Forward to-- a new Dark Age?
"Progress" comes slowly in the affairs of humankind, and it's by no means a unidirectional or linear business. One significant series of steps forward occurred in the 1860s, when European and a few non-European governments came together to agree on:- firstly, 1863, the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the establishment in different nations of national-level Red Cross and Red Crescent societies affiliated with each other and with the ICRC
- secondly, 1864, a formal, intergovernmental agreement that for the first time formalized codified a portion of the previously merely customary "laws of war"; and
- thirdly, 1869, the first-ever international agreement mandating a total ban on using an entire class of weapons (explosive projectiles weighing under 400 grams).
But still, establishing and formalizing the principles of what came to be known as 'international humanitarian law' (IHL, also known as the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions) back in the 1860s was a laudable step forward. And gradually, throughout the end of the 19th century and most of the 20th, the protections offered by these conventions came to be extended to all the rest of the peoples of the world as well. In addition, in 1949, the content of the Geneva Conventions was overhauled and strengthened in the light of the terrible abuses the Nazis (and the Japanese) had perpetrated during their military occupations of numerous other countries...
And now, here we are in yet another new century.... and the most powerful government in the world is snubbing its nose at many of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, while at the same time it seems to be working to undermine that important body, the ICRC, which is contractually obliged-- acting on behalf of all Geneva Convention signatories, including the United States-- to uphold and further the application of the principles of IHL. We have heard much news of the Bushies trying to undermine Kofi Annan, and more recently the IAEA's Mohamed ElBaradei. But are they now also trying to discredit the work of the ICRC's president, Jakob Kellenberger?
JWN reader Christiane has done a bit of useful digging around on this issue. She's found some useful on-line sources we can link to. She also found and translated into English for us another recent article from Le Temps (Geneva), on the US-ICRC tensions. (Merci beaucoup, Christiane!)
But just before I copy some of her work in here, I want to note that it seems to me that what has happened in the past few years has stemmed at least in some part from the intellectual fuzziness of those well-meaning people in the western human-rights movement who never really seemed to "get" the fact that wars are episodes in human history that are inherently anti-humanitarian. These people--whose fuzziness is in many cases perhaps forgiveable because they've never actually lived through a war-- were even arguing throughout much of the 1990s that nations could "fight wars for humanitarian purposes ". They even succeeded in subverting the meaning of the phrase "humanitarian intervention", which for most of its history meant the providing of essential relief services to people whose lives were shattered by war, until it became instead a code-word for "a war fought for allegedly humanitarian reasons". (As though anyone ever launched a war with avowedly anti-humanitarian reasons!)
I remember discussing the US-led invasion of Kosovo in late 2000 with former ICRC President Cornelio Sommaruga. The war against Kosovo had, of course, been sold to the American public as absolutely the quintessential "humanitarian intervention". This, despite the fact that the large-scale ethnic cleansing that US liberals were so worried about did not happen till after the US started the war, and as a direct reaction to that massive US escalation... Anyway, Sommaruga was extremely dismissive of the arguments that had been made for the war.
"How can they call any war 'humanitarian'?" he said. "Don't they understand that war by its nature is anti-humanitarian?"
... Well, I don't mean to say that all the blame for the Bushies' current unbridled militarism and anti-humanitarianism should be laid at the door of western rights activists. But I do think that the liberals' work of category-blurring prepared the way for the Bush administration people to make the claim that their war in Iraq had some avowed "humanitarian" purpose. In addition, one concrete effect of the liberals' fuzziness was that the strict lines of separation that humanitarian organizations had always previously insisted on, between their operations in the field and those of the US military or any other fighting force, also became blurred in many instances.
I had friends in aid-providing organizations who were involved in discussions with the US military in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq who said that the military people present were quite forthright in referring to the aid organizations' role in acting as a "force multiplier" for the military... That is, of course, a direct perversion of the doctrine of strict military neutrality which has guided the work of relief organizations from the beginning-- and which is, in the end, the only way in which they can guard the integrity of their work...
But anyway, back to the links that Christiane has provided.
The first is to a December 8th post on a blog written by Ari Berman of the New-York-based Nation magazine. Berman provides a good general introduction to some of the fiercest anti-ICRC rants out there in the rightwing US media, and he has links to many of these rants, too. (His only mistake--a small one-- was to write that the ICRC's description of US detention practices sometimes being "tantamount to torture" was made public only the week previously. No. It happened back in May or so.)
Of the sources cited there, Christiane says she finds this December 2nd editorial in the Wall Street Journal particularly serious, " because the neocons have often used the WSJ when they wanted to promote a policy which was then adopted by the White House." I tend to agree.
