Activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 1992-95
Doc. 7499
7 March 1996
REPORT
Rapporteur: Mr BILLING, Sweden, European Democratic Group
Summary
The report takes a brief look at some of the major events which marked the ICRC's humanitarian work worldwide between 1992 and 1995. It does not set out to give an exhaustive account of everything the ICRC accomplished; the object is to pick out the main developments and to give some idea of their implications for the ICRC.
Council of Europe member states and other countries need to step up their political and financial support for the ICRC's action. They are asked to ratify, if they have not yet done so, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocols and to ensure strict compliance in all circumstances with these instruments and other provisions of international humanitarian law. The Assembly calls on all states to co-operate with the ICRC in good faith and to enable it to perform its work on their territory in accordance with its mandate.
I. Draft resolution
1. The Assembly pays tribute to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for the work which it does, as a neutral intermediary, for the victims of armed conflicts, disturbances and internal tensions.
2. The Assembly recognises that the ICRC, by reason of the special status accorded it concerning the implementation of international humanitarian law by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Protocols of 1977, constitutes a unique humanitarian organisation, playing an irreplaceable role in the areas for which it is responsible.
3. The Assembly considers that in present-day conflicts, where all civilians _ men, women, children and old people _ are increasingly endangered, the ICRC's role is growing all the time.
4. In the years 1992-95, the ICRC protected and assisted millions of people throughout the world. Very special mention should be made of its work in Rwanda where, after appalling massacres, state authority and the judicial system collapsed, epidemics broke out, and countless prisoners were held in catastrophic conditions.
5. The Assembly expresses its gratitude to the ICRC for its work on behalf of the victims of the war in the former Yugoslavia, and particularly the thousands of persons interned during the conflict. It offers it its firm support in carrying out the tasks entrusted to it under the Peace Agreement on Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, to arrange for liberation of the prisoners as soon as possible and establish the fate of those who have disappeared.
6. Apart from its work in the field, the Assembly appreciates the efforts made by the ICRC to disseminate international humanitarian law, and its diplomatic efforts to secure the banning of certain particularly cruel weapons, such as anti-personnel mines and laser weapons that blind victims. In this connection, it welcomes the recent adoption of the fourth Protocol to the United Nations Convention of 1980 on the prohibition or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons, prohibiting deliberate blinding by means of laser weapons.
7. The Assembly further welcomes the stepping-up of its own co-operation with the ICRC, practical details of which were set out in the letters of their respective Presidents in June and July 1995.
8. Accordingly the Assembly invites, in particular, the governments of the member states of the Council of Europe, of the states whose parliaments enjoy or have applied for special guest status with the Assembly, of the states whose parliaments enjoy observer status, namely Israel, and of all other states to:
a. ensure that the Geneva Conventions of 1949, their 1977 Protocols and other provisions of international humanitarian law are respected strictly and in all circumstances;
b. ratify, if they have not done so, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Protocols, as well as the United Nations Convention of 1980 on the prohibition or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons and its Protocols;
c. to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Fact-Finding Commission provided for in Article 90 of Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions;
d. adopt national laws implementing international humanitarian law;
e. allow the national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies of their country to work in full independence;
f. give representatives of the ICRC access to persons detained in international or internal armed conflicts, and also in other situations where the intervention of a specifically neutral and independent institution can help solve humanitarian problems;
g. increase their political and financial support for the activities of the ICRC;
h. promote the dissemination of international humanitarian law in their own countries, particularly among the armed forces and police;
i. support total prohibition of the transfer and use of land-based anti-personnel mines;
j. promote extension of the aforesaid United Nations Convention of 1980 to non-international armed conflicts, and inclusion in its provisions of effective procedures for verification and regular inspection;
k. take into consideration the fact that the humanitarian, the political and the military must each keep to its own dynamic, without confusion of objectives and tasks, with a view to preserving the independence, neutrality and impartiality of humanitarian action.
II. Explanatory memorandum
by Mr BILLING
Contents
3. Protection of prisoners and civilians
4. Putting families back in contact
5. Health: emergency care and preventive action
6. Survival strategy: an indispensable combination of immediate and long-term assistance
7. Dissemination of international humanitarian law
_ Local and intercultural approaches
_ Prevention
8. ICRC - custodian of international humanitarian law
9. Relations with other organisations
10. Parliamentary Assembly and ICRC
a. Follow-up to be given by states to resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly on ICRC's activities
b. Co-operation between ICRC, the Parliamentary Assembly and its Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography
The ICRC derives its mandate from the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977. The Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement also assign responsibilities to it in situations not covered by the Geneva Conventions.
The ICRC sees to it that provisions of international humanitarian law applicable to armed conflict are scrupulously complied with and it performs the functions which that law specifically vests in it. The ICRC and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, together with national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, make up the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
The ICRC is the independent humanitarian institution from which the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement sprang. As a neutral intermediary it endeavours, on its own initiative or on the basis of the Geneva Conventions, to provide protection and assistance to victims of armed conflict _ whether national or international _ or of internal troubles or tensions.
