Colombian military disguised as fictitious ngo

I was just enjoying being elated about the bloodless rescue. You raise some very important points that I hadn't thought of (DUH!). NGOs will now be under even more scrutiny and potentially blocked from actions out of fear of another under cover military operation, no question. Yikes.

<><><><>
Jayne Cravens
www.coyotecommunications.com/development/
Bonn, Germany

CNN is reporting that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is now confirming one ICRC symbol was used in the hostage rescue mission that took place two weeks ago, per growing reports in the media that the international symbol for the Red Cross was used. Uribe described the wearing of the symbol as a slip-up. He said he was sorry for the mistake and had talked to Red Cross officials about it.

Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a "war crime" under the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law and could endanger humanitarian workers in the future, according to international legal expert Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association. Ellis said the conventions were "very strict" regarding use of the symbol because of what it represented: impartiality, neutrality. In a story on CNN, Ellis is quoted:

"If you use the emblem in a deceitful way, generally the conventions say it would be a breach. [Based on the information as explained to me,] the way that the images show the Red Cross emblem being used could be distinguished as a war crime."

Uribe and his top generals had categorically denied that international humanitarian symbols were used in the July 2 rescue mission that freed the prized hostages.

The rescue ruse also included bogus communications, sent electronically and by human couriers, to convince FARC rebels that superiors were ordering them to hand over hostages to the group posing as aid workers for transfer to another rebel camp.

Misuse of the Red Cross emblem is governed by articles 37, 38 and 85 of Additional Protocol One to the Geneva Conventions, the international rules of war. The articles prohibit "feigning of protected status by the use of ... emblems" of neutral parties and say that such misuses are considered breaches of international humanitarian law that qualify as a "war crime."

Colombia signed the Geneva Conventions in 1949.

That prohibition was put in place to protect the neutrality of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations in an armed conflict and to guarantee their access to all sides. Use of those emblems by one side of a conflict, for example, could endanger aid workers because those on another side might no longer trust that symbols they see really represent those humanitarian organizations.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/16/colombia.cross/index.html

<><><><>
Jayne Cravens
www.coyotecommunications.com/development/
Bonn, Germany

The problem is of course that changing the ubiquitous white into pink (or yellow, as IRC has done) would not really help for a case like this -- the next time the Colombian (or any other country's) armed forces need a disguise they will just use pink or yellow. However, it might help to distinguish us from the UN forces, which by itself already is worthwhile.

Cheers,
Michael