The editorial started from this lede:
... And it concluded,Once upon a time, the International Committee of the Red Cross was a humanitarian outfit doing the Lord's work to reduce the horrors of war. So it is a special tragedy to see that it has increasingly become an ideological organization unable to distinguish between good guys and bad.
the ICRC has become just another politicized pressure group like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger is reportedly planning to visit Washington soon to press the U.S. government on Guantanamo and other issues. We hope he is told that he is leading his organization toward the loss of its $100 million-plus annual subsidy from U.S. taxpayers, as well as its special status come future revisions of the Geneva Conventions.Another interesting article Christiane found was this December 15th piece in the Guardian (London), on the related subject of the travails the British Red Cross Society has been facing in its working relationship with the British government and military. Writer Anne Kelly quotes Nick Young, the BRCS's chief executive, as saying:
"We are able to work across the front line for only as long as we are seen as neutral... The moment that sense of impartiality is lost, our mission is lost. We might as well pack up and go home. We'll be seen as part of the war machine and we'll be unable to operate."Finally, here is C's translation of this piece , published in Le Temps on December 18th (yesterday):
The CIA manages a secret prison for high ranking Al-Quaeda members in Guantanamo
United States. Did the ICRC delegates meet with all the detainees in the US army camp in Cuba? The president of the organization, Jakob Kellengerger is still waiting for a meeting in Washington.
Alain Campiotti, in collaboration with Richard Werly.Jakob Kellenberger wants to go to Washington at the beginning of next year. The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) wants the highest level of the administration to know about his concerns for the detention conditions in the military camp of Guantanamo, in Cuba. But no answer comes; the meeting isn't yet arranged. On the American side, there is no great enthusiasm. The ICRC is the bugbear of the conservatives since its delegates, after a June visit in the camp, have spoken of interrogation methods "tantamount to torture" in a report which was leaked.
Saturday 18th December 2004
Waiting for his invitation letter, Jakob Kellengerger has surely benefited from reading the Washington Post's issue of Friday. Citing military and intelligence sources, the capital's daily states that the CIA manages a secret center of detention, inside of Guantanamo, separated from the rest of the camp by high palisades and where high ranking Al-Qaeda members, particularly precious in the eyes of the agency, are detained. This protected enclosed place has never been mentionned publicly. It exists by virtue of a presidential decision authorizing the CIA to detain clandestinely, in unknown conditions, prisoners of "high value" for intelligence. In the prison of Abu Ghraib, in Baghdad, the agency had ghost detainees under control, which were kept hiden from the ICRC delegates. Other special prisons have existed in Bagram, near of Kaboul, in ships on sea and also in Thailand.
Special section
The ICRC delegates, who make frequent visits in Guantanamo, can not ignore the special section about which the Washington Post is talking. But did they meet with the detainees of the CIA ? The ICRC is always cautious : it admits that the access to Guantanamo has been large and hopes that it has met with everybody. It's hardly possible.
One of the high value prisoners in the camp is named Mohamedou Oulad Slahi. The presence of the Mauritanian has been confirmed by the report of the 9/11 Commission. Slahi acted as the direct intermediary between Mohamed Atta, his comrades of the Hamburg cell (the hard core of the commando of the 2001 plotters) and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. He was arrested fifteen days
after 9/11 and handed over to the Americans. Other members of the main staff of Al Qaeda are perhaps also under the control of the CIA in Guantanamo: Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the brain of the operation; Ramzi Binalshibh, one of his assistants who left Germany; Abu Zubaida, the recruiter in chief, first responsible person arrested; Hambali, the leader of the terrorist network in Southeast Asia. The sources of the Washington Post think that there are nearly forty detainees in the special center of Cuba.
The Americans state that the arrested Al Qaeda staff members have spoken and that the Europeans have benefited from these informations. How were they interrogated? Does the ICRC talk of them when it denounced, in its confidential July report to the Pentagon, the use of physical and mental coercion tantamount to torture? It is about that, among other things, that Jakob Kellenberger wants to talk in Washington. And it is that which has triggered the conservative fit of anger. Rush Limbaugh, the bluntest polemist of the right says that the ICRC "hates America". Fred Barnes, the chief editor of the Weekly Standard and commentator of Fox News requests the expulsion of the ICRC from Guantanamo. And the Wall Street Journal wants the abolition of the special statute of the ICRC with a revision of the Geneva Conventions.
