Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the opposition I am very pleased to rise in support of the Attorney-General’s motion on the 60th anniversary of the four Geneva conventions of 1949. History well tells that on 12 August 1949 the international community took an enormous step in the name of humanity in adopting the four Geneva conventions to protect the victims of armed conflict. Fresh from the horrors of World War II—with the displacement of nations, the death of tens and tens of millions of military personnel and civilians and the revulsion of destroyed lives, shattered cities and wrecked nations—the world stood up with a determination to do something concrete and to provide a set of rules on how armed conflict should occur.

Whilst recognising that armed conflict is indeed inevitable, freedom is for those alone who are prepared to fight for it. Whilst recognising the inevitability of conflict—and it continues today and will continue tomorrow—the conventions recognise that conflict should be engaged in within a set of broad parameters. It is a sad indictment that in 1986, the International Year of Peace, there were 46 wars raging around the globe.

The conventions make comprehensive provisions for those who are most vulnerable: the wounded on the battlefield, the shipwrecked, prisoners of war and civilians who find themselves in the hands of the enemy. They also recognise emblems of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. Of course, protocol 3, adopted in 2005, added the Red Crystal. The conventions require respect and protection of those symbols.

Of the four conventions signed in 1949, now known as the Geneva conventions of 1949 or simply the Geneva conventions, the first relates to the amelioration of the condition of wounded and sick in armed forces in the field and the second to wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea. The third Geneva convention relates to the treatment of prisoners of war and the fourth to the protection of civilian persons in time of war.

The conventions and indeed three protocols followed in 1977—protocol 1, the protection of victims of international armed conflict; protocol 2, the protection of victims of noninternational armed conflicts; and protocol 3, in 2005, the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem. The conventions and their protocols provide for measures to deter violations. It is the solemn duty of all states to stand up and recognise the conventions and the associated protocols and to adopt them, not just in good faith but in hard standing. It is the duty of all states to investigate, to prosecute and to punish those guilty of breaches, especially grave breaches, regardless of where that offence was committed and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator.

Sadly, as we all know, recent times have seen a rise of nonstate actors—an asymmetric battlefield that covers not only air, sea and land but online internet communications operating within the civilian community. We have seen agents of warfare across state borders and we have seen battlefields that know no population or territorial limits and have no respect for human life. Whilst conventions are now well recognised by the states of the world, modern warfare, and indeed its laws, must now contend with those groups who do not hold out as states, who do not adhere at all to the conventions and their protocols—groups whose sole purpose is the destruction of states and the implementation of ideologies. These nonstate actors present a present and very real danger to the world as we know it. Nevertheless, regardless of the identity of protagonists, regardless of how they seek to prosecute their arguments, regardless of the violence they enact upon civilians, states and the militaries, it is still the challenge of the civilised world to stand up and continue to recognise the conventions and to engage in conflict according to its precepts and principles, regardless of how other nonstate actors fight their battles and present their cases.

The civilised world should never reduce itself to the lowest common denominator of those who seek other means of conflict. The civilised world must continue to stand up and set an example. In 1949 humanity adopted the four conventions and said that even within conflict there are rules, regardless of what the nonstate actors do today. That sense of humanity held true then and it holds true now: warfare and conflict still has rules. Rules must be followed. The conventions are designed to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

One only needs to look at the great work of the International Committee of the Red Cross and to see where it is most active today to get an understanding of where the trouble spots are and indeed where many of the nonstate actors continue to work: in Afghanistan, the Lebanon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Columbia, Haiti and in other areas. Conflicts range from traditional warfare, insurrection and widespread terrorism to societal breakdown, much of it precipitated by acute poverty.

Indeed, in Australia the National Red Cross has made an enormous contribution to the implementation of the conventions’ humanitarian ideals and principles that are espoused within the protocols and the convention. On the most recent available information, work of the International Committee of the Red Cross included educating over 17,000 people in humanitarian law, handling almost 3,000 international tracing and refugee services and assisting over 1,500 asylum seekers. That is profound and great work by the Red Cross in Australia. We should pay tribute to the work of the chairman, Greg Vickery AM, and the chief executive officer, Robert Tickner.

