Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel

My Lords, we on these Benches also support the Bill. As humanitarian action has become more organised and more international, so too must the protection of those involved. The Red Cross movement has a long and extraordinary history, and the steady expansion of the UN’s role is surely welcome. We have debated repeatedly what can be done to protect people in desperate circumstances, and the UN's duty to protect was recently strengthened. Following increased international action, we must improve what we do to protect those brave people identified by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who are involved in such missions. That is what the Bill is about. The Geneva Conventions and the use of the symbol of the red cross in the 19th century—related, as we have heard, to the Swiss flag—were the first moves in this direction. We have heard how Ottoman soldiers reacted to the symbol because it was reminiscent of the Crusaders' badge—hence the use of the red crescent. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned, Persia later used a red lion. Others proposed other symbols, but in 1949 it was these symbols—the cross, the crescent and the lion—that were recognised internationally, and other contenders were not accepted. The emblems serve an important purpose as signs of neutrality, and to bring protection on the battlefield. Even when they were adopted, there were problems with their use, and some feeling that they were not sufficiently inclusive. That feeling has grown and become more pressing with the rise of religious and ethnic conflicts. It seems that their efficacy has been undermined by identification with one group or another. Also, some national societies have had difficulty using one emblem because of the diversity of their communities. From the discussions over this there emerged, almost a decade ago, the red crystal, seen as a symbol free from religious, national, cultural, ethnic or political symbolism. What happens when another symbol is placed within it, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned, remains unclear. Given that it emerged a decade ago, we should expedite this measure, to improve protection and give greater universality to the symbols available to the movement. The new emblem could, of course, apply to British Armed Forces operating in appropriate circumstances—Afghanistan and Iraq might be cases in point. Humanitarian assistance in the Middle East, which is so desperately needed at the moment, could also benefit. As the Minister said, the red crystal emblem has already enabled the Israeli National Society to be recognised. The Palestine Red Crescent Society has also been admitted to the movement, thus increasing the universality of this humanitarian network. The second clause in this Bill extends the scope of legal protection to UN and associated personnel engaged in UN operations for delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance in peacebuilding, or for delivering humanitarian assistance generally. This reflects the expansion of the UN’s role and its work in places such as Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s. The move to introduce a protocol gained added momentum in August 2003, when Iraqi insurgents blew up the UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing 20 UN employees, including the UN special envoy to Iraq. The expansion of the scope of automatic application of the convention to include peace-building operations and emergency humanitarian assistance operations is very important. It must be very satisfying for the Minister to find himself taking this through as a Minister in his home country, having been involved in the development of these protections while at the UN. However, it has been suggested that there are some limitations still. Could the noble Lord comment on whether some UN bodies remain outside its scope? For example, emergency humanitarian assistance operations established by autonomous organisations within the UN system and by the specialised agencies seem not to be covered as they were not established by UN charter bodies. So, for example, operations established by the Food and Agriculture Organisation or the World Health Organisation would not be within the scope of the protocol. If they fall outside the scope, does the Minister know of moves to include them? There is also a concern about the number of states signing up to its provisions. The convention, more than 10 years after its adoption, has only 79 countries signed up out of a UN membership of 191, and some of those that are not signed up are where UN personnel are operating. I have heard that only four out of the 16 countries where UN personnel are operating have signed up. What comment would the noble Lord make on this? Nevertheless these provisions are a move forward and to be welcomed. It cannot be for us to change this Bill; that will need to be built into future UN agreements and then ratified by member countries. But while we are discussing the issues of where now, can I ask when legislation might be brought forward in relation to the remaining international humanitarian law treaties to which the UK is not yet a party? I gather that in 1977 the UK entered a reservation on reprisals—that in extreme circumstances the UK retained the right to reprisals. Could the noble Lord comment? What else has the UK not yet signed up to, and why? For example, there is the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and its two protocols. A draft Bill on this was published in January 2008. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee undertook an inquiry and published a report in July 2008, but the Bill was not included in the Queen's Speech. It might be helpful if the noble Lord could say when this Bill might come forward. In the mean time, I wish to make it very clear that we welcome this Bill today.