In Washington, Jakob Kellenberger doesn't have only enemies. The New Republic, the weekly of the "liberal hawks", is shocked by the outburst against the ICRC. It remembers that the Pentagon has continually used the presence of the ICRC as an alibi in Guantanamo: everything is OK, since they are allowed in there. But the organization knows that Rumsfeld was abusing it. He said it. In reports which are no longer so confidential. George Bush would be wise to receive the former Swiss diplomate with his small grey beard. They have so many things to talk about.
"it is a special tragedy to see that it has increasingly become...unable to distinguish between good guys and bad."
I thought the ICRC was supposed to be neutral. Doesn't that necessitate that it not see one guy as good and the other as bad?
Dear Helena,
This material on the ICRC crisis is of great interest. The mid-19th century international treaties you mention depended upon what I have previously referred to as the “Westphalian” environment of international relations. I don’t pretend to any detailed knowledge of the 17th-century settlement that followed the 30 Years War. But I understand that it was a particularly explicit statement of the equality of nations in their dealings with each other (developed out of ancient principles of diplomacy), and their rights of sovereignty and self-determination. Therefore it can stand as a tag for these general principles.
In the 19th century there were a number of Great Powers and no anticipation of a 2-super-power, let alone “unipolar” world. The 2-super-power situation is also deceptive as a concept, because it coincided with the triumphant extension of the “Westphalian” principle across the whole world. This was the letting-go of empires that you refer to, which was at least as much a positive drive for independence and sovereignty. The result is 200-plus independent nations where there were about a quarter that number, or even less, before WW2.
The United Nations was built on this principle, which is not a paradox. There is no other way, except the false path of ultra-imperialism (see below). Nationalism is the precondition of internationalism, just as the individual is the precondition of society. The Westphalian background was critical to the Algerian, Vietnamese, Ghanaian, Kenyan, Indian, and South African independence struggles, to name but a few at random.
The ICRC stands on the same base. The US, fighting a resistance war in Iraq and previously and simultaneously fighting both lower-intensity struggles and overt wars all around the world, wants to undercut the very idea of independence, and throw it into the dustbin of history if it can. The “anti-globalists” and “anti-capitalists” among us are equally “anti-Westphalian”. They give no support to ideas of independence and national sovereignty, but rather attack it, and on the same kind of “humanitarian” grounds that the imperialists are also using.
The ICRC alone cannot “reverse engineer” the Westphalian system from its own charter, which was a derivative of that system. So long as there is a general attack on nation-states as such, everything that is based on treaties between states must be weakened, and in danger of complete destruction.
“Ultra-imperialism” was the doctrine adopted by the socialist Karl Kautsky in 1914. He believed, or perhaps we should say hoped, that imperialism would coagulate into “one big trust” covering the whole world. At that point, he thought (wishfully) that the people could, in a short, sharp move, take the whole thing over and have a ready-made socialist organisation in their hands. We must fight the battle against this foolishness all over again. I see liberal-minded ultra-imperialism on this board all the time. It seems to be the new “American Dream”, shared by right and left alike.
The ICRC case is a good one to fight over. It opens the issue up to proper examination. Well done for beginning that fight, Helena (and Christiane), and thank you.
Shirin-- I think you're quite right.
Dom-- great comment. You're certainly right to raise the relevance in the current context (re the ICRC issue, and more broadly) of the Westphalian model of independent states that are accorded a formal equality. In the early 1990s, many peole in the western human-rights movement argued that that system should be ended because of the "shield" that it gives to authoritarian governments, based on the concept of their national sovereignty.
I think the attacks such well-meaning folks (including myself, back then) made on the concept of national sovereignty ended up being ill-considered, partly because they brought us-- President Bush's vision of ultra-imperialism! His actions over the past two years make one long for the restoration of the Westphalian system.
Also, what most western liberals forget is that it was the content of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia-- which, basically, said that those German princes who wanted to be Protestants could be protestants (and force all their subjects to be protestants, too, if they wanted to), and those who wanted to be Catholic could be Catholic (ditto)-- and the accompanying doctrine of the non-interference of governments in the domestic affairs of other countries, that allowed the incubation and spread of democratic ideas and practice in some countries in the first place... From where, over time they spread-- sometimes violently, sometimes through a form of osmosis-- to all the other west European countries.
So the Westphalian system protected the emergence of democracy in Europe. If on the other hand there's a system in international affairs only of "might makes right", it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happens to democracies...
Dear Helena
You know a lot more about it than I do. I thought you would.
Isn't it also true that the Treaty of Westphalia effectively ended religious war in Europe and paved the way towards religious tolerance in all states?
