Fortnight Publications Ltd.

How to Make a 'Small War' Get SmallerAuthor(s): Michael MeyerSource: Fortnight, No. 278 (Nov., 1989), pp. 10, 12Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25552128 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 23:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.128 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:12:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COVER STORY Amnesty International, Anti-apartheid, Gorbachev, Neues Forum ... On the

threshold of the new decade some are

already describing the politics of the 1990s as 'universal humanism9. At home,

meanwhile, Gerry Adams has felt the need to lecture the IRA on civilian casualties, the UDA caused havoc by leaking documents to prove one of its civilian victims was not really 'innocent', and the

government is once more on the defensive

about the behaviour of the security forces. Can that new global climate be married to this local human rights concern?

MICHAEL MEYER of the Red Cross

(though here writing personally) believes that the application of international humanitarian law, via a Code of Conduct

comparable to the Geneva Conventions which regulate conventional warfare, may

bring a measure of humanity to internal disturbances like the 'troubles'.

How to make

a 'small war'

get smaller

H! IUMAN RIGHTS and humanitarian issues are central to the

world agenda in a way they have not been since the end of the

,_second world war. In the west, the success of Amnesty Interna

tional concerts has shown just how much support can be mobilised

around these issues?especially if tied to environmental concerns. In the

east, perestroika and glasnost signal a realisation that concern for

human rights is not an 'optional extra' but a prerequisite of progress. The

new awareness is that human rights are indivisible: violations must be

challenged, from whatever source.

What are the implications of all this for 'the troubles' and are there

any signs that the new awareness is sinking through here? There are a

few indications, however slight, that it may be. At the Sinn Fein ard fheis

in January Gerry Adams stressed the need for the IRA to avoid civilian

casualties (Fortnight 271). Although Mr Adams went on to say that his

remarks should not be interpreted as condemning the IRA, nonetheless

they seemed at odds with the fact that the IRA had been extending the

categories on its 'legitimate target' list since the mid-1980s. The same

gathering heard Tom Hartley's call for the creation of a 'broad anti

imperialist front'?which has since appeared as the Irish National

Congress, seeking the same international recognition as the ANC?and

it is in that context perhaps that Mr Adams' remarks should be judged. The speech followed a series of IRA operations since the Enniskillen

bombing in November 1987 which resulted in civilian deaths. Over the same time, attacks by loyalist paramilitaries increased, again causing civilian casualties. So what of international accountability? Are there

any recognised rules applicable in such situations as the 'troubles'?

Human rights law does apply?most importantly the European Con

vention on Human Rights?but it creates obligations only on states. And

human rights treaties normally allow derogations from many provisions in times of emergency, thus limiting the protection they afford.

Other treaties cover international armed conflicts?for example, the

1949 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocol I of 1977. They cover non-international armed conflicts too?'civil wars' as addressed

in Protocol II. These rules are known as 'international humanitarian

law'. Decisions on which of them are applicable in any given conflict

involve highly sensitive questions on how the conflict is categorised. In any case, it appears none of these provisions applies to the 'troub

les', which come under the category of 'internal tensions and distur

bances'. In practice an uncertainty, perhaps even a gap, exists worldwide,

resulting in inadequate protection for the victims of internal strife.

In response to the proliferation of internal disturbances and tensions,

several proposals have been made with a view to introducing a measure

of humanity into such situations. One is a Code of Conduct drafted by Dr Hans-Peter Gasser, one of the legal advisers of the International

Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), written in a private capacity.

^wwmmmmmmmmm^-^mmM-^mB?^mmmmmmmmmmmm^wmtei

OVER-HAPPY TRIGGERS??IRA recklessness since Enniskillen (top), the loyalist brutalism epitomised

by Milltown (middle) and controversial security-force killings as in Gibraltar (bottom) have all raised

questions about how such force can be restrained

Another is the more formal Draft Model Declaration on Internal Strife

by Professor Theodor Meron of New York University. The proposed Code of Conduct has a number of advantages. First,

there is no need to make a legal determination of the character of the

uprising or conflict: the fundamental rules set down in it apply in all

circumstances. Second, the code is intended for everyone: unlike human

rights treaties, which generally bind states alone, it adopts the approach of humanitarian law, which can bind non-state entities and individuals.

And its rules represent widely-accepted norms. Whether the nature of

this obligation is legal or moral is irrelevant.

The basic rules recalled in the Code of Conduct are found mainly in

international law but also in national legal systems. It is not a proposal for a new legal instrument but a reminder of existing law. The pre

existing obligations in it can be traced to the core human rights, to

customary law and to general principles of law. Some of the precepts can

10 November Fortnight

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.128 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:12:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

be found in the Bible and other religious works. They are universal.

The code is set out in 13 paragraphs. The rules it contains are quite

simple, and stated in language which is easily understandable. The code

requiries every person to be treated with respect and not to be arbitrarily

deprived of his or her life or liberty. It prohibits murder, torture,

indiscriminate violence, the taking of hostages, disappearances and acts

of terrorism, whether committed by public officials or by any other

person. Detainees are to be treated humanely. There must be judicial

guarantees, and the death penalty may be pronounced only for the most

serious crimes. All wounded and sick persons are to be helped without

discrimination, and there is an obligation to trace missing persons. Children must be protected, and the code is required to be made known

to all, especially those who exercise police powers. The proposed Code of Conduct, and the separate proposal for a

Declaration on Internal Strife, have been criticised for appearing to rule

out almost any use of force by opposition groups, thus limiting the

likelihood of their acceptance by the IRA or other dissident entities.

