60 years of the Geneva Conventions - Miriam Coronel Ferrer
WAYS OF SPECIES | MIRIAM CORONEL FERRER | 08/14/2009 12:13 AM
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend | 
Share your views
This August, we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
The 1949 Geneva Conventions belong to the body of laws called International Humanitarian Law (IHL). IHL serves to protect civilians and combatants from the excessive use of force by any armed force. It seeks to ensure that the basic humanity of all is preserved even in times of war. War-time, it asserts, is not an excuse to violate human rights and the norms of humanity.
From NGO-work in communities directly affected by armed hostilities, I have two valued realizations regarding IHL.
One is that people have an inherent understanding of the importance of IHL and its many applications. We, advocates of IHL, only give them a name or label for what, based on their sense of right and wrong, they already believe in. They know, for instance, that a wounded combatant should be given medical care, not killed. That people should not be used as human shields. That they be allowed access to their forests and farms as soon as possible.
This moral sense is informed by their folk beliefs as well as religion, be this Islam or Christianity. This is not surprising since IHL is founded on shared norms among these various sources.
But while civilians easily appreciate IHL, combatants find it harder to do so because they are encumbered by military and political goals that override the humanitarian concern that IHL prioritizes. Thus, in our trainings that are sometimes attended by agents of the armed groups, we stress that IHL also protects them. In fact, three of the four 1949 Conventions are about protecting the injured, sick, shipwrecked or imprisoned combatants, and the medical personnel and facilities that are needed to serve the wounded. The fourth focuses on the do’s and don’ts on civilians in conflict areas and occupied territories.
***
My second realization in our IHL advocacy is that IHL cannot be protected by individuals working singly. To use the title of a book by Hilary Clinton, “it takes a village” to engage armed groups and exact guarantees or accountability for any IHL infraction.
This village would need to be aware of the legal and other frameworks with which compliance with IHL norms and principles can be secured. Awareness can spell the difference between life and death. If the soldiers and guerillas find that the people know IHL, these armies are put on defensive mode and behave more properly. Consequently, abusive behavior has been prevented.
Secondly, the village would need leaders and organizations to negotiate this risky terrain. Take, for examples, these fairly common scenarios. The army has put up a military detachment right beside the school, putting at risk children and teachers in case of an attack by the other side, or drunken behavior by encamped soldiers. Who will talk to the commander? Who will negotiate for the camp’s transfer to a place that is safer from the community’s point of view?
Young men in the community are coerced to join the CAFGU, the army’s auxiliary force. Who will stand up and say no, at the risk of being accused of being a rebel-sympathizer?
A New People’s Army platoon decides to stay for the night in a tribal community. They are not refused because tribal customs obligate giving shelter to the traveler. Moreover, the guests have guns. What are the tribal households to do should the guests stay longer, inviting detection by the other side, and endangering the whole village’s safety?
A local resident is arrested without warrant, suspected of being an enemy spy by the other camp. Who will look for him? Who will demand his safe return, hopefully before he is tortured or summarily executed?
In situations like these, the village would need leaders and community power to engage the armed group in their own terms, terms that are upheld by IHL and their own customary practices.
In indigenous communities, tribal councils are playing this significant role. One tribal council in Abra had in fact managed to secure P5,000 penalty from the local NPA command for a violation. Mangyans, known for “fleeing instead of fighting” now have the guts to tell the armed group to please leave before sunrise -- or they, the community, will leave. They have also secured an agreement with the army whereby the latter will inform them of impending military operations so they can safely evacuate beforehand. Another agreement requires arresting suspected rebels among them only in the presence of a church official -- to prevent torture or enforced disappearance.
Other communities have their peoples’ organizations. Local institutions like the church, or NGOs working in the area, provide support. Sometimes, local governments and government civilian agencies also come to their aid. But the most important factor is that the village possesses that inner strength, awareness and organization to protect themselves.
These real-life contexts tell us that the norms and principles upheld by the 60-year old 1949 Geneva Conventions are being defended on the ground. Lawyers, diplomats, government functionaries and international NGOs in Geneva or New York may argue the case for IHL eloquently. But it is in the affected and empowered communities were IHL fulfills its essence.
E-mail: mcf178@yahoo.com
This is the expanded version of the speech the author made at the National Summit on International Humanitarian Law organized by the Commission on Human Rights and the Civil Society Initiatives for International
Comments