Email 
Print 
HAVE YOUR SAY: Do neutral emblems protect aid workers?
Written by: AlertNet
Colombian soldiers escort captured Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) members. REUTERS/Carlos Duran
Colombia has admitted it misused the symbol of the Red Cross in this month's military rescue of politician Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other rebel-held hostages. Dressing intelligence officers up in Red Cross t-shirts is a possible violation of the rules of war, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions to protect civilian lives. Staff from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) go into battle zones in Colombia - and many other parts of the world - bearing that emblem as a sign they're neutral and should be granted safe passage. What will Colombian guerrillas think when they see that cross on a t-shirt now? When aid workers bear their agencies' logos on their caps and trucks, it's not just about publicity - it's also a badge to say they're unarmed civilians who aren't on anyone's side. What are the consequences of Colombia's actions? Is it a sign that aid agencies' neutrality isn't respected any more? Have aid agencies undermined their own argument by taking sides too often in the past? Further reading:
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
13 responses to “HAVE YOUR SAY: Do neutral emblems protect aid workers?”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Unlike some other content on this website, the written content in this article may be republished or redistributed by any means free of charge. Any use of photographs and graphics on this website is expressly prohibited. You must check whether written content contained in other articles on this website may be republished or redistributed without the express permission of Reuters or the relevant third party provider.
17 Jul 2008 13:03:13 GMT
Red Cross emblem only counts for the "good guys". Fact is, such symbols are often the intended target of the "bad guys". If I were held hostage by thugs, it would be fine with me to use any trick, faint, or violence to get me released!
17 Jul 2008 14:16:48 GMT
From the moment this story broke and it was clear that the military had gotten in by pretending to be an NGO my heart stopped. This is an erosion of the basic tenants of humanitarian law that protect not only the workers in field but also prisoners of war all over the world. Without respect for the basics of the Geneva Conventions I fear that warfare in the future will (as has already been seen in Guantanamo, etc.) continue to devalue human life and integrity. It is a sad day when the military passing as humanitarians are applauded.
17 Jul 2008 17:13:01 GMT
Respect of humanitarian principles such as neutrality and independence are already under strain. The use of a Red Cross by military personnel is not inconsequential, and Uribe's apologies are important in recognizing this. That being said, it is only the latest 'mistake' in a global deterioration of the distinction between civil and military roles. The Colombian military is as guilty as international NGOs working for PRTs in Iraq and Afghanistan in fostering this unhealthy environment.
18 Jul 2008 07:29:52 GMT
All is fair in love and war? As patrick points to it being a sad day when humanitarian and military lines become cloudy I will say yes it is, however the sad day came long befor the need to take advantage of the fog. Being ex military I applaud the rescue, whatever means short of overkill. No lives were lost during the extraction. When in battle with an inhumane foe, extreme measures will be on the table. Had the symbols use been debated, the prisoners would still be just that. Well Done!
18 Jul 2008 07:32:17 GMT
This behaviors by military will create life dangers to future red cross workers in Colombia and elsewhere.
18 Jul 2008 09:45:49 GMT
It is fantastic that people who were deprived of their freedom now enjoy it. Nevertheless, it is ABSOLUTELY DEPLORABLE that the Colombian President tries to dismiss the MISUSE of the Red Cross as a personal initiative of a soldier on mission. What will be of the many thousands of people who are still deprived of their freedom all over the world and whose only hope is the respect and neutrality that the Red Cross symbol has and which is now tarnished... Enough is enough!
18 Jul 2008 12:07:57 GMT
It is appalling to see the military misuse neutral symbols. It definitely amounts to inappropriate fraud of some kind.
In some war-torn countries, individuals and insurgents are already losing respect for logos -whether INGO or UN. They have no meaning any more. You are actually a moving target if you display a "neutral" symbol. We need to work on changing attitudes - please dont make things worse.18 Jul 2008 15:14:11 GMT
I am pleased that the hostages have been released, but using the Red Cross emblem was unethical. Don't forget that the ICRC continues to work in Colombia so its entire operation may now be in jeopardy. Some international NGOs have themselves further blurred the lines of neutrality and impartiality, but the government of Colombia is painfully aware of how important it is that the ICRC's good name remain untarnished.
18 Jul 2008 15:14:37 GMT
Humanitarian/Aid workers are already and increasingly targets of armed forced in Sri Lanka (17 employees gunned down in Muttur in 2006), Sudan, Somalia, Chechenia, Burundi, RCA... Among all those organisation ICRC is probably among the ones that paid the higher tribute for just doing its job.
