View previous stories
	Peacework: lessons we have failed to learn by Isabel Hilton Editor of openDemocracy   Peace-building is patient, exacting, unglamorous, long-term work, whose footsoldiers are often women - the opposite of the shock and awe of modern war. In light of a Galway conference of women peace activists from around the world convened by the Nobel Women''s Initiative, Isabel Hilton reflects on how the hard road to peace offers lessons for democracy too.   So much of what we understand depends on who tells the story. The story, for instance, of the fall of communism in central and eastern Europe in 1989 was most often told as a victory for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher''s politics of confrontation, a victory of implacable opposition, superior technology and a readiness to confront the "evil empire" with all weapons at "our" disposal. The language used talked of getting tough, preparing for war, facing them down, us against them. Those who advanced another discourse were called naïve, fellow-travelling or "useful idiots".   Looking back, it is curious what traction this version gained, given that every journalist, every participant and every witness to the televised proceedings of the European revolutions of 1989 was perfectly clear in what he or she saw: that ordinary people, having lost their fear, took to the streets in huge numbers and faced down oppressive regimes in country after country.   But when the instant histories came to be written, how much weight was given to the long process of engagement, through the Helsinki process, that had made these movements possible: the meetings, the encounters, the friendships and the civic solidarities, often pursued on the western side by organisations that were themselves in opposition to the militaristic tone of their own governments, and which were marginalised at home even as they forged profoundly effective links abroad? 1989 was not the triumph of one militarism over another, but a victory of peace over war, of people who quietly and with determination exercised their collective power.   In Northern Ireland, too, where on 9 May 2007 the power-sharing government at last began its business of governing - secure enough as an idea and an institution to be mocked in a satirical puppet-show on television - there is a missing dimension to the narrative of the transition from war to peaceful politics. One box universally ticked in the report card of Tony Blair''s government as he waves his interminable goodbyes is that of "bringing peace" to Northern Ireland. While Blair''s commitment and enthusiasm to ending the thirty-year "troubles" in this contested land was manifest, there is also a case to be made that Ireland, with a lot of help from its friends, finally brought peace to itself.   It was a small group of women in Northern Ireland, who, in 1976, before Tony Blair was elected to parliament, stood up and said no to violence and insisted that there was another way. They worked doggedly, day in day out, to bring together men who could not abide to be in the same part of town, let alone the same room. They did this for years, from territory that lay well outside the evident power of the gun or the government, through moments of hope and disappointment, finally leveraging themselves to the negotiating table, insisting on a voice. Some of them won the Nobel peace prize, an honour they recognise is shared with the many who stood with them. "Peace-building", as one of them said, "is very hard work."   There is a terrible sameness about victims'' stories. No matter how many different ways are there for people to go hungry or grieve, to be injured or killed, we know the outcome and grow tired. The pain of petty cruelty is almost easier to imagine: the grandmother who cannot attend her granddaughter''s wedding because she lives the wrong side of an uncrossable line; the grandfather who will not attend the baptism of his grandchildren because it takes place in a church he refuses to enter; the mother who waited forty days for the body of her son, dead on his daily journey to medical school; a mother trying to give hope to a child whose family home has been bulldozed; a father humiliated in front of his child at a checkpoint he had to cross to earn a miserable daily wage.   Those who wish to rekindle our indignation send actors to stand on the film-set of other people''s tragedies, in the hope that celebrity will shine a light on something we have wearied of looking at. Those who do not live conflict on a daily basis, who have the luxury of alternatives, grow hopeless or indignant by proxy. We allow wars that we know to be pointless to roll on, ashamed of the ineffectiveness of our own frustration.   Hope seems too complicated to engage us for long, and yet, it does depend who tells the story. In Ireland, for a few days, the story was told of people who had learned to speak across lines of hatred and discover a common humanity on the other side, who had learned to abandon dreams of victory tomorrow and to talk of life today, who were prepared to deal with the devil himself if there was a chance that it might work.   Some had begun when they had nothing more to lose in war, having already lost everything that was most precious. But for others the starting-point was the realisation that there was nothing worth winning that could be won by violence, whatever their governments told them. From there they understood that governments are our servants, not our masters and that there is no such thing as national security if it fails to bring security to every citizen. To understand that is to take the first step to redefining peace, and to begin the long, hard task of building it. Visit the related web page