While it is true that the proposed Code of Conduct does not justify recourse to violence, nonetheless it does appear to accept that violence

may occur and repeats the customary humanitarian law obligation that

use of force should be restricted to the minimum strictly necessary. The proposed Code of Conduct in the event of internal disturbances

and tensions encapsulates and restates the recognised limits on govern mental and opposition activity, applicable in all situations. Written in a

clear style, and including a brief commentary, the code can serve as a

standard against which their activities can be measured. At a time when

international opinion is of ever-increasing importance, the code could

provide a focus for it. #

Fewer of these?Gerry Adams' last TV appearance before the ban

^BB^BT ̂B^bV "*

^^SskB^B _E_Z_^ B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^LV K^BhF^B^B^bV^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^Bh

IkV I ^Hb^^b^buP^b^b^LBIIb^b^b^bmb^l B^ft^^^^L^BH ^^HL^^i^^^^^^^*. fBf| i^T^^B^Bw B^^B^B^B^K*^ I ̂ B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^BV >7~r^J^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^BBB^B^B^B^B^B^Bl^B^B^r ^^^B^B^B^H

B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^BhB^^I'^I^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^bT iJ^^B^B^B^^. ^flB^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^Kl H^a^Bfl ^L^^b^b^b^b^^VCTmLb^b^b^b^b^b^H ^I^b^b^kI^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^b^bH Br?*ttmmmm

^k?^???^-bmb^bibmmIm bmbmbmbm Hi ' nf iMBBI

If you can't beat the bombers,

then remove them from earshot

The restriction on

broadcasting direct

statements' by Sinn Fein and

several other

organisations decreed by the

home secretary was a year old

last month. ROBIN WILSON

assesses its future. Right?

CYRIL CUSACK, one

of the signatories to

the petition delivered to

Downing Street last month

against the

ban, gives a

personal view.

T' I HE JUNIOR Home Office minister Timothy Renton was in truculent mood when he was

,_j interviewed on Radio Ulster on October 19th,

the first anniversary of Douglas Hurd's broadcasting restrictions. He was not above a little guilt by associa

tion, either: "The very fact, to be blunt, that Sinn Fein

have protested so much against them and that some

journalists took us to court... makes us think that they have worked."

Gerry Adams could not answer back but he would

probably have agreed. Sinn Fein never claimed the ban

would be counter-productive. In an interview just after it

was introduced, Mr Adams told me: "Those who say that

this is grist to Sinn Fein's mill, that they're handing us a

propaganda victory, are talking nonsense... No political

party can afford to have cut off to it the normal and

legitimate right to outlets of information."

Events have borne him out. SF claims that inquiries to the Republican Press Centre in Belfast from UK

broadcasters have fallen by 75 per cent. "With a few

exceptions," says a report on the ban published on the an

niversary*, the broadcasters "have chosen the more

comfortable path of acquiescence". Northern Ireland is?atrocities apart?no longer a

story in Britain, the report notes. Added to the difficul

ties of covering a province of which they know little,

"British broadcasters now have to cope with editors,

managers and ultimately the government looking over

their shoulders, to ensure that their work stays on the

right side of the new censorship rules. Far easier, if one

is planning a documentary series or even a lengthy news

feature, to consider a less contentious theme." And so:

"There has been a consistent unwillingness to test the

ban to the legal limits, and a willingness to censor far

beyond the requirements of the ban."

It is a point which was developed last month by a

testy Peter Taylor?on the receiving end, at This Week

and Panorama, of many an official constraint on cover

age of Ireland. Mr Taylor stressed that strictly the 'ban'

was not a ban: members of the affected organisations could still be interviewed, their comments could still be

quoted and where they were not acting as spokespeople

they could also still be heard. The trouble was that too

many within the industry were treating it as if it was.

The article 19 report suggests the broadcasters could

do more. They could, for instance, ensure that interv iews

with Sinn Fein spokespeople are presented as captions in

front of the silenced interviewee, rather than presenting

anodyne 'voice overs' themselves. BBC executives,

however, are known to favour the latter.

'Health warnings'?to indicate the censorship re

strictions before an item affected by them?were

supposed to have been agreed by the broadcasting au

thorities last year in return for the National Union of

Journalists calling off a one-day strike against the ban.

Yet research by David Miller of Glasgow University indicates that this has largely been honoured in the

breach?senior BBC executives having rejected a blan

ket warning as "propagandist". At a press conference in

Belfast, the director of Article 19, Frances de Souza, said: "I doubt if the ordinary thinking man in the street is

aware the ban is operating." But if Mr Renton can survey with confidence the

tactical gains the government has made?"despite a few

initial difficulties you have all come to act sensibly"?he

may be less sure of the high moral ground. It was always

going to be difficult to claim simultaneously that the ban

was needed because viewers were outraged by apolo

gists for terrorism and that the ban was needed because

viewers were gullible in the face of them.

12 November Fortnight

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.128 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:12:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions