Seminar OAS / ICRC Washington D.C.
October 25, 1999

Reto Meister
Head of Operations for Latin America and the Caribbean
ICRC

Operational and promotional activities of the ICRC

The ICRC has installed its first permanent office in Latin America in 1971 in caracas. from there we expanded southward and toward the north and were present both in the south and in Central America during the critical moments of the seventies, eighties and the last decade, when the needs for an impartial and humanitarian actor were greatest.

In the Americas, we were able to offer our humanitarian services within contexts where - at best - common article three was applicable. In others, we worked on the bases of our right of initiative only, because the situation was not one of armed conflict but of internal disturbance or tension. What does this say about the relations that existed between you, the governments of the concerned states, and us from the ICRC and - more importantly - what lessons did we learn from the experiences we were able to make?

As to the relations between us, I think it is correct to say, that you allowed us to intervene due to the facts that we had established permanent, so to say "diplomatic" relationships and that your societies were marked by openness and sensitivity for matters concerning basic human values and humanitarian law. Thus, when these values were challenged and violated, it was coherent to let the International Committee act. Often the Foreign M inistries were those who opened the doors for us: you translated and you matched the prevailing, humanitarian needs of your countries with the opportunities that the ICRC was offering. You entered into the deal and I know from situations that I have lived personally here in the Americas that you exposed yourselves to criticism and problems on your own home front due to the intervention you were undertaking on our behalf.

Once though we had been granted admission, thanks to the diplomats and politicians convinced by them, and, in some situations, thanks also to public pressure, we had to deal with local realities. We were to enter into negotiations with the Defense, Interior and Justice Ministries, some of whose representatives had neither sympathy nor understanding for these delegates of the International Red Cross and their cause. There was a war to be won, there were enemies to be destroyed. but we were able - in most situations - to live up to the challenge and convince with time, patience and arguments. I believe it is correct to say that we were able to change perceptions and prove that we respected and applied our own principles of neutrality and independence and that we were good professionals doing a worthwhile honest job. We gained respect and space.

Now a few words as to the lessons we from the ICRC learned through the activities we were able to conduct on this continent during the last decades: the operations we conducted in Latin America were crucial for the development of our doctrine in two areas:

one, the approach concerning protection of persons detained for reasons of security of the state. In the sixties we had no other substantial experience than that gained through our visits to prisoners of war, as the third Geneva Convention foresees them. But in the Latin American context we were facing - as I have said - situations of internal violence and not international armed conflict. Convinced of the need and usefulness of ICRC visiting security detainees, we developed a standard set of conditions without which we would not initiate such visits. These conditions should grant the delegates of the ICRC access to all detainees, repeatedly and without witness. They stress also the importance of the dialogue between the ICRC and the responsible authorities. A dialogue which should contribute to the improvement, when necessary, of the treatment of the prisoners and the conditions of detention. This approach, conceived and tested - if I may say so - in the Americas, has become the standard ICRC policy of visits to persons who are deprived of liberty for security reasons in a context of non-international armed conflict or other situations of internal violence.

The second area where the ICRC developed new responses to humanitarian needs on this continent is the one related to the civilian population affected by the consequences of internal violence. Here we learned about the complexity of emergency assistance and rehabilitation in a context of development. We would not any longer blindly distribute goods to victim populations without taking into account the overall needs in the areas of economic security, health and habitat, considering that these three elements combined set the condition for the overall material well being of such a population. We developed a comprehensive assistance approach in the countries of Central America, struck by internal armed conflicts, with the exception of Guatemala, where we were never permitted to conduct operational activities in favor of the victims.

Such adjusted answers were also explored simultaneously by our colleagues on the African continent, but in Latin America we added a specific additional element, namely the protection of these civilians. Realizing that their most vital needs had to do with the respect of their right to be spared in the military confrontations, we strove to develop the confidential dialogue with the parties to the conflicts. This should permit to obtain a commitment on their part to apply the obligations as stipulated in article three common to the Geneva Conventions and when applicable their second additional protocol. It would also permit us to offer educational programs to the armed forces and the guerrilla and to give them a feed back on the behavior of their units in the field. This second service was to function as an element in the control mechanisms of the military and political hierarchy regarding the faithful translation of their instructions into acts. As you either remember or can easily imagine, this specific activity was in the eighties and early nineties a novelty and a tremendous challenge both to us and to the military. Our objectivity and political neutrality were all so often questioned and we had to permanently struggle in order to keep the discussion on the subject of the behavior of the combatants and not on the legitimacy of ICRC's interventions drawing a balance of these past experiences regarding the protection of the civilian population, I should say that we marked some success in improving the respect for civilians, but that we were obviously not as successful as we had wished to be.

