The history of the Geneva Conventions goes back further than the current version. Swiss merchant Henry Dunant had been an eyewitness to the battle of Solferino in 1859, not as a combatant, but as a bystander during his travels through Europe. What he saw shocked and saddened him, and he published a book ‘My Memories of Solferino’ in 1862. In it he described the cruelty and the carnage in minute detail and called for independent agencies to help the wounded and for rules to warfare. The descriptions were so graphic and his ideas were presented in such great detail that in 1863 the Red Cross was founded (though it received that name only in 1876).

In 1864, the First Geneva Convention was discussed, approved, and signed by 12 states. It is still unclear why it took so little time after the publication of the book to incept both the Red Cross and a complicated international treaty. But within a short time, more and more states signed the treaty mostly after being involved in a war. The initial convention was amended and new conventions were added over the years. After the Second World War, the Swiss government invited 70 states to a conference which led to the Geneva Conventions as we know them today. Since then, all countries have become signatory parties.

At the presently held conference in Geneva, Swiss Minister for the Exterior Micheline Calmy-Rey stated that the conventions in their current state are not sufficient to deal with conflicts of today. There are several reasons for that assessment.

One reason lies in the fact that the conventions deal with war. Governments have always held and still hold the opinion that war is something that is waged between two states, i.e. an international conflict. They thereby refuse the conventions when the conflict is internal, mostly called civil war or battle against terrorism, and call it interference in internal affairs when reminded of the convention. Prime player of this game is China, who annexes independent countries to declare them part of China.

Under that reasoning, the conventions would not have been applicable in the American War of Independence or the American Civil War (had they been in force at the time). Consequently, they were not applicable in the wars of independence in Yugoslavia. They are or are not applicable in Israel and Palestine, depending on which side of the wall you stand. Quite clearly, something has to be done to clarify the situation.

A further reason lies in the fact that even international wars are not fought between states anymore. We are all aware of Al Qaida and what it stands for, but there are many more conflicts to come that have either a national or a religious connotation. We have the Kurds living split up in three countries, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, and we have the Basks in France and Spain, to name just a few. Additionally, these non-government forces and their commands usually aren’t even aware that the Geneva Conventions exist.

A third reason not stated by the minister is the fact that countries just ignore the conventions and breach international law. On the day the Iraq was attacked, Micheline Calmy-Rey ordered the ambassadors representing the aggressors to her office to remind them of the Geneva Conventions (that’s what depository states have to do). We all know that it was in vain as two war criminals had no intention to play by the rules. Thanks to them, two countries will never again be able to say that they always keep treaties they sign. This also showed up the fallacy of appointing the Red Cross as enforcing agent, as there are virtually no consequences for offenders.

I’ll give the last word to Isaac Asimov: “War is the last resort of the incompetent.”