Mirjana Spoljaric was born in Croatia, in the town of Ludbreg, 51 years ago, but she also has Swiss nationality, an essential requirement to preside over the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), based in Geneva. That and that Spoljaric brought together until taking office, in October 2022, two of the experiences that are best suited to direct an organization called to protect the victims of war from neutrality: the diplomatic corps of Switzerland and the United Nations agencies . She is very cautious in her words and talks about little-known things like the “protection of humanity” to achieve peace. She prefers not to talk about Israel’s accusations against the UN agency for Palestinians (UNRWA), where she herself worked just over a decade ago. But her idea is clear: humanitarian assistance has become an objective in one way or another in conflicts, not only in the Middle East.
It is 75 years since the signing of the Geneva Convention, the body of rules of international humanitarian law or, in other words, the laws of war, which the ICRC tries to monitor. The current scenario does not seem encouraging. Spoljaric, in an interview this Wednesday in Madrid, warns: “If we get rid of all these mechanisms that were created after World War II, we will not be able to recreate them again.”
Ask. In the interview I did a couple of years ago with your predecessor, Peter Maurer, we also started talking about Gaza. Is the conflict most difficult for the ICRC?
Answer. In the last 10 to 12 months, we have observed a rapid escalation of conflicts, very complex and of very high intensity. Sudan started before Gaza, but then Gaza rose to the top; Before that there was Ethiopia and the earthquake that occurred after 10 years of a protracted war in Syria, plus a rapid escalation in Myanmar. Gaza represents a paradigm shift due to the high intensity, the high level of destruction and the impediment of humanitarian assistance. The damage, suffering and loss is greater per capita. Everything happens under the constant gaze of the international community, and yet the situation continues to deteriorate in a corrosive and horrible way. People suffer more every day despite international attention, and there is less and less capacity to preserve dignity, apart from security, water, nutrition, health or housing.
It will haunt us for quite some time. We can learn two lessons in Gaza: one is that when international humanitarian law is not followed, civilian damage and loss increases. But also that without the direct influence of the States that are parties to the Geneva Convention [que regula el trato de no combatientes en una guerra], humanitarian actors lose weight, authority, security and credibility. It is said that humanitarian workers must do more, intensify humanitarian assistance. How can we do it, if the opening of borders is linked to political negotiations? We have been attacked. Many humanitarian workers have lost their lives. Humanitarian assistance can no longer be separated from political negotiations. And that makes our work extremely complex.
Q. Did you expect more from the international community?
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.
Subscribe
R. Yes. I hope that the international community will declare compliance and implementation of international humanitarian law as a political priority. We have to invest heavily, in accordance with the law, in accountability systems, to prevent anarchy when conflict arises because it is not a lawless space. The reason why the Geneva Convention was created is to avoid a war in which all available means are used. You cannot completely dehumanize and destroy the other side without questioning the legal system that was created based on the experience of World War II.
Q. The ICRC is synonymous with neutrality and credibility, but it is also the target of disinformation. Do you remember a campaign against your organization like the one suffered in Gaza?
R. In Ukraine, there was an intensification of disinformation towards humanitarian actors in general and, specifically, towards the ICRC. Much of this happens with social media campaigns and with the support of artificial intelligence. This has been amplified during the conflict between Israel and Hamas. It is becoming a serious problem for us because our offices have been vandalized during the protests. There are hate campaigns against people, including myself. The safety of our staff is at stake, it is not something we can neglect. There is nothing worse than creating false stories about those who go unarmed into a conflict and dedicate themselves to helping other people. No confidentiality, [el CICR] cannot remain completely neutral. Attacking these two criteria is also not the correct path to follow because without our neutrality we lose the credibility and legitimacy to operate in situations of armed conflict. We lose the possibility of fulfilling a mandate that was granted to us by all States through the Geneva Convention.
Q. The role of the ICRC is fundamental in Ukraine. Is access to prisoners of war your biggest challenge?
R. We work with the Ukrainian Red Cross to provide water, food, assistance in [dinero] cash. But also to reestablish the family bond there. There is a growing number of missing people. We work on the exchange of bodies, on access to prisoners of war in general. And we deal with both sides to ensure better protection of civilians. The parties must recognize that it is in their interest to work with the ICRC to ensure the protection of civilians and appropriate treatment of prisoners of war. Because in the end, it helps them ensure that the other party grants the same treatment to their nationals. International humanitarian law is not transactional, obligations are always obligations. If it is decided to maintain this, it will be easier to return to the negotiating table.
Q. But can they access prisoners of war from both sides?
R. We never have full access to exercise our mandate as written. In every conflict we see in the media, our job has become increasingly difficult.
Q. There are wars that don’t appear in the media as much, like the one in Sudan. In a recent statement, you said that humanitarian action there is “politicized.” What did he mean?
R. Humanitarian assistance is being used to put pressure on the other party in a conflict. It is nothing new, it happens in every conflict, but it is now a pattern that systematically hinders our work. They subject us to military strategies; we are forced to transgress the rules in the eyes of the warring parties so that they can continue with their military objectives. There is a deprivation of access to certain populations, a dehumanization of the other population saying that they are all combatants, which makes it very difficult for us to operate because our colleagues are in danger.
Q. The role of artificial intelligence in war worries the ICRC. Ask governments to regulate. What response did you get?
R. We look specifically at so-called autonomous systems. Last year I made a joint appeal with the UN Secretary General for a regulatory framework to regulate them. There are those that we believe should be banned. They are unpredictable, using built-in forms of machine learning about targeting and weapon systems that autonomously target humans. This constitutes a great challenge due to the loss of human control and responsibility over the deployment of weapons. You cannot transfer decision making to a machine, computer or software. We fear that, as military operations are supported by artificial intelligence, we will lose control of the human cognitive capacity to absorb the level of information it needs in a short period of time to make decisions. We also see a loss in the distinction between human and material damage, as well as the risk of something being programmed in the wrong direction and not being able to be reversed.
Q. 75 years after the Geneva Convention, which established the work of the ICRC, the death of civilians in conflicts remains enormous. If the law is clear, where is the problem?
R. We work more on the preventive side and on the real conflict, not on the judicial side. It is mainly the national State that has to prevent these violations by implementing these international agreements and preparing to avoid civilian victims in times of conflict. The ICRC was not designed to prevent conflict; does not quantify acceptable levels of civilian casualties. A politician, a legislator, will always find interpretations of the law that allow him to say that it is complied with. [la Convención de Ginebra] fully. We are at a crossroads. I call on politicians to ask themselves: Am I satisfied with the application of the letter of the law? How would you avoid an unprecedented moral failure like the current one? The universal principle of protection of humanity, enshrined in the Geneva Convention, is the way back to peace. States will have to return to the negotiating calendar. The great powers have something in common to begin with: the humanitarian principle. That’s what they agreed to after World War II, no one has broken that promise yet, although the reality seems very different.
Follow all the international information on Facebook and xor in our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#Mirjana #Spoljaric #president #Red #Cross #Committee #Gaza #means #paradigm #shift #due #high #level #destruction