Notes from the Rapporteur

Larry Minear

Director

Humanitarianism & War Project

Watson Institute for International Studies

Brown University/ USA

The subject of this year’s Humanitarian Forum, protection in armed conflict, was addressed in three working sessions from the perspectives of the victims, humanitarian organizations, and states. Chaired by Eric Roethlisberger, ICRC Vice President, the sessions heard a total of some 65 interventions. A background paper on the issues of the meeting had been circulated in advance. These Notes offer the Rapporteur's identification of some of the main themes and his observations on the discussions.

Working Session I on Wednesday morning began with a presentation of the ICRC's campaign on international humanitarian law, People on War. Under the leadership of Greenberg Associates, a private polling firm, interviews have been conducted and data analyzed in four conflict settings (Colombia, Bosnia, the Philippines, and Lebanon). By August, another 12 country studies will have been completed and the global results tabulated and interpreted. Wolfsberg participants were generally enthusiastic about the undertaking and preliminary findings. Comments focused on clarifying methodological issues (e.g., the populations sampled, the use of control groups, the limitations on the generalizability of findings, the extent to which ICRC involvement might skew answers). The implications of the eventual findings for current activities (e.g., in dissemination) were also discussed.

Recurrent themes of the presentation and discussion included the following:

The Applicability and Utility of International Humanitarian Law. Polling data indicates that at issue are not the principles of international law-civilians and combatants in each setting strongly affirmed the existence and importance of such principles. The issue is rather the rationales invoked for suspending those principles. Humanitarian law is widely understood and valued, even in the breach. Thus the major concern is not with the law itself but with behavior that frequently deviates from it.

The Erosion of Distinctions between Civilians and Combatants. The polling data from the conflicts studied to date demonstrate broad recognition (in excess of 90% of the respondents) that civilians should be spared from attack. Thus, if the Geneva Conventions and Protocols did not exist, they would need to be invented. At the same time, modern warfare has made traditional distinctions between civilians and combatants more difficult to maintain. Several speakers suggested that the terms be replaced by "victims" and "aggressors" or some other construct. At the same time, the fact that if devised afresh, international law would be a pale shadow of its present self suggested the need to strengthen enforcement of existing law rather than devising new law. The erosion of distinctions has ominous implications for assistance and protection work.

The Importance of International Actors. Their pivotal roles are widely acknowledged and welcomed, yet such organizations are also viewed as parties to the conflicts. The ICRC received higher marks for protection in Colombia, the Philippines, and Lebanon than the UN, which scored higher than the [CRC in Bosnia. As for assistance, respondents ranked the ICRC higher than the UN in all four settings. When data from the other twelve countries round out the picture, significant conclusions may be drawn about the comparative advantages of specific institutions (including NGOs and states as well as the UN and the ICRC). In any event, people make clear distinctions among individual agencies rather than lumping them together indiscriminately as is often alleged.

Tensions between Justice and Mercy. Majorities in all four countries favor prosecution of those breaking laws, differing only in whether such cases should be handled by international or state judicial processes. Early on in the Wolfsberg debate, several participants framed the trade-offs between justice and mercy in either/or terms, noting the need to choose between accountability and reconciliation. By the end of the debate, broad consensus had emerged that while introducing accountability for crimes might slow processes of reconciliation and social reconstruction, the ending of impunity is indispensable if wartorn societies are to move beyond conflict. Justice, many felt, should be accorded higher priority in the panoply of international objectives and activities.

Understanding the tensions between justice and mercy has major implications for the way in which human rights protection and aid delivery is structured, yet there was anything but unanimity on how such tensions should be resolved. Whereas one speaker proposed that assistance and protection be provided first, without consideration of the need for punishment, others described a much more interactive and less sequential relation between the two. It was clear that neither the UN system nor other actors have yet conceptualized or operationalized ways for managing the tensions effectively. Divergent views were also expressed regarding the extent to which humanitarian organizations might appropriately serve as "the eyes and ears of the international community." Some saw turning over information on human rights abuses and needs as essential; others viewed doing so as a politicization of humanitarian tasks.

Working Session II on Wednesday afternoon, which was to have been devoted to the perspectives of states on protection, was (in order to accommodate schedules of those involved) broadened to include the perspectives of humanitarian actors. The discussion was launched with presentations by Michael J. Aronson, Chairman of the Geneva-based Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response, an alliance of eight major NGO coalitions, and Hilde F. Johnson, Minister for International Development and Human Rights of Norway. Session 11 lacked much of the clarity of focus of Session 1. Ranging widely over many issues, the discussion continued through Working Session III on Thursday morning. By the time the general debate had concluded, the discussion had identified a number of key aspects of the protection challenge, including the following.

The Importance of Prevention. "The best protective measure would definitely be prevention," observed the Norwegian minister. A number of speakers highlighted the need for actions that would head off major humanitarian crises before they occur. At the same time, a number of participants noted the poor track record of the international community in prevention and suggested various reasons for it. Among effective prevention strategies cited in the debate were the training of local NGO counterparts in international humanitarian law and conflict resolution and the education of constituencies (including military forces) in human rights, as had been done with some success in Latin America.

