Swiss slammed for revisiting Geneva Conventions

Human rights groups fear the US’s treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay is in violation of the Geneva Conventions swissinfo.ch

A major human rights organisation has expressed serious doubts about a Swiss initiative to discuss new ways of applying humanitarian law.

Human Rights Watch says it would be better to concentrate on ensuring that the existing Geneva Conventions are upheld.

The criticism came at the end of an international seminar at Harvard University, organised by the Swiss government.

The seminar brought together over 60 specialists in humanitarian law, including military lawyers and diplomats.

Switzerland, as the depository country of the Geneva Conventions, has traditionally taken a keen interest in the upholding and application of humanitarian law.

In recent years, humanitarian issues have become one of the main planks of Swiss foreign policy.

Outdated Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions were drawn up at the end of the Second World War, in response to the appalling human rights abuses which had taken place.

They were designed to protect civilians and prisoners of war from inhumane treatment during future conflicts.

Since then, though, the September 11 attacks have raised questions about the 50-year-old Geneva Conventions, and whether they require updating to take account of terrorism.

Members of the United States administration have suggested that some aspects of the Conventions need not be applied when fighting terrorism.

But civil rights groups counter that the very way in which the war on terrorism is being waged make the Conventions all the more important.

Naïve Swiss?

“We are concerned that the Swiss are being naïve,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

“I do believe they want to reaffirm the Geneva Conventions,” he told swissinfo. “But at the same time the United States is pushing hard to escape them, and I’m not confident the Swiss can resist that pressure.”

But the Swiss maintain that any such fears are unfounded. “There’s no reason to say we are naïve,” said Peter Maurer, head of the Swiss delegation in Harvard.

“I don’t think there is any major idea coming out of this meeting that the obligations under the Geneva Conventions should be questioned,” said Maurer.

“There may be different views on how best to apply the Conventions, but there is no questioning of the principles.”

NGOs excluded

But there is particular annoyance that non-governmental organisations like Human Rights Watch were barred from the seminar, on the grounds that not every interested party could be included.

NGOs were, however, invited to submit their comments in advance of the seminar.

“We are very disappointed that the Swiss government has insisted on keeping the doors closed,” said Roth, “especially as most of the participants were from the military. That really sends us a warning signal.”

Maurer, however, countered that the Harvard seminar was planned as only the first step in a longer series of discussions.

“We have always maintained that this broader process should be open to everyone, and that non-governmental organisations have an important role to play,” he insisted.

“But that doesn’t mean that everyone has to participate all the time; so at the moment we have chosen to restrict [participation].”

The International Committee of the Red Cross was represented at the seminar, although it is known to be concerned about any move to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions.

Guantanamo Bay

The agenda at the seminar included the status of combatants and prisoners of war – an issue which has already been discussed at length in the light of the United States’ handling of detainees in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Here, Human Rights Watch believes further debate can only take attention away from what it regards as serious violations of the Geneva Conventions.

“On the rules governing prisoners of war, such as those at Guantanamo, the rules under the Geneva Conventions are absolutely clear,” said Roth.

“The detaining authority – the United States – must hold a tribunal to determine which are prisoners of war and which are not.”

“But the US essentially ripped up the Conventions. It said they were not binding on the US and refused to hold the hearings. That’s not a question of interpreting the Conventions, it’s just flouting them.”

Support existing conventions

What Human Rights Watch would rather see is a vigorous campaign to ensure that the existing Conventions are upheld.

“What we need now is pressure to really enforce them,” said Roth. “This is not the time to rewrite them, they have served us very well.”

“Above all, when the world’s only superpower tries to step outside the Geneva Conventions, it sends a terrible signal to other governments. It’s a ready-made excuse to avoid complying with humanitarian law.”

The Swiss, however, insist that their initiative is an important step towards developing humanitarian law to cope with modern conflicts.

“The focus of this meeting has been how we can further develop international humanitarian law,” said Maurer. “What can we improve in the legal framework, given the new challenges in present day conflict.”

“And by new challenges, I mean how to deal with deliberate targeting of civilians, how to deal with non-state actors.”

“I really think the fears are unfounded. It is not at all the Swiss opinion that the Geneva Conventions need revamping.”

swissinfo, Imogen Foulkes

In brief

Human Rights Watch has expressed doubts about a Swiss initiative to discuss new ways of applying humanitarian law.

The organisation claims it would be better to concentrate on ensuring that the existing Geneva Conventions are upheld.

The fight against terrorism has raised questions about the Conventions, and whether they require updating.

Some members of the US administration suggest that some aspects of the Conventions can be ignored when fighting terrorism.

Some suggest that Switzerland will not be able to resist pressure from the US to modify the Conventions.