The end of the cold war affected all six of the regions in which the ICRC operates (Africa; the Americas; Asia and the Pacific; western and central Europe; eastern Europe and Central Asia; the Middle East and North Africa). However, the consequences were more dramatic in some regions than others. Political change in the former communist countries directly affected societies and economies and this triggered widespread violence and armed conflict in some areas.
The ICRC mounted large-scale operations to protect civilians and inspect places of detention to which previously it had not had access, being _ like international humanitarian law _ largely unknown in the areas concerned. The aid needs differed from those the ICRC usually dealt with. The bulk of the population _ for instance, in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union _ were town dwelling, educated and reliant, particularly during the long winter months, on modern health, water-supply and power-supply infrastructure which warring factions had in some instances deliberately targeted.
In Africa the result of the end of the cold war was that some areas ceased to have any strategic importance to the international community; the "discipline" which had previously been directly or indirectly imposed on opposing sides was removed, as in Liberia and Somalia. The international community was now less interested in tackling local tensions and problems of government. Amidst this indifference, compounded by growing poverty, flourishing trade in small arms and fiercer competition for precious natural resources, tragedy took on an even larger dimension. The ICRC mounted relief operations of unprecedented size _ Somalia and Rwanda being the most striking examples. It frequently stepped in to meet the immediate survival needs _ in particular the medical and food requirements _ of hundreds of thousands of people in circumstances where government had ceased to exist or did not have sufficient resources to cope.
In the Middle East the ICRC's work was largely of the "traditional" type. Governments undoubtedly retained their authority and the ICRC was largely recognised and accepted. Most of the action required of it consisted in detention-related and protection work. Dissemination work was scaled up because of the growing fear that serious economic and social tensions might cause an increase in violence in parts of the region in years ahead.
In Asia and Latin America, in comparison with previous decades, there was economic and political progress and relative peace despite some notable exceptions, such as Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Colombia and Peru, each of which experienced protracted violence that posed huge problems for ICRC protection of the civilian population. But in many other Asian and Latin American countries _ El Salvador and Cambodia, for instance _ the ICRC was able to withdraw gradually; in doing so it in many cases stepped up its co-operation with the United Nations, national Red Cross Societies and certain governmental organisations.
In the ICRC's six operational regions its delegates worked more closely than before with those they were endeavouring to assist. This was reflected in the number of delegations and sub-delegations springing up worldwide in countries overtaken by conflict.
3. Protection of prisoners and civilians
ICRC work on behalf of prisoners in many parts of the world has never been so difficult. Certainly in several regions the more traditional work on behalf of prisoners continued, usually where _ as in the Middle East _ government was strong and the legal and prison infrastructure comparatively well funded and well managed. But in many other regions _ much of Africa, the Balkans and the Caucasus, for instance _ prisoners come under various authorities many of which totally disregard or are totally ignorant of the rules of international humanitarian law, and either lack the means to provide prisoners with reasonably satisfactory conditions or are completely uninterested in their welfare.
One of the many lessons to be learned from work in the more complex conflicts which typified the end of the cold war _ in Liberia, Somalia or Rwanda, say _ is that the ICRC can only protect prisoners (and, indeed, victims generally) if the parties with which it has dealings know and respect its Red Cross emblem. This applies equally to the type of conflict where much of the infrastructure, including the legal and educational infrastructure, has been destroyed, as in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Caucasus and Rwanda. Even greater efforts are needed to create awareness of the ICRC's role, both pre-conflict and in-conflict, and the efforts need aiming not only at potential combatants but at the population generally and the ever-increasing number of humanitarian bodies. These include government authorities, United Nations institutions and NGOs.
Work on behalf of prisoners increased. In 1994, for example, the ICRC provided nearly 3 million Swiss francs worth of medical and material assistance together with some 1 million Swiss francs in financial aid to prisoners and their families worldwide.
In the former Yugoslavia forcible internment of thousands of civilians necessitated a huge protection operation. In 1992 the ICRC was forced to abandon its legendary policy of discretion and take a public stand on grave violations of international humanitarian law. Its president called on the international community to put a stop to forcible internments. In 1994 delegates made strenuous efforts to secure the release of people detained by the two sides, and in particular mounted a number of simultaneous release operations. In Africa the largest operation took place in Rwanda, where in 1995 delegates visited over 60 000 prisoners. Rwanda was the ICRC's greatest challenge for all the reasons already mentioned, including collapse of government and the judicial system, the epidemic of random massacres whose victims, needless to say, were never recorded, the countless numbers of detainees, the lack of prisons and resources for meeting prisoners' basic needs, and the threats to which delegates were exposed. Quite a few of these problems were encountered to varying extents in other parts of Africa, in particular in Liberia at the start of the decade during what was perhaps the first unstructured conflict of the post-cold-war period.
4. Putting families back in contact
The ICRC's main tool here is Red Cross messages, first used in 1936 during the Spanish civil war. The purpose of these forms, for which there is provision in the Geneva Conventions, is to enable people to correspond with their families despite the obstacles created by conflict _ constant hostilities, front lines, and safety and communication problems. The unique universal network of national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies underpins the system. For its users it represents an alternative worldwide postal system when the normal means of communication fail.
