What's Worth More - a Hostage or a Principle?

by Michael Kleinman

Published October 10, 2008 @ 10:39AM PST

[Footage of the rescue of Colombian hostage Ingrid Betancourt]

To get the most embarassing admission out of the way - I like to read Vanity Fair.  For the articles.  Which is how I saw the story in this month's issue, Inside Colombia's Hostage War, about the rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and fourteen other Colombian hostages in July.  Long story short, the Colombian military deceived the rebel group holding the hostages (FARC) into handing them over without a shot being fired.

Only one small problem - in order to deceive the rebels, one of the Colombian soldiers wore a Red Cross emblem.  Which is a serious humanitarian faux-pas, to say the least, not to mention a possible violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Though the rescue story itself isn't new, the article made me think about yesterday's post on Afghanistan, and the question of humanitarian independence and neutrality.  As well as the deeper question, about which is more important - rescuing a hostage and saving a life, or upholding a broader principle. 

First, the facts.  According to the Vanity Fair article:

"When the helicopter landed, the pilots were wearing T-shirts emblazoned with Che Guevara’s image. The first soldier out of the helicopter was wearing a Red Cross bib, which was against the rules of the Geneva Conventions. He later lied to his superiors, swearing on the life of his son that he had put it on at the last minute because he was scared. His alibi was blown when an unauthorized documentary of the whole operation—comprising insider video and still photographs—aired on Colombian TV." [For footage, see above.]

The Colombian Government at first denied that the soldier had used the Red Cross emblem - after pictures emerged showing exactly that, they changed their story, pinning the blame on the soldier.  According to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe:

"This officer, upon confessing his mistake to his superiors, said when the [rescue] helicopter was about to land ... he saw so many guerrillas that he went into a state of angst. He feared for his life and put on the Red Cross bib over his jacket."

The problem with this defense, however, is that the man was wearing the bib before the mission started.

All of which begs the question of why this is an issue in the first place.  After all, the mission was a success, the hostages were rescued, and good (at least temporarily) triumphed.

First, it's always embarrassing to violate (or potentially violate) the Geneva Conventions.  According to Mark Ellis of the International Bar Association: "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." The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also released a statement, "deploring" the improper use of the Red Cross symbol.

(For those interested in a more detailed discussion of how this might violate International Humanitarian Law, see here.)

Second, and more important, what does this mean going forward?  Especially as the idea that humanitarian organizations are neutral and independent is already under attack.

In Afghanistan, for instance, the Taliban consider humanitarians to be part of "foreign invader forces".  The problem is not limited solely to insurgents and other rebel groups.  Earlier this year I was in Khartoum when the Sudanese Government accused NGOs of being Zionist front organizations.  (Which, by the by, is a lot of fun if you're Jewish.)

The fear is that warring parties will now be that much more likely to see humanitarian agencies as possible threats, and then block access to affected populations, or threaten aid workers directly.

To over-simply greatly, what's more important - a hostage's life, or upholding these principles of neutrality and independence?

Sitting in LA, I like to think that the balance comes down on the side of principle.  That said, I once had a friend kidnapped in Afghanistan, and wouldn't have hesitated a moment to lie, cheat or steal - much less use the Red Cross symbol - if it meant her release.

And finally, just to throw a wrench into the works - is it even realistic for the UN and NGOs to consider themselves neutral and independent in the first place?  Especially in places like Afghanistan, where we receive funding from belligerents (the US, the UK, etc.), and then often implement programs in conjunction with the Afghan Government.