COMMISSIONER BONINO'S CONTRIBUTION

ABSTRACT

* Many thought that the end of the Cold War era might bring about the progressive disappearance of war as a factor in international relations, and as a means of conflict resolution. Not so: war has come back at a gallop into the history of the end of the twentieth century. Whereas many of the conflicts in question are local ones, without implications for geopolitics on a global scale , they signal however a worrisome return to barbarity.

* The warlords of today, whether in the Balkans or the Caucasus, northern or sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia or Sri Lanka, all of them have scant regard for ethics and international conventions. A new culture of warmongering is taking root, and it involves coolly planning and executing crimes against humanity. And, alongside genocide, mass rape, or massacres of refugees and civilians, psychological warfare has become fashionable too.

* Today's warmongers hate openness, the free availability of accurate information and independent witnesses, starting with the media and humanitarian workers, who can between them influence the course of events, both from a political and military point of view. The odd symbiotic relation between media and humanitarian actors in disaster zones has become increasingly contentious, and so has the respective role of witness of man-made disasters.

* We in the humanitarian community have been accused of becoming part of the problem, and we have even been accused of having an incestuous relationship with the media when we have tried to draw the international community's attention to conflicts and suffering the world would apparently rather not know about.

* Let me emphasise that I believe humanitarian and media should never give up on their role of active witnesses in complex humanitarian crises. All the more so, since many forgotten crises, or newly emerging conflict areas, attract little or no political attention in most capitals - let alone enough political will to undertake meaningful conflict-resolution initiatives at international level. And yet, this witness role is now opposed by at least two schools of thought.

* There are those whom I would call orthodox, who inherited a culture of neutrality at any price from their history of 'traditional' humanitarian action in wars that gave rise to existing humanitarian conventions. I respect their rigorous point of view, but I reserve the right to distance myself from it if and when it becomes morally untenable to turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity. There are no circumstances under which neutrality can be stretched to include moral aquiescence, or even complicity.

* "Once a witness breaks silence, he becomes an agent in the conflict". That is the view of the other school of opponents I face. They see what they call a media/humanitarian circus, and they accuse us of promoting commercial, political or even personal interests when we speak out. We are seen as feeding crises, or as steering crises, by exercising morally untenable pressure on one or other party in a conflict.

* One can't please everyone. I come from a school of politics that taught me that sticking to some universal principles is the best way of weathering storms. I respect all critics who respect my decision to be an active witness. I am aware that all activists are exposed to risks and that there is a price to pay for that, but I believe it is a price worth paying, and I prefer to pay it, rather than to run the risk of feeling shame at having done nothing.

* I am grateful to you all, on behalf of ECHO, for helping clarify with your experience where the goalposts are or should be when dealing with complex crises. And I am particularly grateful to Nik Gowing, for highlighting in his remarkable conference paper the way in which manipulation of information played a crucial role in the 'war of Kivu'. Both journalists and humanitarian workers were prey to the phenomenon, which meant that journalists were unable to tell the truth, and humanitarians were unable to defend the dignity of the many lives at stake. It's hard for me to tell whether to be ashamed or angry at the episode.

* The same goes for the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, the signs of which were so clear and so numerous. I was appointed as Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs in 1995, after the events in question, but must take responsibility for what I can influence as far as the long-term outcome is concerned. That is why I fought for the setting up of the Arusha Tribunal, and am fighting today for the creation of a permanent international criminal court to combat impunity and to record crimes against humanity.

* But we cannot fight that fight just once in a while, when it suits us. We must be consistent. I don't know how some political leaders manage a kind of schizophrenia that allows them to demand justice for victims of the 1994 events, but to refuse even to establish what happened in 1996/97. I feel this is dangerous ground, given that the region is once again on the brink of a crisis.

I fear for the future in a region where a dubious mirage has taken hold - a new generation of African leaders who declare themselves to be enlightened, the inspiration for a renaissance on their continent. To whom do they answer? Not to their people, and not to the international community, as far as I can see. Let us hope they do not condemn their fellow citizens to the role of cannon fodder.