Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000315.1.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I completely support the Council’s statement to the effect that the Geneva Conventions have been a very important stage in the development of humanitarian legislation. I also agree that the conventions are just as necessary today as they were 50 years ago. Allow me to take this opportunity to express my full recognition of the major humanitarian work which the International Red Cross and other humanitarian organisations carry out in regard both to spreading knowledge of the humanitarian principles as expressed in the Geneva Conventions and to providing aid to war victims throughout the world. In my view, there are at present two main problems connected with the Geneva Conventions. First of all, there is a gulf between the principles and their observance and, secondly, there are crucial states of affairs which are not covered by the conventions. Allow me to illustrate the constantly widening gulf that exists between, on the one hand, the principles contained in the conventions and, on the other hand, current observance of these by pointing out that, in conflicts in the course of the last decade, 10 times as many civilians have been killed as soldiers. That is essentially the reverse of the situation during the First World War. The widening gulf between principles and practice is due, in my opinion, to the fact that the character of wars has changed during the last 50 years. More and more wars are fought under conditions of anarchy in which there are no stable structures and in which the areas hit by war are not controlled by any government.
The world has also witnessed a growing number of wars in which weapons have deliberately been aimed at civilians and the purpose of which has been to annihilate specific groups in society. In these situations, humanitarian aid to victims is naturally unwelcome, and this leaves the world in a terrible dilemma. The second problem is that the Geneva Conventions do not adequately deal with the activities of those who intervene for humanitarian reasons. Even though the Geneva Conventions contain provisions concerning the right to provide humanitarian aid in crisis situations, it is also laid down that this right requires the consent of the government in the country concerned. This is especially the case if it is a question of internal conflicts. The principle of humanitarian access or the international community’s right to protect, and provide aid to, those in distress if a State is unable – or unwilling – to do so itself is not, therefore, being universally applied. This is a serious breach of the humanitarian principle and is, in some cases, a fatal shortcoming which is responsible for many war victims. It was precisely this question of providing normal access to humanitarian organisations that was the focal point of my visit to Chechnya at the beginning of February.
In my view, the question of to what extent circumstances require a revision of the Geneva Conventions, and what form this should take, is now an important one. I believe we have two options which are not mutually exclusive. The first is to change the conventions so that they are better placed to tackle complex contemporary crises, for example by establishing the right to provide humanitarian aid to those in need. The other option is to ensure that the humanitarian principles established in the Geneva Conventions are in actual fact observed, for example, by improving the mechanisms for enforcing them. The first option – that of reconsidering the content of the conventions in order to close all the loopholes – is a complicated and risky option: complicated because the way in which war is conducted is constantly changing, and risky because the possibility cannot be excluded that, as a result of opening the conventions to renegotiation, no new agreement might be reached. But allow me to say clearly that I am wholeheartedly in favour of establishing the principle of humanitarian access in all situations and of reinforcing the right of those in distress to receive humanitarian aid. With regard to the other option – that of securing better observance of the existing principles – I think that prosecuting offenders is one of the most promising options to be pursued. The obligation upon States to proceed against war criminals is established in the Geneva Conventions, but that is clearly not enough. I therefore wholeheartedly support the demand for prompt ratification of the statute of the International Criminal Court. This demand has also been put forward here today. On behalf of the Commission, I want to give my support to the view that we ought to work together on bringing this task to a satisfactory conclusion and turning it into legal reality."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples