    I just went to the link you posted for the International Red Cross.

    That answered a lot of questions! So the US military has allowed and is allowing the International Red Cross access to interview and regularly visit the detainees. That takes the wind out of the sails of many of those condemning the US.

    I found the Red Cross' position regarding America's right to prosecute very interesting as well.

    I hope others take the time to read that link.

    Thanks again.

    Uzzah

  • Seven
    Seven

    Uz, Here is most recent ops update I can locate on ICRC work in Guantanamo:

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Yet the cry went up the the ICRC wasn't allowed to see these guys. Hmmm, the liberals lying? Nah, they don't do that.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit