Cyber-warefare, terrorism and global humanitarian law

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR VISIT TO THAILAND? DO YOU SHARE THE GROWING CONCERN ABOUT CONFLICT IN THIS REGION? 

I am here to visit the ICRC’s Bangkok delegation. More importantly, I had the opportunity to address the Thai public on the occasion of the Seventh Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Lecture on “Contemporary Challenges to Humanitarian Action” (June 8). This is a short visit, albeit an important one. 

Another reason for me to be in Thailand is to celebrate our 40 years of cooperation with the Thai Red Cross. 

ICRC presence means our responsibility towards humanitarian law, that we would like to ensure the compliance of states to the Geneva Conventions – IHL regulating armed conflict and the protection of individuals. However, it is true that we have a mandate to undergo humanitarian operations in times of armed conflict. 

 

THIS TIME YOU ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT NEW SORTS OF VIOLENCE, RATHER THAN TRYING TO ENGAGE PARTIES IN CONFLICT, IN THAILAND OR ANYWHERE IN THE REGION?

Not for this specific reason. We have been celebrating 40 years of cooperation with our partners, the Thai Red Cross, that started during the Third Indo-China War (1979-1989). Later, our operations also involved assistance to refugees, detainees in prison and boat people, to name a few. 

 

IN THAILAND, WHAT HAS BEEN THE ROLE OF THE ICRC? 

We have been active in visiting detainees in prison. When we visit detention facilities in a country, we normally engage in a confidential dialogue with local authorities. The objective is to improve prison conditions. We are also engaged with police forces to work on the promotion of international law, making it known to concerned parties. 

 

AUTHORITIES ARE NOT ALWAYS COMFORTABLE WITH ICRC ACTIVITIES. FOR INSTANCE, OFFICIALS IN CHARGE OF PRISONS WILL THINK THAT PRISONERS SHOULD BE TREATED A CERTAIN WAY, YET THE ICRC MAY PERCEIVE THAT THIS TREATMENT IS NOT IN LINE WITH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS… 

The ICRC is a good sparring partner for governments who are interested in improving the situation in detention facilities. 

 

NOT ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE INTERESTED IN IMPROVING PRISON CONDITIONS, ARE THEY? 

Many countries are interested in coping with international standards and experiences we have all over the world. We visit detention facilities in more than 90 countries. 

We can share the knowledge and best practices. We can provide good advice. More importantly, these conversations are held in a confidential atmosphere. This gives a space of confidence in which improvements can be done without [governments] being put on the spot publicly. 

 

THAT’S WHY YOU DO NOT PUBLICISE MUCH?

 Normally we have positive interaction with governments, because most of the time, like in Thailand, we are here because the government allows us to be here. According to the Geneva Convention, the ICRC has the right to visit prisoners during armed conflict. However, we have to have permission from the government. That’s why we are here – to signal that we have a positive attitude. 

 

DOES THE ICRC EVER GET TURNED AWAY BY A GOVERNMENT?

We do get rejected in some places. It happens. We just don’t give up. We try, if we think it is important. 

 

I HAVE NOTICED THAT YOU DO NOT PUBLICISE ANY LACK OF COOPERATION FROM A GOVERNMENT. 

Very rarely. We do publicise if it occurs after a period of long engagement. If we see that nothing is happening after a certain period, we may decide to stop the operation. 

 

DO YOU TELL THE WORLD? 

We normally tell the world that we have stopped [engagement]. 

 

IS THAT A WAY TO PUT PRESSURE ON |GOVERNMENT?

Yes, but it is only in cases of armed conflict where the ICRC has the right – based on the Geneva Conventions – to access prisoners of war. When we are not in that framework, we just offer services according to our century-old experience. We are dependent on the agreement we have with a government. We work with the government in good faith and we meet with good responses. 

 

IS THAT BECAUSE YOU DO HUMANITARIAN |DIPLOMACY, WHICH IS VERY DELICATE AND DIFFICULT? 

