Warfare must have limits

Prashanth Shanmugan

May 7, 2010

Opinion

Comments 10

The International Red Cross is a beacon of humanity in an inhumane situation. Photo: AP

Cicero once said, "in war, the law is silent". How can there be laws in war, when war is such an unruly institution? It seems like a contradiction in terms. But laws governing the conduct of war are as old as war itself and have existed throughout the ages and in all cultures since antiquity.

Based on military necessity, a concern for humanity and chivalry, some of the earliest codes of warfare date back to the fifth millennium BCE. The dilemma of the solider is this, if they fight as gentlemen, they risk defeat. If they fight as barbarians, then their victories will be empty ones. The laws of war are a hideous reminder of the great contradiction embedded in the very essence of our humanity. A slice of humanity, in moments of inhumanity.

World Red Cross Day was on May 8. It marks the birthday of the Swiss businessman Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross movement and inspiration behind the codification of the modern laws of war, the Geneva Conventions.

It was at the Battle of Solferino on June 24, 1859 between French and Sardinian armies against the Austrian army during the Second Italian War of Independence that Dunant witnessed first hand the horrors of war.

Solferino was a little known, but decisive war in European history. After a 15-hour battle, fought mostly hand to hand, the fields of Solferino were strewn with the bodies of more than 40,000 wounded men.

Dunant observed the lack of medical treatment available, and mobilised the local villagers to care for the wounded and dying, irrespective of nationality.

Later Dunant, recorded his experiences in his book A Memory of Solferino and he proposed three ideas to alleviate the suffering caused by wars. Dunant wrote that "in an age when we hear so much of progress and civilisation and since unhappily we cannot always avoid wars, the attempt must be made to prevent or to at least alleviate the horrors of war". Dunant was not a pacifist and he accepted the inevitability of war but he sought to ensure that soldiers confirm to certain principles of humanity.

Dunant's first idea was to form an organisation of neutral volunteers to care for the sick and wounded from battle regardless of nationality. He asked, "Would it not be possible in time of peace and quiet, to form relief societies for the purpose of having care given to the wounded in wartime by zealous, devoted and thoroughly qualified volunteers?" This proposal was the inspiration behind the formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), founded in 1863.

To safeguard the neutrality of the proposed volunteers and protect the sick and wounded, his second idea sought a single, universally accepted emblem, to signify neutrality and assistance in times of war. As a tribute to Switzerland, the inverse of the Swiss flag, a red cross on a white background was chosen as the emblem. The Red Cross emblem signifies neutrality, guaranteeing protection in times of war and essentially says "do not shoot' in the world's languages.

The final proposal by Dunant, was quite significant; it for the first time asked to have the rules of war codified and agreed to by all nations, and which were to be applicable in all wars. He asked, "would it not be desirable to formulate some international principle, sanctioned by a Convention inviolate in character, which, once agreed upon and ratified, might constitute the basis for societies for the relief of the wounded?" Dunant warned that it was important to reach an agreement before the outbreak of a war as once hostilities began, "the belligerents are already ill-disposed to each other, and thenceforth regard all questions from the one limited standpoint of their own subjects".

In 1864 the Swiss Government convened a conference in Geneva to formulate Dunant's proposals. The conference resulted in a brief 10-article document called the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field.

The principle was that wounded and sick soldiers must be taken in and cared for without distinction of nationality. Further conventions were codified to look after the shipwrecked in 1907, and prisoners of war in 1929. After the devastation of World War II, in 1949 the previous three conventions were updated and a fourth was added to safeguard civilians in times of conflict. That is how we have the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the modern day laws of war that have today been universally agreed by all nations.

In 1901, the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Henry Dunant. (He shared the honour with pacifist Frederic Passy). The Nobel committee said that, "without you, the Red Cross, the supreme humanitarian achievement of the 19th century would probably have never been undertaken".

When smallpox was eradicated, it was considered the single greatest humanitarian achievement of the last century. What will be the single greatest humanitarian achievement of this century? This challenge should be based on the belief that even in the worst depravities of war, the individual retains a fundamental minimum of humanity.

The law should never be silent in times of war.

Prashanth Shanmugan, is a freelance writer based in The Netherlands. He blogs at: www.shanmugan.com.

10 comments

Perhaps we could even work on eliminating War itself. Contrary to what is stated in this article, war is not inevitable. It is within human control. When war is finally abolished forever, only then can humankind make a valid claim to being truly civilised!