The need for speedy delivery of messages and the huge number of requests received have made it necessary to strengthen the system on a decentralised basis. This decentralised approach _ with each delegation dealing with its own tracing work and its own computer storage of data _ has enabled the ICRC to transmit nearly 16 million Red Cross messages since 1990 and to handle more than a quarter of a million tracing requests.
In the former Yugoslavia, by 1992, ICRC tracing offices were having to cope with huge demand, mainly on account of forcible relocation, conscription and similar practices which scattered entire families. When delegates were given access to over 10 000 prisoners, it suddenly became urgent to find their immediate families and help them maintain contact. As the normal means of communication had broken down, an extensive distribution network was set up with the help of local Red Cross branches to process as many as 20 000 messages a week.
In the next two years over ten million messages were exchanged worldwide, an operation necessitating the co-operation of over a hundred national Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies. Delivery of family messages often required great diligence _ house-to-house searching in some cases to track down the recipient. Local branches of national societies invaluably assisted the collection and distribution of messages.
Rwanda presented a challenge of unbelievable proportions. In 1993 and early 1994 the ICRC's tracing work focused on Burundian refugees in Rwanda and Rwandan refugees in Uganda. But when the massacres began in 1994, continual population movement made it extremely difficult, and often impossible, for the ICRC to trace family and convey Red Cross messages. Worse, the ICRC's efforts sometimes had the effect of endangering the people sought. It was possible, however, to accept messages for relatives outside the
country, and so the ICRC set up a Red Cross messages network in the refugee camps in Tanzania, Burundi and in Zaire.
In 1994 Rwanda was the setting for the ICRC's largest operation ever on behalf of children separated from their families. The operation was successful thanks to experience acquired in similar operations to reunite Mozambican, Liberian and Cambodian children with their families as well as to co-operation from several other organisations in the region. The operation would have been impossible without the advanced computer technology now available.
By mid-1995 ICRC, in co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Unicef and non-governmental organisations such as the Save the Children Fund, had registered 74 000 unaccompanied children, 38 000 of whom were under direct ICRC supervision. Parents looking for their children were registered, children's messages were sent, and from September 1994 onwards the names of parents of unaccompanied children were broadcast by the BBC and Radio Agatashya in order to put families back in touch and make arrangements for ultimately reuniting them.
5. Health: emergency care and preventive action
The lesson the ICRC has learnt is that to cope with the health impact of war its humanitarian action needs to be on a world scale. Its medical programmes must include measures not only for treatment of victims but also for combating the other, indirect (but no less harmful) health effects of war. These were mostly due to various factors: victims did not have access to prophylactic or curative medical treatment, water or food; the human and other resources for promoting public health, rehabilitating the disabled, preventing or treating common diseases or stemming epidemics had been put to other uses; or basic infrastructure had been dislocated or destroyed.
The ICRC's health work has appreciably increased in the last three years, though not, in strictly financial terms, as much as other areas of the ICRC's work. At the end of 1994 the ICRC had 220 expatriate medical staff, a third of whom were on secondment from National Societies. Around half were engaged in hospital or surgical work, rehabilitation, orthopaedics, and water or sanitation projects. The remainder were engaged in various work in the field.
War surgery accounts for a quarter of ICRC medical staff's work on the ground. Since 1992 the ICRC has made it possible for over 100 000 war-injured prisoners or civilians to receive surgical treatment. Surgical teams were deployed in over twenty-five countries, in particular Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia, the southern Sudan, Afghanistan, Cambodia and Yemen. The ICRC performed work in thirteen surgical hospitals in Africa, Asia and the Middle East (at Quetta (Pakistan) and Lokichokio (Kenya), for example, which throughout 1994 continued to treat victims of conflict in Afghanistan and the southern Sudan). It also sent surgical teams to deal with emergencies, most recently in Rwanda and Yemen.
The ICRC's orthopaedic workshops were busy as never before equipping amputees with appliances and making components for prostheses, crutches and wheelchairs. In 1992-95 the workshops produced over 100 000 items and on average 10 000 amputees a year were fitted with orthopaedic appliances. In 1994 there were thirty workshops performing orthopaedic work in seventeen countries and at the same time providing training to local personnel and other partners. New workshops have been opened in recent years, notably in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Cambodia and Colombia.
Over 25% of the war-wounded treated by ICRC surgical teams are victims of mines and most are non-combatants. Nearly a third of them have to have at least one limb amputated. For this reason the ICRC's medical action has lately focused on use of mines and the injuries they cause to civilians, whether during conflicts or afterwards.