Humanitarian diplomacy summarises all of our activities – be it our access to a party, to a conflict, or when we need permission from a government to operate. We try to convince and to engage with concerned parties. 

 

SINCE YOU ASSUMED THIS POST, THE ICRC BUDGET HAS RISEN, TO COVER OPERATIONS IN ABOUT 80 COUNTRIES. DOES THIS INDICATE THAT THINGS ARE GETTING WORSE IN TERMS OF CONFLICT? 

The founding father of the ICRC thought that this organisation would just be a temporary foundation pending the outbreak of peace. That was more than 150 years ago. 

The ICRC has had different sizes and exposures. However, you’re right to say that for the last three years, we have seen an increase in our activities. In some parts of the world, things are not going well. Conflict and violence are spreading. This is the case in the Middle East and Africa. I give you three figures: The majority of our operations are in Muslim countries; 30 per cent of what we do is in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and Yemen; 44 per cent of what the ICRC does take places on the African continent. 

So we see a huge area of instability, from the Middle East to the horn of Africa. This [encompasses] the bulk of our activities. 

 

THE NATURE OF THE VIOLENCE HAS ALSO CHANGED, AND THE TYPES OF CONFLICTS HAVE BEEN TRANSFORMED. WE SEE INTERNAL CONFLICT SPREADING TO NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM 20 OR 30 YEARS AGO.

As a humanitarian organisation, we know that for 150 years, conflict and violence have continuously changed in terms of actors, weapons used, strategies and the battlefield. We started with inter-state warfare. Now we are finding ourselves in protracted conflicts with a multiplicity of armed groups, who have no protocols in terms of respect for humanitarian law. We now see new types of warfare and violence, particularly against civilians. We see violence moving to the cities. More and more, we see war in densely populated areas. So we see new weapons, new actors, new strategies, and new weapon technologies as well. 

 

NOW, WE HAVE CYBER-WAR AS WELL.

Nowadays, via cyberspace it is possible to incapacitate the electricity supply and water supply of a city. Actors can have a deep impact on how civilian populations and those not involved in warfare are exposed to those new forms of warfare and those challenges. 

 

WHO ARE THE VICTIMS AND HOW DO YOU DEFINE HUMANITARIANISM IN A CYBER-WARFARE |SITUATION?

The ICRC has an obligation to look at new weapons in order to assess their humanitarian impact. So, what we are doing with drones and cyber-warfare is to engage with states who have the capacity to deal with these types of warfare, to find a consensus on how to define the issue and how to assess the humanitarian impact and eventually to ask those countries whether humanitarian law, as it stands today, is sufficient to cope with those new challenges. For the time being, we still don’t have the answer to this issue. 

The opinion of the ICRC is that humanitarian law has carried us very far in assessing the impact of those new weapons. We think that the law is applicable to those new weapons. The principle of making the distinction between civilian and militaries is also applicable to those new weapons. The question to pose is, whether it is possible to distinguish civilian and military attacks when you are in cyberspace. This is very difficult. 

 

IF A COUNTRY OR NON-STATE BODY DECIDES TO ENGAGE IN CYBER-WARFARE, IT WILL NOT BE CONCERNED ABOUT HUMANITARIANISM. SO THE ICRC WILL HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY IN CONVINCING THEM THAT THEY SHOULD COOPERATE. HOW CAN WE PROVIDE HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE VICTIMS? 

You are right, but what you say is not limited to new weapons and warfare. We should not forget that we have record numbers of refugees and internally displaced people in the world. Most of them are refugees from violence. Violence nowadays makes no exceptions in the way it displaces people. 

Today people are being killed by conventional small arms and light weapons. Many people are being killed or wounded by landmines used in conflict.

 

The second and final part of this exclusive interview will run in tomorrow’s edition of The Nation. Watch the full interview on Nation TV’s “Timeline Suthichai Yoon” programme.