It is with much pride that the coalition supports the 60th anniversary and, once more, states categorically in this place that the conventions set a standard and an ideal of how armed conflict is to be engaged in. The coalition supports the conventions. It supports the government’s work in ensuring those conventions are adhered to and applied, and it supports the work of the government as they seek to engage other players, other countries and non-state actors, in also adopting the conventions and protocols as together we seek to build a better world.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week, on 12 August, I was out the front of Parliament House and there was a demonstration taking place. Like many of these demonstrations, it had attracted people. The Federal Police were there watching over the demonstration. There were also members of the armed forces—in fact, there was someone from the Navy, someone from the Air Force and someone from the Army. So the military was standing there watching over the demonstration, but it was not your normal sort of Parliament House demonstration. It was a particular event that saw 10 people standing in a line handing a book from one to the other. The last person in that passing line was the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, and what he received was a copy of the Geneva conventions. There were members of the military in that parade passing that document along. It was a very moving event. Later on the same day, people from that demonstration were down at the High Court, where Chief Justice French gave a great talk about the history of the Geneva conventions. It was fantastic to be able to witness that event that took place in between those two important institutions: the High Court and the parliament. Between those two, between justice and democracy, was that ceremony of the Geneva conventions passing between members of the military, members of the public and members of parliament. It was fantastic.

Why did this occur? Because it was 60 years to the day since the four Geneva conventions of 1949 had been signed. The Red Cross had been around a long time before that, but these four separate conventions were signed in 1949 and remain in effect today. The first convention contains laws pertaining to the care and protection of the wounded and sick on the battlefield. Obviously that is the history of the Red Cross. The second convention applies to those wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea. The third pertains to prisoners of war, which was very important coming after World War II when many prisoners suffered atrocities and is especially poignant for Australians because of the horrors of what happened in Changi as well as in Europe. The fourth convention deals with the protection of civilians in time of war. This was also very important because, as the military machine had grown in power, unfortunately civilians were the collateral damage, I guess, more so in World War II than in any preceding wars.

At the media event that I just talked about, Robert Tickner, the CEO of the Red Cross, talked about the recent survey they had done around the world. Standing in between the High Court and the Australian parliament building, we had a discussion about the fact that the survey found that more than 40 per cent of Australians believe it is okay to torture captured enemy soldiers in certain circumstances. Yet according to this comprehensive research on attitudes to war released by the Red Cross, which surveyed more than 1,000 people, 93 per cent of Australians also believe that those who break the rules of war should be punished. It is interesting to try to reconcile those competing ideas: that it is okay to torture captured enemy soldiers in certain circumstances and, on the flip side, that if you break the rules of war you should be punished. It is reassuring to know that a majority of Australians understand that even wars have laws, but it is a bit horrifying that two out of five Australians also believe it is sometimes okay to break those laws. As I said, standing there between the High Court and Parliament House, maybe in Australia because we have such institutions we are a little more relaxed about them.

In the same survey, people in countries like Afghanistan and Liberia were much more focused. In countries that have been wracked by war and where to have an election is a major event where people are dying today, people died yesterday and, no doubt, in the next couple of days in Afghanistan more people will die just in an attempt to cast their vote. In countries such as Afghanistan and Liberia 85 per cent of the people believe that the Geneva conventions limit the sufferings of civilians in wartime. Dr Durham from the Red Cross made the point:

Cynicism and complacency are luxuries for people who aren’t living in a conflict zone and who haven’t experienced the horrors of war. Almost half of those surveyed in Australia believed the laws of war made no difference, yet those from conflict-ravaged countries feel more positively that laws can make a difference.

That is a telling survey result. The same day after that ceremony when the Attorney-General received the Geneva conventions he then came into the House and moved a motion commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Geneva conventions. In his opening comments he made the point that, when Nauru ratified the Geneva conventions in June 2006, every single nation had ratified these conventions. It does not matter where they sit on the political divide or where they sit culturally, every nation has said, ‘These are rules that we must embrace.’ Every member state of the United Nations is party to them, which is quite momentous. I know, on occasion, we can focus on the darker side of human nature and that is obviously a role of government, but it is also important to recognise the positive things that occur.

In 2002 I especially recognise the previous Howard government for enacting the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Act, which provided that all crimes within the jurisdiction of the court namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are now crimes under Australian law. They can be dealt with in Australian courts irrespective of where they are committed and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. It is fantastic to think that these are universal laws. If you have ended up on our shores and you have committed these crimes then we can prosecute you in our own judicial system. I note that 109 countries have signed up and that the courts have started their first trial looking at some of the atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Sudan—something which is of particular interest to the Sudanese population in my electorate.