The Application of Military Force. The opening statements by the Norwegian minister and the NGOs underscored the legitimacy of the use of force under certain circumstances, despite an expressed preference for more consensual approaches. The minister noted that while "Impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian work is indeed essential ... in many cases impartiality no longer is seen to be oppose as such to armed protection." The ICRC, however, restated its view that the increased blurring of humanitarian and military activities "leave[s] classic humanitarian action, which is generally guided by the principles of neutrality and impartiality and seeks the maximum possible degree of independence vis-a-vis the military and political authorities, in a state of crisis." These divergent viewpoints were not much clarified by the debate, nor were criteria suggested to answer one minister's agonized query, "When do you have to use violence to strike against violence?" Calling the present selectivity of military intervention, unguided by minimal criteria, 'outrageous," he appealed to the international community to 'get this right" before the 50th anniversary this fall of the Geneva Conventions.

Fuller Funding of Protection Activities. One major donor referred to the increased importance now given to funding protection work by its collaborating partners. NGOS, however, commented on the imbalance that they believe continues to exist between the substantial resources available for aid activities and the more modest offerings for protection work. There was general agreement that the presence of larger numbers of expatriates and of more assertive activities represented an investment in protection, but also a sense that such activities are most exposed and most difficult to sustain precisely where they are most needed.

The more Holistic Use of Existing International Law. A number of speakers suggested that the resources afforded by international law in the areas of human rights, refugees, and the internally displaced be viewed as buttressing the provisions of humanitarian law, which were necessarily receiving greater attention at the meeting.

During the three working sessions, key recurrent themes included the following:

First, the crisis in Kosovo. Concern was expressed throughout that the Kosovo situation not dominate the Wolfsberg discussions, and indeed it figured prominently. Yet I myself was disappointed that the exchanges regarding Kosovo were not more sustained or hard-hitting, given the divergent perspectives on the appropriateness and implications of NATO action present around the table. Participants engaged in considerable hand-wringing and hand-washing, leaving a range of issues of policy and operations to be fully joined.

Second, the "re-nationalization" of humanitarian action. Widespread concern was expressed that the nationalities of humanitarian personnel are increasingly a factor in their acceptability in particular conflict settings, a major step away from more multilateral approaches to humanitarian action. This direction was not simply the case in the Kosovo crisis, where individual NATO military contingents have turned to NGOs from their own country to take over aid tasks as the troops withdraw. It is also the case in southern Africa and Iraq, where the nationalities of aid staff are now often vetted with host authorities. As in other such discussions, however, I found those with political and diplomatic portfolios consistently underestimating the negative effects of their policies on humanitarian actors, at the same time undervaluing the contribution that effective protection and assistance activities can make to achieving political objectives.

Third, the criteria of success. A number of speakers expressed satisfaction in the international response to the Kosovo crisis. 'Nobody is starving," observed one minister, and, compared to the extent of distress in other conflicts, the aid response is now well organized and well managed. An alternative perspective was suggested by experience in the Caucasus, where, following major crises earlier in the decade in Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the major human needs have similarly been addressed and yet an uneasy peace exists over the frozen conflicts, with the displaced unable to assert their rights to return to their homes. The fact that the future remains unresolved for Kosovars outside their country and that those remaining inside face fundamental needs for protection and assistance alike suggested the need to be more clear about the criteria of successful international action.

Finally, the roles of NGOS. NGOs came in for recurring criticism. They were charged with being "neo-governmental," lecturing governments on how to be governments and arrogating to themselves functions that are, in their view, being poorly performed. NGOs were chided for their lack of clear and consistent policy recommendations on key issues such as the use of force. NGO contributions in Africa, scene of an upsurge of frictions with host governments, were also questioned. NGOs responded with their familiar litany of comparative advantages vis a vis states. However, little new ground was broken in the dialogue. Differences were also expressed regarding the extent to which adherence by individual NGOs to the new SPHERE standards should become a condition for future grants and contracts from donors.

In sum, the discussions confirmed that protection is at once more difficult to achieve in today's armed conflicts -- and more urgent. The focus on protection, existing as it does at the interface between the humanitarian and the political, diplomatic, and military, underscored the need for and value of sustained dialogue among actors and across institutional lines. As President Sommaruga observed in his opening remarks, "Talks between the humanitarian and political spheres are indeed a matter of great urgency." In his keynote address, Salim Salim had identified the need to develop "a proper alignment between political, humanitarian, and if need be, the military dimensions of addressing conflicts and protection of victims." In this sense, Wolfsberg III continued discussions begun in 1997 and 1998 and pointed toward the need for returning to these issues, perhaps in more focused fashion, in the new millennium.

Larry Minear

June 3, 1999