The frontier between aid workers and some armies trying to do "humanitarian" work is already very thin, this kind of example will just increasingly endanger civilian aid workers... This is a shameful position.21 Jul 2008 17:39:28 GMT
The misuse of the Red Cross symbol further endangers the lives of aid workers already putting their lives at risk. Unfortunately, this may also confirm some people's suspicion that aid workers are in league with the occupying power/government. Neighbors will now turn to each other and say, "I told you so. They can't be trusted".
24 Jul 2008 02:28:49 GMT
First of all, as a retired member of an NGO and former lecturer on International Humanitarian Law, I want to point out what I have said for years: There is a difference between taking sides and taking a stand. And I believe that Gandhi taught there was more to nonviolence than to simply "do nothing". That having been said, the Colombian government's willingness to publicly admit to the ruse goes quite a way towards correcting the situation, although make no mistake, there should still be an investigation and proper judicial determination of the extent of the violation. A signatory party to International Law does not get to shrug off any offense they deem "acceptable". Conversely, in the "Fog of War" and the universe of Humanitarian Law, some offenses are, indeed, "misdemeanors" at best. Also, I would imagine people claiming to be members of FARC but unknown to another FARC member may be in danger, or at least more scrutiny, from now on as well. I don't see any public discussions regarding that, and I'm sure for good reason. I would ask those of the above postings who thought the ruse was a good thing, what would they think if the FARC had used the Red Cross T-shirts as a deception to kidnap several civilians? The FARC would have a many reason to justify their actions as the Colombian government has for theirs. The point of being neutral, of being for principal rather than principality, is to counter war's single most destructive, most inhumane effect: righteousness is in the eye of the beholder... Another thing to consider: There are no "Red Cross Police" who can "enforce" these rules, the countries signatory incorporate the rules into their own domestic judicial system - when a government breaks an International Law, it breaks it's own law. Coping an attitude of "nobody can tell us what to do" is adolescent at best and criminally insane at worst. Along those veins: The increase in abuse of neutral NGO personnel and civilians in general has risen over the last several decades in parallel to the amount of public contempt major civilized nations and their governments have expressed for NGOs in particular and humanitarian movements in general. Sovereign nations really do set the example and tone for emerging nations, new democracies, and yes, even "rogue states" Even autocrats as diverse as Napoleon and Mao Tse Tung have taught (if not always practiced) the idea that today's conquered peoples are tomorrow's constituents, and it pays to treat them justly. So even radical groups and anarchists look to the developed nations to see how "far" they can "go". A good example, I think, was the opposition early in 2001 of several developed countries, as well as some emerging theocracies, which eventually prevented the "use of rape" from being declared a war crime. The spokesperson for the U.S. delegation even went as far as to pos! it that rape could not be a war crime, because it "caused no permanent damage". It was not, I am convinced, a coincidence, that rape during armed conflict saw an increase in the years following, in the Sudan and Darfur in particular. Ultimately, we must all take responsibility for our actions as civilized people; otherwise we cease to be nations and descend into group-thinking organisms that do whatever we want, to whomever we want, when ever we want, for the same reason a canine licks it's own privates - because it can.
28 Jul 2008 18:09:30 GMT
3 issues:
- 'spy' or military agencies USING Red Cross or other groups as 'cover'. - privatized spying (ie., The Vast and Dangerous Transfer of American Spying to Mercenary Companies, By Chalmers Johnson, Tomdispatch.com. Posted July 28, 2008.) -the sheer convenience of 'Disaster Capitalism' to kill off a cruel regime's underclass or 'undesireables'. When THESE two issues collide... peace & aid workers are in danger. The solution? Aid workers being more aware of their coworkers' intentions... which is dangerous in itself. â"ââ"ââ"ââ"ââ"ââ"ââ"ââ"ââ"ââ"â30 Jul 2008 02:03:27 GMT
Perfidy is a war crime under the Geneva conventions. The use of ICRC logos, or even the impersonation of a humanitarian mission (which was the goal), must be sanctioned if humanitarian access is to be maintained in war zones, particularly in cases such as this one where ICRC was the designated mediary with the guerrillas, and where they had been providing medical assistance to hostages in the past. Note that the act of perfidy includes capture, not just killing, the enemy combatants, which is one element of what occurred. It is clear that the guerrilla in charge of the captives was staying close to the soldier with the ICRC logo, shortly thereafter the guerrillas were drugged and taken captive.
The purported 'infiltration' which was celebrated by the GOC appears to have been of the ICRC rather than the guerrillas. Was the ICRC bib in the soldier's pocket when he panicked and put it on? A highly unlikely explanation for the events of the Operation, which were meticulously planned for weeks in all other aspects. What remains unclear is whether they used ICRC's HF codes to get them to displace to the location of the helicopter pickup, which would be yet another farce. The worst thing that can happen is that we have ex-mil celebrating this event.