The Red Cross has a wonderful tradition that can be traced back to the Battle of Solferino in 1859, which was witnessed by Henry Dunant. It is great to see that in Australia in 2009 we are still making changes and still trying to ensure that the laws of war are enforced and that the laws of war hopefully will protect more civilians and prisoners of war. If we go back to 1859 when the Austrians and Italians battled it out with horrific casualties that then prompted Henry Dunant to get off his backside. So many organisations spring from someone saying, ‘I have to do something about it, what can I do?’ In 1864 he had the first Geneva convention and then in 1867 the Red Cross formed. In 1929 a later Geneva convention that was a precursor to the ones I have already mentioned. In 1949 we had the Geneva conventions that I have mentioned. The symbol was the Red Cross on the white armband. Initially it was just going to be a white armband but people thought it might be a little bit too close to the act of surrendering. In Muslim countries it was a Red Crescent. And in 2005 a non-religious symbol of the Red Crystal was introduced.

The Red Cross is well respected throughout the world and well respected in this parliament. On the Labor side, I am one of the convenors of Parliamentary Friends of Red Cross. We also have Bruce Scott from the Nationals and Senator Russell Trood from the Liberals. That is three Queensland blokes, so to give us a bit of balance we have Christine Milne from the Greens as well. We will continue to do what we can to recognise the good works of the Red Cross both in Australia and around the world.

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Attorney-General’s motion in the House of Representatives on the 60th anniversary of the Geneva conventions on 12 August 2009. What the Attorney moved was:

That the House:

(1)

notes the sixtieth anniversary of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949;

(2)

congratulates the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for continuously fostering the principles of international humanitarian law to limit human suffering in times of armed conflict and to prevent atrocities, especially against civilian populations, the wounded, and prisoners of war;

(3)

recalls Australia’s ratification of the Conventions and of the two Additional Protocols of 1977;

(4)

affirms all parliamentary measures taken in support of such ratification;

(5)

encourages the fullest implementation of the Conventions and Additional Protocols by the military forces and civilian organisations of all States;

(6)

encourages ratification by all nations of the Conventions and Additional Protocols; and

(7)

recognises the extraordinary contribution made by many individual Australians, including Australian Red Cross members, volunteers and staff, in carrying out the humanitarian ideals expressed in the Conventions and Additional Protocols.

Tragically, the world continues to experience armed conflict. As Dr Jakob Kellenberger, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, has said:

We sadly live in a world in which reports of direct attacks against civilians, of forced displacement, and of mistreatment of persons detained in relation to an armed conflict and the denial of their basic rights, judicial guarantees and procedural safeguards, are all too common.

By moving this motion, the Attorney-General is reminding all of us in this House, and Australians across the board, of our support for the Geneva conventions and our respect for the role that the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and now the Red Crystal organisations play in areas of conflict. I am very proud, as the member for Solomon, that I have the 1st Brigade in my electorate. I am very proud of the efforts that many of my soldiers—I call them my soldiers but they are really not my soldiers; Brigadier Michael Krause is the commanding officer—have put in in Afghanistan, Iraq and Timor. We welcomed home 1,200 soldiers on 8 August. They are back safely in the electorate. I recognise the contribution they make.

We also have a lot of people playing peacekeeping roles in different areas of the world—in the Solomon Islands in particular and in Africa in roles with the Federal Police in some 14 different deployments. We have a lot of our Australian service men and women serving us overseas. This motion shows them that we are thinking of them. It shows that the Attorney-General and the rest of us in this place are very much behind and supportive of what the Geneva conventions bring and what they are designed to do in conflict. Unfortunately, wars will occur. We need to make sure that there are rules with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war, and certainly the use of the civilian population during war should be fought against.

I agree with the comments of earlier speakers with regard to war crimes tribunals and how governments need to be thorough and committed in their support, regardless of nationality, race or religion, when it comes to convicting war criminals. This really goes to the core of what war can do, when innocent civilians are used in a way that is against the rules of combat.

As a young guy growing up, I remember Mum talking about my Great-Uncle Con. Great-Uncle Con spent four years in Changi prison during the Second World War. He went away as a 100-kilo man mountain. In the five years he was there, they often had to eat grass to stay alive. He was subject to systematic sterilisation, so he and my Aunty May could never have children. My mother’s father, who was Con’s brother, was able to put his hands around Con’s waist and touch them together when Uncle Con came back. That had a lasting effect on his direct family. When he returned some five years later he was nowhere near the person he was when he went away. That experience caused him great psychological damage.