Commenter

Lesm

Location

Balmain

Date and time

May 10, 2010, 8:38AM
i propose that conflicts between nations should be sorted out with nude jelly wrestling. The leaders of each nation would wrestle each other and the spoils would go the winner.
This would provide much entertainment and also highlight the ridiculous and pointless nature of war. it would also be harder to build a heroic nationalistic dogma from jelly wrestling battles, although not impossible i suspect.

Commenter

Andrew

Location

Reservoir

Date and time

May 10, 2010, 8:44AM
With due respect to Lesm, conflict is a part of the current human condition. Our emotional evolution has not caught up with the advances we have made with information and knowledge. Our living conditions do not require warfare but our instinctive sense of survival demand it. We've advanced technologically far faster than we've evolved naturally. Not the best situation for ending war.

Commenter

Andrew McIntosh

Location

Glenroy

Date and time

May 10, 2010, 9:26AM
Andrew,

I agree generally with your position re the relative rates of our technological and instinctual developments, but after all, the march of progress and civilisation throughout history has been of humankind triumphing over its baser instincts. The great leaps forward in our cultural development indicate a capacity, when we will it, to rise above instinct. I think Jacob Broinowski called it "the Ascent of Man".

Commenter

Lesm

Location

Balmain

Date and time

May 10, 2010, 10:06AM
Rules of war has been put forward from ancient times specially in India from ancient time to the present. When a conqueror felt that he was in a position to invade the foreigner's country, he sent an ambassador with the message: 'Fight or submit.' More than 5000 years ago India recognized that the person of the ambassador was inviolable. This was a great service that ancient Hinduism rendered to the cause of international law. It was the religious force that invested the person of the herald or ambassador with an inviolable sanctity in the ancient world. . Wish private army's like CIA who is beyond any constitutional rules understood the ancient wisdom.

Commenter

Alee

Location

Gangtok, India

Date and time

May 10, 2010, 10:09AM
Thanks Alee - interesting that the concept of diplomatic immunity is as ancient as that.

Once you accept that armed conflict should be regulated, it seems fair to hope that non-violent methods of dispute resolution might supplant armed conflict altogether. But unfortunately war is an extension of politics (the pen isn't always mightier than the sword), people have a violent streak and the arms industry is the biggest industry in the world. So anticipating a world without war would seem to be an exercise in incredible patience! :)

Commenter

lol

Date and time

May 10, 2010, 1:54PM
I remember at school someone pointed out the aparent ridiculousness of 'rules of war'. After all, we're talking about killing each other to acheive this aim. Why should we show mercy if it's that important to us?

At the time I couldn't find a good answer. sadly, it appears that an armed force actually gains an advantage the more it is willing to forgo the rules of war. Hence the success of guerilla warfare and insurgency.
Fear is a valuable tool in war. How much more terrifying is an army that leave no survivors, or tortures those they capture?

I think the value of rules of war are valuable, because they recognise that war always has a point - you're always fighting FOR something, rarely to destroy something.

What is the point in gaining control of a country that has no people left alive? No infrastructure? No arrable land? There is nothing to be gained from a war of destruction.

Commenter

GYoung

Location

Ringwood

Date and time

May 10, 2010, 3:28PM
It seems to me that when war breaks out, the environment is put last on the list, and suffers most. Look at the initial stages of the Gulf War, whn all the oil wells were set alight.

It's my understanding that the Quran has verses which are intended to safeguard the environment in times of war.

Would it be weakening, or strengthening to the Geneva Convention to enlarge its ambit to the protection of the environment?

Commenter

John May

Location

Urunga

Date and time

May 11, 2010, 6:26AM
Participating in warfare leaves people screwed up for the rest of their lives.

Participating in warfare with no rules, no limits, leaves even the winners of wars so utterly screwed up that they are no longer fit to live freely among civilians.

Commenter

David_FTA

Location

Queensland

Date and time

May 10, 2010, 11:08PM
When you remember that the art of warfare is simply to change the enemy's mind, it becomes clear why we can't simply jelly wrestle, or 'hope that non-violent methods of dispute resolution might supplant armed conflict altogether'. Simply put, the enemy won't change his mind. He'll just send a better jelly wrestler or, in the latter case, bash some sense into the non-violent enemy.

In other words to change the enemy's mind requires either an intelligent enemy who concedes because he has no other option and can accept the consequences wihout a fight, or it requires the fight after which the enemy is convinced he has no option.

What sort of leader do you prefer? Someone who gives in without a fight? Not many of them end us as leaders of countries.

But in the meantime we need the rules and in general, they work.

Commenter

Captain Col

Location

Warnbro WA

Date and time

May 10, 2010, 7:58PM