 |
|
|
Let’s Face It, It’s Time For A New Geneva Convention By Rizzuto Tue Aug 25, 2009 - Years ago, our nation decided to adhere to an international standard when it comes to the treatment of prisoners and the execution of warfare. With the current bickering over the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques, one thing is becoming absolutely clear; it’s time for the international community to come together for a new Geneva Convention. The Geneva Conventions as they currently stand are woefully inadequate in dealing with the non-state actors who are the most immediate threat to western and non-western nations alike. If we’re going to be expected as a nation to follow the rule of international law, is it too much to ask that the law be clear? It’s a commonly held misconception that the Geneva Conventions are static and unchanging but that’s simply not the case. Having been started in 1864, the conventions have changed as the nature of warfare has changed over the last century and a half. For example, WWI saw the deployment of various poisonous, sometimes lethal gasses. The use of these gasses led to the signing of the Geneva Gas Protocol in 1925, which stated that “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world”, and essentially banned its use in warfare. The conventions were amended as recently as 2005, when the world adopted distinctive emblems for medics on the battlefield (an amendment that in reality is more suited to the 20th century battlefield than it is the 21st century.) One of the primary functions of the Geneva Conventions is the protection of civilians and other non-combatants from the ravages of war. It could be argued that in today’s world where conventional warfare is becoming less frequent, the ambiguity of the conventions when dealing with terrorists is actually putting civilians in harm’s way. This ambiguity is causing western governments to become fearful of acting on their citizens behalf to stop attacks in which the civilian population has become the primary target. As we see here in America, the lack of clarity in dealing with these enemy combatants is causing internal political chaos, one of the primary goals of asymmetrical warfare. Rather than sitting around bickering about current international law, wouldn’t it make more sense for the international community to come together to create guidelines that actually address the current realities of threats to civilized nations? Unfortunately, standing in the way of a new convention are many nations that enjoy the idea of America’s and the western world’s hands being tied down by ambiguous international law. It’s almost a given that Muslim nations will refuse to be a party or signatory to any document which they deem to be anti-Muslim, which they would undoubtedly accuse any clear definition of terrorism to be. It might also force Muslim nations to be more proactive within their own borders in confronting terror. This is one of the most likely reasons that this idea hasn’t found favor more amongst the international community.
Comments : 0 Comments |
|
|
    |
del.icio.us