In the past, wars were fought on a different type of battlefield. When you go to Anzac Day services, often you are consumed by your own thoughts. Although I may be in a crowd of 10,000 or 15,000 people, I feel very alone on Anzac Day and consumed by my own thoughts. We all have a vision of our Anzacs from the pictures that we have seen of them running up the beaches of Gallipoli. In those days wars were fought on fronts and there were stretcher bearers who would go out and retrieve the injured. Generally they were not shot at. My grandfather was a stretcher bearer in the Middle East. He stood on a landmine, which caused him some injuries. But in those days generally wars had fronts.

Now war has changed. Now the conventions have become increasingly difficult to police because of the desperation that war in the 21st century causes. It has taken a different turn. Every day our troops who are overseas are confronted by an enemy that is ruthless and that improvises. It is often very difficult for them to distinguish between the enemy and civilians. That puts an enormous amount of pressure on our service men and women when it comes to the treatment of civilians who have been caught in the crossfire of these conflicts. Conflicts are now more urban guerilla warfare than the war fronts of the past.

I fully support the motion moved by the Attorney-General. As I said, it drives home to us as a parliament the importance of the Geneva conventions and why they were put into place. But it also makes us remember not only those people who are overseas representing Australia and fighting with the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq but also those people who are caught in the crossfire. It makes us remember how lucky we are. Often you will hear chanting and yelling out the front of Parliament House. The reason that we are able to protest, the reason that our newspapers are generally allowed to write what they like, is the wars that we fought in the past. We fought for the democracy that we enjoy living in today.

In conclusion, I remember having a talk to Brigadier Kraus one day. Some adverse comments had been made about the ADF by a former member of this place. We were all outraged, on both sides of parliament, with regard to those comments. I will not repeat them. However, Michael Kraus said to me, ‘I was offended by the comments but I will defend his right to say them.’ That is what the ADF do. So I fully support the Attorney-General. I congratulate him on moving this motion. I congratulate the speakers from both sides of the House. It is something that is above political alliances. It is about our country. I am glad that, when it comes to our military, there is a bipartisan approach.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with many others in speaking in support of the Attorney-General’s motion on the 60th anniversary of the four Geneva conventions of 1949. I too want to pay my respects to and thank all those who support people who have suffered because of war. In particular I thank the International Red Cross for the excellent work that they do, but also I thank similar organisations throughout the world for their work.

What brought the Geneva conventions and protocols to my attention more than anything else was that, in the  years between losing my seat in 2004 and then regaining it, I did a postgraduate diploma in international relations in which humanitarian law and international law played an important part. I really did get a keen appreciation of a world outside of my electorate of Braddon, where I happily live, and beyond our peaceful Australia. I was so looking forward to seeing that world improve and prosper and become one where we could protect each other, particularly with the end of the so-called Cold War. But what we have observed instead is a level of conflict difficult to monitor. The nature of conflict has ranged from transnational conflicts to internal conflicts and on to other things, called asymmetrical warfare, guerilla warfare, terrorism and so on. All I can say is: thanks for the Geneva conventions and protocols, because, in a world of so much turmoil and hatred, they are a beacon where people can seek refuge and that others can use to help give that refuge and to bring some to justice for the perpetration of the suffering that has been caused.

I notice that in 1862 Henri Dunant published his book, Memoir of Solferino, on the horrors of war. His wartime experiences inspired this great gentleman to propose a permanent relief agency for humanitarian aid in times of war and a government treaty recognising the neutrality of the agency and allowing it to provide aid in a war zone. The former proposal led to the establishment of the Red Cross and the latter led to the first Geneva convention. For both of these accomplishments Henri Dunant became co-recipient of the first Nobel Peace Prize—and what a very apt award, for someone who so richly deserved it.

When we consider the time of the 1949 Geneva conventions and the protocols that eventually emerged, we had a world recently reeling from a total war that affected just about everyone and everything. Over 100 million soldiers were mobilised, and over 70 million people died. Most of these were civilians. It was indeed a horror of the greatest proportions. Out of this grew a demand and a need for some form of conventions and agreements to protect those who could not, in any sense, protect themselves.

The Geneva conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not, or are no longer, taking part in hostilities. Examples are: wounded or sick fighters, prisoners of war, civilians, and medical and religious personnel. The first Geneva convention was for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field. The second was for the amelioration of the condition of wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea. The third related to the treatment of prisoners of war, and the fourth related to the protection of civilian persons in the time of war. Added to these conventions are the protocols relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, to the victims of noninternational armed conflicts—so very relevant today—and to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem for medical purposes.