The complex question of access to water during armed conflict increasingly exercised the ICRC, a tenth of whose medical work is now concerned with water and sanitation. In 1994 it carried out maintenance work on the entire water-supply system of Grozny, in Chechnya. Action was also necessary in Angola, Malawi, Rwanda, Zaire, Iraq, Yemen, Nagorno-Karabakh, Cambodia, East Timor, Haiti and Mexico (repair of pumping stations and hydraulic plant, supply of spare parts and water-purifying chemicals, installing pumping stations, distribution lines and emergency reservoirs, and supplying water to hospitals, refugee camps, prisons and, in some cases, entire towns). In some areas the ICRC's sanitary engineers were faced with situations where entire sections of the population no longer had access to water (for instance, the Rwandan refugees in Goma and the people of Sarajevo, Mostar, Srebrenica and Aden). Some of these operations required great technical expertise.
6. Survival strategy: an indispensable combination of immediate and long-term assistance
ICRC relief work is mainly aimed at protecting the lives of victims of armed conflict and political violence, relieving their suffering and ensuring that the consequences of such situations _ illness, injury or hunger _ do not jeopardise their future. To achieve this, and enable the whole population to recover self-sufficiency, the ICRC may also be involved in setting up, maintaining or restoring community services.
At ICRC headquarters the Relief Division plans and supervises all relief action carried out in the field. Its Geneva-based team comprises upwards of thirty purchasing, food-aid, transport, agronomy, building and vehicle-maintenance specialists. At the end of 1994 there were, in addition, some 150 expatriate relief, logistics and technology specialists, many of them on secondment from national societies, working in the field under the various programmes of material assistance.
Redrawing of the political landscape in many regions was accompanied by the collapse of society, the economy and basic infrastructure on which populations were reliant. This necessitated a more comprehensive approach _ apparent right across the range of ICRC work _ to providing relief. Rehabilitation became an integral part of assistance; at the same time there was a growing recognition that planned withdrawal of an operation was just as important as its speedy arrival. The premise now is that one of the prerequisites for enabling victims to rebuild their lives and recover their dignity is to make them as capable as possible of self-sufficiency. Relief operations were accordingly developed to cover a wider range of action including, for instance, include distribution of seed, agricultural implements, fishing tackle and veterinary drugs.
The war in the former Yugoslavia generated huge humanitarian needs, in particular because the population, to a large extent urban, had few survival skills and was more dependent on the infrastructure and services of a developed economy. This was also the first region where assistance was provided on such a large scale throughout a seemingly never-ending winter. Although much more modest in scale, relief programmes in eastern Europe and some parts of the former Soviet Union encountered similar obstacles. Assistance programmes to Bosnia-Herzegovina during the 1992-93 and 1993-94 winters included the ICRC's largest non-food relief operations those years. During the first winter, assistance included clothing, blankets, wood-burning stoves and food. During the second winter a new type of material relief was introduced in the form of individual food packages. This distribution operation _ in which as many as 500 000 parcels were distributed _ was also the first programme combining relief, dissemination of humanitarian-law information, and tracing: each parcel contained a Red Cross message form and on the side of each parcel there was a cartoon on a humanitarian theme.
7. Dissemination of international humanitarian law
Dissemination of humanitarian-law information where generalised violence had broken out and the very purpose of the violence was to kill civilians had only limited effect _ and sometimes seemingly none at all. In such cases the methods which the ICRC has traditionally used to promote humanitarian principles in wartime were seriously called in question. There is no doubt whatever that it is extraordinarily difficult to impart knowledge of essential legal principles, far less get them enforced. The most urgent challenge is to find ways of putting across basic rules of conduct so as to ensure that people not directly involved in the hostilities are treated humanely. Nowadays all civilians _ men, women, children, the elderly _ are regarded as potential combatants.
In its dissemination work the ICRC is consequently encountering numerous obstacles, to which its response is to scale up its dissemination activities and develop innovative approaches. The number of delegates specialising in dissemination, who receive special training, has more than doubled in recent years. Targeting key groups has become more sophisticated. Delegates have been using a wider range of communication methods and materials than previously, including published material, radio and television flashes, lectures and theatre. But there is no doubt that even more needs doing.
Large-scale relief operations were underpinned by a clear humanitarian message. Dissemination action plans became a key component of all operations and took into account local circumstances and experience and local instruction methods.
Examples
In Rwanda the ICRC placed the emphasis on emergency dissemination. At the start of 1994 it concentrated its dissemination action on incorporating humanitarian international law into the armed forces training programme. One of the lessons learnt from the Rwandan tragedy is that dissemination programmes in situations as tense as that which prevailed in the Great Lakes area have to begin as early and be as comprehensive as possible if they are to achieve significant impact on the society concerned.
In Burundi an extensive dissemination programme to promote reconciliation at all levels of Burundian society was started in 1994.
Throughout the former Yugoslavia, while war raged, the ICRC stepped up its information and dissemination campaigns aimed at a society that is far more developed than those in Africa. The media played a vital part in its dissemination work. The ICRC likewise gave conferences on international humanitarian law to UN contingents and in 1994 it held a series of special seminars for Bosnian Serb police and prison staff. Recent conflicts have seen the emergence of new types of combatant who are not necessarily fighting for a particular ideological or political cause. Conflicts increasingly typified by fragmentation of authority are in many cases being driven by ethnic factors, desire for access to natural resources, or desire for personal gain. Local political or military leaderships are using civilian populations for their own ends. This means that the ICRC has to project its traditional humanitarian message beyond the leadership and to some extent also win the confidence of those doing the fighting. Consequently it focused its dissemination activities on the actual gun carriers, who nowadays are just as likely to be civilians as professional soldiers.
