Who protects the civilian population in case of war?

by Joachim Schubert-Ankenbauer, ARD-correspondent in Geneva

Who protects the civilian population in case of war? This question leads us - as did the pictures of war prisoners - to the Geneva Conventions above all. In 1949 this comprehensive body of rules was passed, many elder agreements were incorporated in it. Almost all the states of the world committed themselves to complying with the conventions.

The treatment of the civilian population is regulated in the 4th Convention. It does not condemn war - which may sound cynical. It is based on the assumption that there cannot be a war without casualties. But it sanctions clear principles for the treatment of the civilian population. As Florian Westphal, speaker of the International Red Cross states:

“The main responsibility for the protection of the civilian population is with the war parties in case. They are obliged - by the 4th Geneva Convention that above all not to directly attack the civilian population, to always make a clear difference between military and civilian targets and to allow the independent humanitarian organisations to help the civilian population in the war regions.”

It is a sad insight - as old as the Conventions themselves - that these rules are ever and again violated, that uninvolved men, women and children are being directly attacked, abducted, tortured, abused as a target of war.

The International Red Cross is a sort of guard over the Conventions. However - it is a guard with limits. It is present - wherever possible as a guarantor of the Conventions. It urges compliance with the rules and documents violations. But these violations are not publicly denounced - because of ist neutrality.

“It is quite clear that we are a humanitarian organisation, working unarmed, the basis of our work being the consent of all war parties. Of course we cannot enforce the law of war by means of force or power. We cannot accuse or punish anybody; that responsibility stays with the national courts in the countries of the war parties. This is clearly prescribed in the Conventions.”

This national responsibility is not observed most of the time. The winners of the war do not want to be seen as criminals - nor do the losers. That is why during the last decade international courts were established in order to persecute war crimes - as in the case of the Yugoslavia-tribunal or the new International Criminal Court. However this court is not recognized the USA nor by Iraq.

In theory the UN as well has instruments at its disposal for the protection of the civilian population in times of war. But these tools are rather blunt. An example is the Human Rights Commission, which is in session right now in Geneva. The organisation Human Rights Watch demands that the Commission is to guard the compliance with human rights in the war in Iraq. That requires a long procedure - above all unity of the Commission. The commission however is completely at odds with one another. The UN Security council as well can hardly be considered an organisation capable of to guaranteeing the protection of the civilian population. As everybody knows it was unable to prevent this war here.

So in the end there is the meagre hope that the war parties will keep to their obligations - and the insight that the phrase of the “clean war” is sheer nonsense. As Florian Westphal from the International Red Cross remarks:

“We have always pointed to the fact that there are victims in all wars. It is an illusion to imagine that war can be a hygienic affair. That has never been the case so far and - frankly spoken - according to our experience we can hardly imagine that this will be possible in the future.