I hope this debate comes back into the mainstream, big time.
Very interesting discussion.
In postings on pro-war Iraqi blogs, they continually ask (any antiwar voices) what we should have done about Saddam and his brutality.
First, I didn't see Saddam as the "worst of the worst" (and so far, less than 6,000 mass graves have been found... not the 300,000 to 400,000). But regardless of that, I strongly feel that war is not the way to solve any problems, since it only makes more problems. I have never experienced war, but it seems like hell on earth, and it seems only those lacking immagination and experience want to pursue this course.
I tell these pro-war folks that I think UN inspections should have continued, after none were found, sanctions revoked, and then trade restored on the basis of no (gross) human rights violations. For this to work, the threat of force was probably necessary to get inspectors back in... in that respect, I think Bush made good decisions. Of course, he never intended to stop there, he fully intended war all along.
One positive note today (that I read) from Iraq: Shia leaders are asking people not to get revenge on yesterday's bombings, since "violence leads to violence" and will cause a civil war and disrupt elections.
It is difficult to address the issues of human rights violations in other countries (hey, even our own!) or any problems of violence without resorting to violence, but we have got to find a way to do this.... or perish in a nuclear war, I fear.
In this current US administration, they present themselves as the solvers of violence in others, and yet are among the most violent forces on earth today. And meanwhile, they steadfastly ignore all non-violent means to get them to change courses.... shut down newspapers, silence the press, ignore or abolish demonstrations, play dirty tricks on elections, refuse to listen to grassroots..... and when non-violence is not "rewarded" then violence is the only thing that works!
I'm off to call the White House Comment line again 202-456-1112
Susan wrote: "In postings on pro-war Iraqi blogs, they continually ask (any antiwar voices) what we should have done about Saddam and his brutality.
First, I didn't see Saddam as the 'worst of the worst' (and so far, less than 6,000 mass graves have been found... not the 300,000 to 400,000)."
Yes, but the sanctions killed that of number of people, 300,000 to 400,000 every year, over 13 years.
I am also glad that I never experienced war, and, as an atheist, I pray to god, I shall not experience one.
My father did as a young boy. Alongside other things he saw, he was ounce hounted by a strafer across a field. He is now 73 years old, but always ready to stomp anybody with his feets into the ground, who proposes war (in this respect he is not nonviolent). He is demonstrating for peacefull solutions since the war on Yugoslavia evey month.
And yes, I'm from germany. But the basic conclusion of my father was that he's a lifelong, until now, union organizer, because he things that working people are not interested in war.
We must ask ourself about the forces who have the power to avert apocalypse.
Could you make possible an album of fotos of small-town antiwaractivities?
Thanks Helena, for a great post,
Concerning the ICRC, one could also add two or three other things.
1) The origines can be sought even earlier than the Westphalian treaties, back to the middle age and the chivalry rules and many other non European societies had more or less codified their fights; one interesting example is Hammurabi, King of Babylon who stated that one shouldn't attack the weaks. (look there at the end of the text).
2) The Conventions have evolved with the time. As they are now, they come from the experience of WWII and were adopted in 1948. Especially the fourth convention which deals with the protection of civilians and the prohibition of the use of immoderate violence.
3) In 1977 two additional protocols have been added. One is due to the appearance of new types of conflict which don't involve conventional armies on both sides : like in civil wars or in liberation wars. Unconventional troops are protected just like conventional ones. A non conventional fighter can be a uniformed fighter or a person in civil clothes, but wearing a weapon. The US didn't ratify this additional protocol. The other additional protocol concerns the prohibition of certain type of weapons highly dammageable to civilians (chimical arms, mines, shell bombs etc.). I don't think the US ratified this one either.
4) Human rights (The Hague) and Humanitarian laws (the Geneva conventions) are visibly connected, but they have been kept separate. For a long time, the Human rights were parts of the fundamental laws of each countries. With the creation of the UN they were admitted as the rules which should guide the protection of civilians during peace time. The Geneva Conventions, aka humanitarian laws were only applied in times of wars. The UN which was created after the WWII didn't want to consider the possibility of waging wars. So they didn't want to include rules to apply during wars in Civil rights. On the other side, the UN formed by a little less than 170 governments (191 now) was a highly politicized body and the ICRC wanted to stay stritly neutral, so the Civil Rights and the Humanitarian laws were developped in parallel. Those interested can find more
there
Dominic you have rised difficult issues : do we have the right to launch a war in order to throw down a dictator ? I'd rather say no, although it's not easy. But a dictator is a political problem which has to be solved by the persons of that country. Democracy can't be forced by a foreing occupier, it has to come from the people living in the country. I do only believe in multilateral approach; the new UN reforms should abolish the right of veto for big powers. The NSC should be widened, but the idea to allow pre-emptive wars under certain conditions is a very very dangerous move.