The ICRC gained access to new regions and thus audiences it had not previously reached. When the Soviet Union was dismantled, for instance, there were ethnic identities which resurfaced, and the cracks in the old system, together with political, economic and social upheaval, resulted in a series of confrontations. When tension degenerated into armed struggle, ignorance of international humanitarian law meant that there was little to prevent abuses such as indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population, protracted sieges and hostage-taking. The ICRC, which for the first time was in a position to carry out assignments in the newly independent states, quickly placed the emphasis on dissemination, the main target being the armed forces. It made considerable efforts to get through to these, both from Moscow and across the front lines.
Local and intercultural approaches
In the 1990s the ICRC has endeavoured to promote a better understanding of international humanitarian law among those it has dealings with. This intercultural approach involves demonstrating a connection between essential principles of humanitarian law and the humanitarian values contained in the culture and traditions of the particular people. These are visible in its traditions, stories, proverbs, history, literature, folksongs, and so on.
Prevention
For peacetime _ which provides the most favourable context for preventive dissemination work _ the ICRC has developed a systematic approach to meeting dissemination needs. The primary target audiences are the armed forces and all armed groups; the national Red Cross Societies; schoolchildren and the young; the universities and media, all of these being well-placed to propagate the humanitarian message.
8. ICRC _ custodian of international humanitarian law
The ICRC's legal work was no less affected than its other areas of activity by the many changes on the world scene in the last three years. One of its priorities was the basic task of drawing states' attention to their obligations under international humanitarian law and helping them implement it. There are three particular features of its activities here.
The first is the ICRC's role in preparations for the international conference on the protection of war victims which was held in Geneva from 30 August to 1 September 1993. The conference was convened by the Swiss Government and sought to draw states' attention to the threats posed to international humanitarian law by the new world order. The most worrying aspects of the new situation were abuse of the concept of humanitarian action and a widespread obscuring of the distinction between humanitarian intervention and political intervention. The ICRC appealed to states to return to the values enshrined in law and more particularly to use their influence to preserve humanitarian action's independence.
The conference concluded with the adoption of a declaration in which states reaffirmed their commitment to observance and enforcement of international humanitarian law. It also resulted in setting up an intergovernmental group of specialists. This met in January 1995 and put forward various specific recommendations, which were approved by the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent and will now be implemented.
The second distinctive feature of recent years has been the ICRC's role as a consultant to the conference to review the 1980 United Nations Convention on Conventional Weapons, which met in Vienna in October 1995. On this occasion the ICRC set itself two objectives: a total ban on production, storage, transfer and use of anti-personnel landmines and halting the development and use of anti-personnel laser weapons which inflict immediate and permanent blindness. It is important to note that, on these two issues, the ICRC's legal specialists co-operated closely with its Medical Division and its public-information specialists. The ICRC's drive to create public awareness of the terrible effects of laser weapons contributed significantly to the worldwide efforts which are being made to have them prohibited.
Though deadlock was reached on one of the two objectives which the ICRC set itself _ discussion of the question of a total ban on production, storage, transfer and use of anti-personnel landmines will continue when the review conference resumes in Geneva from 15 to 19 January 1996 and 22 April to 3 May 1996 _ the Vienna conference adopted a fourth protocol which prohibits deliberate blinding by means of laser weapons _ a historic victory as this is the first time since 1968 (the year explosive weapons were prohibited) that a military weapon has been prohibited before being used on the battlefield and before having a chance to demonstrate its deadliness by causing untold human tragedy.
9. Relations with other organisations
A series of brutal conflicts caused devastation and suffering unparalleled since the second world war. There was a correspondingly substantial increase in international relief action. The number and size of humanitarian organisations sharply increased, while the situations they were having to deal with became more complex.
This posed three challenges to the ICRC:
_ Firstly it has to make sure that relief operations really match victims' needs. This sometimes calls for instant evaluation of crises. To be reliable such evaluation has to be done on the ground by trained people.
_ Secondly the ICRC is more than ever aware of the value of co-operation with other aid organisations. The report period brought closer co-operation not only with National Societies but also with the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and United Nations multilateral agencies, in particular UNHCR and the World Food Programme (WFP).
_ ICRC's third major challenge was the scale of operations. Dealing effectively with serious humanitarian crises requires matchless logistical capability, but without the resources that a well-equipped army is capable of marshalling. Success depends on qualified personnel and a logistical capacity which functions perfectly and autonomously even in the worst chaos. It also depends on availability of appropriate material.
In this connection the ICRC has developed closer relations in recent years with universal organisations such as the United Nations and regional ones such as OAU, OAS, ASEAN, OIC, OSCE and the Council of Europe so as to enlist their support for improved implementation of international humanitarian law. Declarations of support for the ICRC's activities have been adopted by these bodies.