	The 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)   August 13, 2009   Conflicts to Get More "Pernicious": ICRC Chief. (AFP)   Conflicts will get ever more "pernicious," the ICRC"s chief said on the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, as he made a fresh plea for armed groups and states to protect civilians and detainees.   "On the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, I make a heartfelt plea to states and non-state armed groups who are also bound by their provisions to show the requisite political will to turn legal provisions into a meaningful reality," said Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.   "I urge them to show good faith in protecting the victims of armed conflicts - conflicts that in view of the challenges I have mentioned today are likely to become ever-more pernicious in the years to come," he added.   The Geneva-based ICRC is the internationally-recognised guardian of the 1949 laws protecting civilians, detainees, the wounded and humanitarian workers in conflicts. The conventions have been ratified by 194 countries.   But the ICRC says there have been violations on a "regular basis" in the field, ranging from the mass displacement of civilians to indiscriminate attacks and ill-treatment of prisoners.   After the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, the ICRC also became embroiled in a tussle with the then US George W. Bush administration over the treatment of detainees from Afghanistan, torture, secret detention and the scope of the conventions.   Amid challenges ranging from rising internal conflicts to the blurring of lines between combatants and civilians, Kellenberger said more clarity was needed on certain aspects of the conventions in order to ensure better compliance and enforcement.   A guidance document was published two months ago by the ICRC detailing who constitutes a civilian, and work is ongoing to elaborate on issues such as those related to displacement and detainees, he said.   "Based on a comprehensive assessment of the conclusions of this research, which is still underway, a case will be made for the clarification or further development of specific aspects of the law," added Kellenberger.   In displacement issues, questions needing clarification include the right to voluntary return, the need to preserve family unity and the prohibition of forced return, he said.   "Precise rules" surrounding the treatment and conditions of detention, such as the detainees right of contact with the external world, are also lacking, Kellenberger said.   In addition, a legal definition of non-international conflict also needs to be developed, he said, in order to close loopholes that could be exploited.   "The existence of an armed conflict may be refuted so as to evade the application of IHL (international humanitarian law) altogether," he said.   "Conversely, other situations may inaccurately or prematurely be described as an armed conflict, precisely to trigger the applicability of IHL and its more permissive standards regarding the use of force, for example," he added.   Aug 2009   On August 12 1949, the four Geneva Conventions, the cornerstone of international humanitarian law, were adopted. The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols embody the most important rules limiting the barbarity of war. Sixty years on, these treaties continue to provide the best available framework for protecting civilians and those no longer participating in combat.   In 1949, States met in Geneva to revise the existing Conventions and add a fourth one dedicated to the protection of civilians. Since then, these treaties have been supplemented by three Additional Protocols.   The Conventions are the most important component of international humanitarian law (IHL) – the body of rules that protect civilians and people who are no longer fighting, including wounded and sick military personnel and prisoners of war. Their purpose is not to stop war but rather to limit the barbarity of armed conflict.   Some critics have suggested that the Conventions are approaching the age of retirement and are no longer suited for the kind of contemporary wars that pit regular armies against armed groups, and in an era when most wars are fought within states, not between them. Proponents maintain that the rules are indeed still relevant and that the Conventions, together with their Additional Protocols, continue to provide the best available framework for protecting civilians and people who are no longer fighting.   The ICRC is convinced that the Conventions, and IHL has a whole, have stood up well to the test of time and remain very relevant today. On 12 August, the organization will outline is position on the challenges facing the Conventions today and highlight its ongoing efforts to ensure that they continue to be relevant.   To mark the anniversary, the ICRC will also be issuing the new findings of an opinion poll conducted in eight war and violence-affected countries. The survey asked people what they consider to be acceptable behaviours in warfare and whether they think the Geneva Conventions are effective in limiting the suffering of civilians.   The research results, interviews with ICRC experts and additional analysis will be posted on our web site on the 12th August. Visit the related web page
	View more stories