Helena:
Thanks very much for your comments on "A New Dark Age". I think we may be at 1930 in Germany. Not 1933 yet, but surely close to 1930. I keep iamgining what it must have been like for some there, as they watched events unfolding, and asking when, and how, they should act, before it was too late. Then it became too late.
Your piece helps me continue to consider at what point and in what way do we initiate serious resistance.
George Telford
Some comments on the 30 Years' War that led to the Treaty of Westphalia:
It shouldn't be forgotten that it began as a war of religion, of the two sides that were convinced of their universal righteousness and the moral corruptness (and, indeed, apostasy) of their adversaries. It was perpetuated with such brutality for so long because, lo and behold, it was waged for, lo and behold, the reason of moral clarity!
The later years of the war saw it change from a war of religions to a war of dynasties, especially after Catholic France entered war on the side of Protestant princes of Germany and Scandanavia against Catholic Spain and Austria. If it weren't clear before, the morals of the war weren't so clear after all, even if, in practice, the dynastic struggle between the Bourbon and the Habsburg lay at the heart of the struggle from the start.
the lesson for the contemporaries, one might say, would have been moral clarity is overrated. Even if a war were nominally fought for moral clarity, the true beneficiaries would be those calculating their gains and losses strategically, not necessarily the true "believers". Better to tolerate apostates existing side by side with your country rather than impose a universal sense of "rightenousness."
The lesson was lost during world war 1. Even though the conflict had begun for rather cynical reasons of great power politics, it transformed itself into a great struggle that could only end with a "morally clear" result--for both sides. The seeming obsolescence of warfare in face of advancing civilization that seemed so near in late 19th century combined with the horrific casualties convinced everyone that the war, even if not begun with a "great" reason, had to end with one. But the only practical result was that it would drag out the carnage for several more years, while laying the seeds of the next great war, begun by those on the losing side who sought those "great" reasons again.
The irony is that the second world war, even though, in a way, fought for those "great" reasons, did not end for a "great" reason. There were those in Washington who believed that the war would not truly end until Americans took Moscow--especially people like MacArthur. Fortunately for the human civilization, President Truman thought the carnage should be confined. In a way, the firing of MacArthur was the mid-20th century version of the Westphalian moment--the realization that too much moral clarity is too expensive a proposition for humanity to pursue.
One would only hope that we are approaching the Westphalian moment again....
George Telford, it's not too late!
No mate, this is not the time for panic. If you panic you won't be able to work.
As writers, there is a lot of work to be done here. We have to "write the world" back to its Wesphalian ground, in a time when the liberals and the warmongers have both abandoned that ground. It will be a long, steady patient piec of work to do, with no easy victories.
Otherwise, as people, we have to organise. It is not the case that there are storm troopers on the streets of your town. Don't exaggerate.
Christiane,
I’m sorry I did not answer your question earlier.
I’m quite sure that it is wrong “to launch a war in order to throw down a dictator”. Launching a war is always wrong. I’m sure of this even in the abstract. I’m not convinced it is “difficult”, as you say.
For example, it would be absolutely disastrous for South Africa to make war on Zimbabwe to “regime change” President Mugabe. Anyone with half a brain can see that. At least, I hope so.
This issue belongs to our side, and not to the right-wingers. Their awful record tells their story. Our record is of organised solidarity for oppressed people, and never of demands for war. Peace is the first demand of the oppressed.
I remember addressing a meeting of Liberal Democrats in England on behalf of the Anti-Apartheid Movement years ago about our boycott campaign, and realising at the end that I had been completely misunderstood. The first questioner asked: “How do you propose that we are going to blockade such a long coastline?” I said boycott, they thought war.
I suppose the right wing has learned a little since then. Now we have ersatz solidarity movements funded by big business, and phoney velvet revolutions. We may not like it, but we can’t call it war, although sometimes it may be a deliberate prelude to war.
The main thing is: No war! No more war!
I see with pleasure that the civil rights organizations are mobilizing against prisonners' abuse. The "American Civil Liberty Union" (ACLU) has studied official documents in detail and denounces that the decision to use interrogation methods that the ICRC said were "tantamount to torture" was taken by Bush himself.
Here is the ACLU link
Extract :
A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up. "