In this general marshalling of forces the co-operation emphasis was on the complementarity of the ICRC's mandate with those of other organisations and on the need to avoid all duplication of effort for the sake of maximum effectiveness in the cause of persons requiring protection and assistance.
The ICRC's commitment to such machinery is subject to the proviso that it retain its independence. It is necessary for it to preserve this at all times in order to perform its treaty role as a neutral intermediary.
Under the standing invitation extended to it, the ICRC attends meetings of the United Nations Standing Inter-Agency Committee and its working groups. It consistently associates itself with the consolidated appeals by the Department of Humanitarian Affairs. This is in line with main donors' preference for a comprehensive document setting out all the needs evaluated and the resources requested.
As a "permanent guest" of the Standing Inter-Agency Committee and its working party and an attender at numerous co-ordination meetings, whether in connection with operations or specific projects, the ICRC is able to express its views on humanitarian issues and provide information about its operations. In the field the ICRC is an active participant in consultations between organisations and supports the machinery which has been set up to respond to sudden developments.
At the same time the ICRC continued its endeavours to achieve greater complementarity vis-�-vis various United Nations programmes and institutions. For instance, it maintains close contact with the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, the work of whose Executive Committee it follows closely. There has also been a great deal of information exchange as part of pragmatic co-operation with the World Food Programme. In addition the ICRC co-operates closely with UNICEF, more particularly in matters of unaccompanied children and of water supply and sanitation during conflicts.
The ICRC has likewise stepped up its operational co-operation with non-governmental organisations, which are increasingly present in theatres of war.
The ICRC highly appreciates the political support it receives from parliamentarians. At its 94th Interparliamentary Conference in Bucharest in October 1995, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) adopted a resolution urging states to accede to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols I and II and calling on parliaments and members of parliament to:
_ strengthen national legislation on implementation of international humanitarian law;
_ give their backing to the establishment of a permanent international criminal court;
_ promote the setting up of an interministerial committee on the promotion of international humanitarian law;
_ set up a parliamentary body on promotion and observance of international humanitarian law.
10. The Parliamentary Assembly and the ICRC
a. National action required on Parliamentary Assembly resolutions concerning the ICRC's work
Because of their very nature it makes sense for the Council of Europe and the ICRC to be co-operating towards as full and widespread respect as possible for the humanitarian values which they uphold. Their means of action are different but when these are co-ordinated there is mutual reinforcement.
The Parliamentary Assembly contributes substantially to development of co-operation between the two organisations. Since 1984 it has held four debates on ICRC activities (in 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1992), and these debates concluded with the adoption of Resolutions 823 (1984), 881 (1987), 921 (1989) and 991 (1992) respectively. Although the context and the priorities change, the main aim of the debates remains the same: to arouse national interest in and obtain national support for the ICRC's work and create national awareness of the need to comply with and enforce international humanitarian law.
In all these resolutions the Assembly asked any Council of Europe countries and other states which had not already done so to ratify the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocols. In acceding to them states undertake to comply with and enforce their provisions at all times as a basis for universal implementation of international humanitarian law, a basis which needs strengthening by national implementing legislation and acceptance of the ICRC's interpretations.
At present all the European states are parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions except Lithuania, which is a party to the 1929 Geneva Conventions (on the wounded and sick, and prisoners of war). Unfortunately this is not the case with the Protocols, which a number of Council of Europe member states have yet to ratify (see Appendix I).
Recognition by states of the jurisdiction of the International Fact-Finding Commission provided for in Article 90 of Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions is another important guarantee of compliance with international humanitarian law.
The Commission, set up on 25 June 1991, is competent to:
- enquire into any facts alleged to be a "grave breach" as defined in the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I or other serious violation of the Conventions or Protocol I;
- facilitate, through its good offices, the restoration of respect for the Conventions and Protocol I.
It is essential that all states co-operate with the ICRC in good faith and help it carry out its mandate. In this connection I would particularly stress the need to allow the ICRC and national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to carry out their work wholly independently in all circumstances. This is a principle with which all states must comply, even in the case of armed conflict on their territory.
It should be remembered that the ICRC's work is mainly financed by voluntary contributions from states (see Appendix II), many of which are currently pursuing policies of budgetary austerity and may therefore be tempted to cut back on financial support to humanitarian action: such cuts, after all, do not directly affect their own national community but unknown people in far-off regions. This type of thinking is to be combated at all costs and I personally am very much in favour of stepping up political and financial support to the ICRC and hope that the information and arguments in this explanatory memorandum will help achieve that.
b. Co-operation between the ICRC, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography
In the Parliamentary Assembly it is mainly the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography which is responsible for co-operation with the ICRC. An ICRC representative regularly attends the committee's meetings as an observer and keeps its members up to date on ICRC activities. At the same time the committee has the benefit of ICRC experience and information both in preparing its reports and for hearings and conferences.