These conventions have what are called common articles. I suppose these are the minimum basis upon which people seek protection, and they seek to measure those who do not comply with them. Common article 2 relates to international conflict, and common article 3 relates to events contained within the boundaries of a single country. Article 3 establishes fundamental rules—for instance, it requires humane treatment of all persons in enemy hands, without any adverse distinction. It specifically prohibits murder, mutilation, torture, cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment, the taking of hostages and unfair trials. It requires that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked be collected and cared for. It grants the ICRC the right to offer its services to the parties to the conflict. It calls on the parties to the conflict to bring all or part of the Geneva conventions into force through so-called special agreements. It recognises that the application of these rules does not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict.

The current Chairman of the ICRC, Mr Knut Dormann, made some very pertinent comments about the importance of the conventions, in particular about article 3. I think his views are very relevant to what is happening throughout the world today. Mr Dormann said:

The adoption of this article in 1949 was a breakthrough since previous IHL treaties had only covered situations of wars between States. As most of today’s wars are non-international armed conflicts, Article 3 remains vitally important because it sets a baseline for the protection of people who are not or no longer fighting, to which all sides—State and non-State parties to conflict—must abide.

Most recently, we have unfortunately seen situations where international and humanitarian laws have really been stretched. I think of the reaction to Abu Ghraib and the procedures that were taking place there and, controversially, are taking place at Guantanamo Bay even to this day. There is the fact that what has been taking place there has been highlighted internationally. I might add that I do not wish to look as though I am anti the US or anti the alliance or whatever else you want to call it, but we know about the abominable practices by lots of different parties that take place throughout the world and, as part of a democratic country, we expect our governments to abide by the international rules that we have signed up to. It is an unfortunate example that has been publicly demonstrated, and we have to question some of the practices that we and our allies may be involved in.

Knut Dormann, in his summation of the importance of the conventions and knowing full well that a lot of this relies on the goodwill of people and on leadership, particularly by governments, had this to say:

… let’s not forget that the Conventions have been hugely successful over the past 60 years, saving countless lives, allowing thousands of separated families to be reunited and providing comfort to millions of prisoners of war. In my mind, that’s ample reason to celebrate. I dread to think how much more suffering there would be in the world if they didn’t exist.

He went on to say:

Let’s also not forget that international armed conflicts and occupation are by no means a thing of the past. Last year’s war between Russia and Georgia is a recent example of an international armed conflict where all four of the Geneva Conventions were applicable.

Given the nature of the pain and suffering that we see on our television sets each night and the blatant abuses of international law that we see, I found a recent survey very interesting. Parts of it were published in the Herald Sun on 12 August 2009. They surveyed Australians about the effectiveness of laws of war. Maybe not surprisingly, the survey was cold comfort to people who promote international law, particularly in this country. Some of the results from the June poll of 1,030 Australians are disturbing. The article reads:

While 88 per cent of Australians have heard of the Geneva Conventions, half the respondents believed they make no difference to the conduct of wars.

Again, it is very difficult to measure that. It continues:

Forty per cent of respondents, for example, thought captured soldiers sometimes deserved to die, while 60 per cent thought they never do.

Well, 60 per cent is better than 50 per cent.

A significant 43 per cent of respondents believed it was ‘OK’ to torture captured enemy soldiers in certain cases to obtain ‘important military information’—

Indeed, that is a debate raised every time there is a terrorist attack. We have a public debate about whether you should be able to use measured torture in order to get information to be able to save many more lives in pre-empting an act—

while 57 per cent thought it should never happen.

Women were more likely than men to say torture should never be allowed.

More than a third of respondents—35 per cent—thought it was legal to torture a prisoner of war to obtain important military information.

Those respondents who had served in the military (134 out of 1030)—

or 48 per cent—

were more likely to say torture in such circumstances was legal …

I would like to finish, if I may, by reading a brief extract from Philippe Sands’ book Lawless World, published in 2005. I think it is a sobering reminder of the reality of war, pain and suffering in this world and the role of the Geneva conventions. He concludes his section:

It is frequently argued that the effect of these rules is to make offensive and inappropriate behaviour legitimate. But the rationale is that wars happen, whether just or unjust, lawful or unlawful, and there must be constraints on the actions of soldiers. This is part of law’s function as a ‘gentler civiliser of nations’, as the Finnish academic Martti Koskenniemi has aptly put it.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.