In general, Latin America has thus permitted the ICRC, over the last three

decades, to develop and fine tune its operational approach and identify sound institutional policies for it. We should not forget however that we didn't undertake all of this out of "academic curiosity" but that it is the result of our response to real, grave humanitarian situations and our subsequent reflections on this response.

Our operations of the past are giving us credibility today in the perception of the states and that of civil society. We believe that we shall be able to build on these relations because there are humanitarian issues and contexts where changes have taken place and new needs and opportunities arise.

We have observed on this continent that states and governments have started to show ever more interest in international human rights and humanitarian law. Thus, for example, the instruction of the law of armed conflict within the armed forces has become a stable component of most courses including especially those for officers. We have moved in several countries also in the direction of integrating this law in the operational planning of the forces which is - in our opinion - an even more efficient way to assure its respect in potential future situations of armed confrontations.

The creation of the function of national ombudspersons (defensores del pueblo) and their growing independence from the governments would be another example of the seriousness with which states in Latin America are today assuming their responsibilities in the realm of the bodies of international law created for the protection of the individual.

Civil society is showing growing desire to assume ownership of international law. I am not referring here to the public opinion in european or non-spanish speaking countries of this continent, but to the very Latin American population. The creation of an impressive number of non-governmental organizations, many of them specialized in the field of human rights, is one of the manifestations of this desire.

Is there anything wrong with this? From the point of view of the ICRC it is indeed legitimate and desirable that societies, states and their governments assume the ownership of international law. As guardian of the humanitarian law however, we have one reserve and that has to do with the possible downgrading and contamination of the legal provisions. We therefore feel sometimes obliged to challenge public opinions on delicate subjects, like for example the notion of belligerence in situations of internal armed conflict, that emanate from a non-orthodox interpretation of humanitarian law. What we also observe is that human rights and in some context also humanitarian law are politicized and the discussions between authorities and private organizations have turned polemic instead of remaining factual and constructive. Latin America has not been in a leading position in international interventions in which armed forces from different parts of the world were involved. We do not judge this fact for which there are certainly historic and political reasons. Yet, Latin American armed forces are undergoing some transformations in response to the changing security environment and the needs of society. Whereas it is positive that military forces avail their services to respond to the needs created by natural disasters, I am much less convinced that they should become involved in humanitarian activities on their territory when they are simultaneously involved in ongoing internal violence. Such activities would certainly be related to the security efforts of the State, would become a political tool and potentially turn into an additional aggravating factor for the situation of the civilian beneficiaries. We believe that one has to be impartial when giving humanitarian aid, otherwise manipulation and discrimination would start to reign.

At last, I would like to share with you the priorities which the ICRC has set for the coming years in Latin america:

-  In the first place we shall continue to give emphasis to the humanitarian response should it be needed;

-  We shall maintain and develop the dialogue with the governments and academic institutions on issues concerning the development of humanitarian law; in recent years, the treaty on anti personal land mines has shown that there exist opportunities for cooperation. And the issues of small weapons or the International Criminal Court are areas where we can hopefully again enter into partnership and develop synergy between governments, the ICRC, NGOs and the public at large;

-  Most of your governments are presently cooperating with our advisory services and our delegates specialized in training of military forces in order to live up to your commitments as far as the national implementation and promotion of the law of war is concerned, be it in the legislative or the executive realm. With time, we shall strive to hand over ever more responsibility to states in these subject matters. We do not think that it is desirable to substitute ourselves eternally to national resources once they exist. As far as the training of police forces is concerned, we have started and shall continue to develop resources that could support in a useful way the efforts aiming at preparing these security forces for the operations they are expecting to face in the future. We are obviously aware that we cannot simply transpose the rules of the law of armed conflicts to situations of maintenance of law and order and have thus worked out an approach combining basic human rights with the principles of humanitarian law. I expect that this experiment, conducted out of Brazil, will have the same innovative effect for our organization as a whole, as had the policies on ICRC visits to security detainees and the protection of the civilian population which were largely conceived here on this continent;

-  The last of the future orientations of the ICRC in Latin America which I would like to share with you has to do with exploring and implementing ways to spread the core values of humanitarianism in civil society. Ideally we could count on the active support of all the national Red Cross societies in reaching this goal. Unfortunately however, some of them are in a sorry state, not enjoying the full recognition of their populations for not addressing the urgent and important needs of the most vulnerable of the members of their respective countries. These Red Cross societies, potentially a most important support to the ICRC, will need additional motivation to go into a transformation process. Partnership with other local counterparts will mark our initiatives in future public relations activities. The media and qualified NGOs will certainly figure among them.

I hope that you appreciate what we have achieved and learned on this continent in the past years, that you share our observations on the changes concerning the place of human rights and humanitarian law in your societies and that you accept the objectives which we have given ourselves for the future and that you will help us in reaching them.

I thank you much for your attention.