The desire to step up co-operation between the Assembly and the ICRC led to an exchange of letters, in June and July 1995, between the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Mart�nez and the President of the ICRC, Mr Sommaruga. The letters agreed the following co-operation:
a. The President of the ICRC is to be invited to the Parliamentary Assembly's regular debates on the ICRC's work as well as debates on specific subjects of joint interest. During such debates the President of ICRC will address the parliamentarians and answer their questions.
b. ICRC is to be invited to meetings of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography and its sub-committee and, where appropriate, other relevant Assembly committees at which matters of joint concern are to be discussed.
c. Preparations for conferences or seminars on subjects of joint concern.
d. Invitations to Parliamentary Assembly or ICRC events on matters of interest to the other party.
e. Exchange of information and documents.
f. Ad hoc consultation on matters of joint concern.
I am pleased to report that these arrangements are no "dead letter" and that co-operation in the above areas is continuing to develop. I particularly welcome the interest which Mr Sommaruga has expressed in attending the presentation of this report to the Assembly.
The Assembly for its part has supported the ICRC campaign against landmines and blinding laser weapons and issued a written declaration on the subject (Doc. 7343).
In the educational field the Assembly's 1996 programme of interparliamentary co-operation with the countries of central and eastern Europe includes a colloquy on international humanitarian law organised by its Sub-Committee on Refugees in co-operation with the ICRC (Prague, 21-23 March 1996). The aim of the colloquy _ attended by parliamentarians from those countries as well as by ICRC, UNHCR and other specialists _ is to inform parliamentarians of the main principles of international humanitarian law and how to implement international humanitarian law in national law.
Finally, I would take this opportunity of thanking the ICRC for its splendid arrangements for my visit to its headquarters in Geneva on 15 January 1996 and for its hospitality. My talks during the visit, in particular with Mr Sommaruga but also with other officials, were an invaluable aid to writing this report.
The last decade of the twentieth century will have seen more developments affecting the ICRC than any other period since the second world war. The framework within which humanitarian action has to be carried out has changed _ and is continuing to change _ spectacularly. The ICRC has endeavoured to respond to the many challenges this situation creates. In the 1990s it has asserted its "differentness" in quite a few respects: by obtaining observer status with the United Nations General Assembly; by showing a willingness to co-operate, in victims' interest, with other institutions operating on the humanitarian scene _ United Nations bodies, multilateral donors and non-governmental organisations. Further it has endeavoured to extend its range of activities
and, as well as provide assistance to meet their immediate needs, help equip populations and victims for a resumption of productive life.
The ICRC is preparing for the future, though not without some apprehension. The main world socio-economic trends threaten to subject populations to yet sterner trials. Underlying political and ethnic tensions will generate even fiercer struggle for ownership of resources. In many countries governments will have increasing difficulty meeting the people's aspirations and essential needs. There will always be unscrupulous individuals who are prepared to use a climate of somewhat unfocused dissatisfaction for private gain. In many societies the most vulnerable and those exposed to discrimination will increasingly suffer the consequences of a situation created by debt burden, unchecked trade in arms, and the huge pressure on natural resources.
In this situation, the Council of Europe has to give its political support to the ICRC in order to ensure that the possibilities and limits of humanitarian action are properly understood, that international humanitarian law is complied with and applied and that the needs of victims of conflict and violence are met as speedily, impartially and fully as possible.
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional
Protocols of 1977
Chart showing ratifications (R), accessions (A)1 and successions (S) at
17 November 1995 by the Council of Europe member states2
|
COUNTRY
|
GENEVA CONVENTIONS R/A/S |
PROTOCOL I R/A/S |
D902 |
PROTOCOL II R/A/S |
|
ALBANIA |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
ANDORRA |
X |
|
|
|
|
ARMENIA3 |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
AUSTRIA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
BELARUS3 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
BELGIUM |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA3 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
BULGARIA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
CYPRUS |
X |
X |
|
|
|
CZECH REPUBLIC |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
CROATIA3 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
DENMARK |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
ESTONIA |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
FINLAND |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
FRANCE |
X |
|
|
X |
|
GERMANY |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
GREECE |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
HUNGARY |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
ICELAND |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
IRELAND |
X |
|
|
X |
|
ITALY |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
LATVIA |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
LIECHTENSTEIN |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
LITHUANIA4 |
|
|
|
|
|
LUXEMBOURG |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
MALTA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
MOLDOVA |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
NETHERLANDS |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
NORWAY |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
POLAND |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
PORTUGAL |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
ROMANIA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
RUSSIA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
SAN MARINO |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
SLOVAKIA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
SLOVENIA |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
SPAIN |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
SWEDEN |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
SWITZERLAND |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
"FORMER YUGOSLAV REP. OF MACEDONIA" |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
TURKEY |
X |
|
|
|
|
UKRAINE |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
UNITED KINGDOM |
X |
|
|
|
Source: ICRC
1 Accession: instead of signing and subsequently ratifying, a state can bind itself by
a single act called accession.
2
3 Country whose parliament enjoys special guest status with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
4 Lithuania is a Contracting Party to the 1929 Geneva Conventions (the wounded and sick, and prisoners of war).
List of contributions paid to the ICRC by the Council of Europe member states and the states enjoying special guest status1 with the Parliamentary Assembly
from 1992 to 1995
(Figures in Swiss francs)
|
STATES |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995* |
|
ALBANIA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
ANDORRA |
13 657
|
14 000
|
0
|
20 000
|
|
ARMENIA1 |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AUSTRIA |
2 720 900
|
1 152 050
|
1 086 969
|
1 310 728
|
|
BELARUS1 |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
BELGIUM |
7 081 461
|
2 329 542
|
2 742 181
|
2 399 928
|
|
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA1 |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
BULGARIA |
0
|
10 000
|
0
|
20 000
|
|
CYPRUS |
30 000
|
60 000
|
60 000
|
60 000
|
|
CZECH REPUBLIC |
0
|
0
|
65 000
|
0
|
|
CROATIA1 |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
DENMARK |
9 842 988
|
10 379 900
|
9 493 385
|
11 274 831
|
|
ESTONIA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
FINLAND |
10 943 977
|
4 087 727
|
3 151 193
|
2 042 574
|
|
FRANCE |
13 712 656
|
7 711 951
|
7 138 430
|
6 636 200
|
|
GERMANY |
26 867 055
|
31 294 549
|
7 356 110
|
7 139 976
|
|
GREECE |
200 000
|
250 000
|
250 000
|
244 182
|
|
HUNGARY |
10 000
|
20 000
|
25 000
|
25 000
|
|
ICELAND |
112 545
|
78 642
|
82 977
|
27 000
|
|
IRELAND |
328 975
|
503 037
|
743 870
|
1 782 052
|
|
ITALY |
13 050 053
|
14 232 080
|
6 792 461
|
5 845 710
|
|
LATVIA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
LIECHTENSTEIN |
240 000
|
200 000
|
130 000
|
200 000
|
|
LITHUANIA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
LUXEMBOURG |
3 002 245
|
2 219 616
|
3 038 668
|
2 855 346
|
|
MALTA |
4 967
|
9 558
|
8 920
|
11 726
|
|
MOLDOVA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
STATES |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995* |
|
NETHERLANDS |
28 875 520
|
28 828 834
|
36 870 346
|
48 541 275
|
|
NORWAY |
9 310 571
|
12 336 613
|
12 202 033
|
22 847 753
|
|
POLAND |
0
|
80 000
|
80 000
|
90 000
|
|
PORTUGAL |
250 000
|
275 000
|
275 000
|
361 700
|
|
ROMANIA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
RUSSIA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SAN MARINO |
21 450
|
15 000
|
37 372
|
0
|
|
SLOVAKIA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SLOVENIA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
30 000
|
|
SPAIN |
2 194 169
|
1 739 731
|
1 509 549
|
1 555 285
|
|
SWEDEN |
50 811 802
|
46 757 355
|
52 139 829
|
31 625 528
|
|
SWITZERLAND |
82 386 176
|
82 158 661
|
88 580 366
|
91 368 963
|
|
"FORMER YUGOSLAV REP.OF MACEDONIA" |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
TURKEY |
97 287
|
75 000
|
75 000
|
100 000
|
|
UKRAINE |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
UNITED KINGDOM |
18 522 747
|
15 329 694
|
19 221 820
|
28 056 070
|
|
EUROPEAN UNION |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995* |
|
EU food aid |
65 437 445
|
40 066 062
|
81 630 872
|
12 500 723
|
|
EU urgent aid |
55 012 133
|
39 803 166
|
46 764 446
|
44 451 411
|
* Provisional figures, subject to confirmation by the external audit body.
Reporting committee: Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.
Reference to committee: standing mandate.
Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 26 February 1996.
Members of the committee: Mrs Aguiar (Chairperson) MM. Iwinski, Junghanns (Vice-Chairmen), MM. Akselsen, Andres, �rnason, Mrs Arnold, MM. Attard Montalto, Beaufays, Billing, van den Bos, Branger (Alternate: Jacquat), Mrs Brasseur, MM. Brennan, Chyzh (Alternate: Stepanov), Cuc�, Ehrmann, Mrs Fehr, MM. Feric, Fotiadis, Fuhrmann, Galanos, Mrs Garajov�, MM. Golu, Gotzev, Gross, Sir John Hunt, Mrs Johansson, MM. Kalus, Karas Roman, Lord Kirkhill (Alternate: Mr Atkinson), Mr Kukk, Mrs Kusnere, MM. Laakso (Alternate: Paasilinna), Lauricella, Leitner, Liapis, Loutfi, Makariadhi, M�sz�ros, Rakhansky (Alternate: Mrs Karpachova), Raskinis, Simonet, Skolc, Solonari, Mrs Soutendijk-van Appeldoorn, MM. Trojan, Vangelov, V�zquez, N... (Alternate: Mr Lu�s).
N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries of the committee: MM. Newman and Sich.