As despicable as war might be, going back
thousands of years certain militaries have tried to agree on ethical kinds of warfare. Believe it or not, in the Old Testament it’s
written in one chapter that during war, trees should not be damaged, but eating from them
was fine. In the 7th century the Muslim Army was told,
“You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an
aged man.” And again, soldiers were told they should
leave those trees alone. Even in the often violent medieval times in
Europe there were boundaries, with the church writing there should be “just” warfare. But it wasn’t until modern times that we
started taking the ethics of war – perhaps an oxymoron for some people – seriously. That’s what we’ll talk about in this episode
of the Infographics Show, What is not allowed in war? Ok, so every army in history will have had
certain rules as to what is just going too far during war. But throughout history these rules of engagement
were mostly an agreement made by two militaries. They weren’t always followed of course,
but at least battling armies understood that even killing people had to be unpinned by
laws that precluded all out barbarism. It wasn’t until 1864 and the Geneva Convention
when laws of war became an international thing. These rules were partly the idea of a Genevan
businessman called Henry Dunant. He’d witnessed firsthand the carnage of
the Battle of Solferino during the Second War of Italian Independence. After seeing this he wrote a book called “A
Memory of Solferino” and in it he not only described the horror of what he had experienced
but he also recommended that armies follow certain rules such as offering humanitarian
assistance to the wounded. In 1863, 16 countries got together to talk
about creating rules of war, partly based on the ideas of Dunant. In the end, 12 nations agreed on certain terms
and that is what is called the First Geneva Convention. The focus of the agreement was taking care
of those injured on the battlefield, not finishing them off or just leaving them to die, as often
happened before that. For his efforts Dunant won the first Nobel
Peace Prize in 1901. The Geneva Convention was in years to come
updated numerous times. For instance, after World War One it was about
the treatment of prisoners of war: POWs. After World War Two, in 1949, we had the Fourth
Geneva Convention, and a total of 196 countries signed this, albeit some ratifying the treaty
with what are called “reservations.” There have since been three amendments in
the form of what we call protocols. These are sometimes breached, such as when
armies used certain banned weapons or when soldiers were tortured after they had been
captured. Now let’s have a look at what things are
not allowed. We know that soldiers that have been wounded
must be helped. It’s is written that they should not be
treated in a dehumanizing way and that they should not be humiliated. The conventions tell militaries that these
soldiers, “in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar
criteria.” If a person is injured he should not be a
target any longer. Moreover, it doesn’t matter if you are not
on the injured person’s side; if someone is hurt badly and attention can be given to
them, then that should happen. Then you have people who are a part of a military
that don’t necessarily fight, including chaplains and medical staff. These people should be left alone, but the
treaty states this can change of course if that person is armed. We are also told that if one side doesn’t
have enough medical personnel, it has a right to take hostage medical personnel from the
other side so they can begin treating the wounded. It goes without saying that these hostages
should be treated well. Perhaps a lot of people died on the battlefield
and are just lying about. We are told that these people should be picked
up when possible and given a proper burial. Sometimes fighting should even stop so the
dead can be moved. Their bodies should be treated with respect
and if it is possible those people should be buried in a way that respects their religion,
if their religion is known of course. There is even something called the “Graves
Registration Service” which should mean the dead can be traced and if need be their
bodies exhumed and sent back home. Anything found on the body, rings, money,
etc, should be returned to the dead person’s next of kin. This is a major part of the rules of war,
being good to the injured and respecting the dead. Then you have the people who have been captured,
and as you know these folks are called POWs. They too should be treated with respect, not
tortured, not treated inhumanely, and treated for wounds if need be. What can happen, though, is certain people
are not given POW status. This happened in the USA. The Chicago Tribune wrote in 2002 that the
U.S. army would give this status to captured Taliban soldiers but not people belonging
to the group Al Qaeda. That meant they were denied the rights of
POWs and we all know what happened to some of them. Many critics said the U.S. had breached the
rules of warfare which says detainees should be treated humanely. At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
said that would happen but he said these people were not POWs as they belonged to a terrorist
organization. When it comes to POWs they also have to be
treated according to their rank, which means that an officer might receive better treatment
than a lowly private. That’s why POWs are always asked to give
their “name, rank and serial number.” Once detained, we are told that they can be
questioned, but torture is definitely a no, no. It’s written in the third Geneva Convention
that, “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted
on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may
not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment
of any kind.” We all know this has happened and we have
heard the stories about the Guantanamo Bay facility and other black sites. The U.S. has been criticized by human rights
advocates, but as we said, these types of prisoners were not classed as POWs. So, of course captured people may be treated
badly, but all we are saying is under the International law of warfare they should not
be. However, if you search for instances of when
detainees have been tortured after they were captured during conflicts, you will find many,
way too many for us to mention today. Not only should these people not be demeaned
or tortured, but they should be given enough food, water, clothing, while also be allowed
to practice their religion and write to their family or friends. They are to be given their location so that
those people can write back to them. At the same time, the captured people should
not be paraded around for the public to see; they should not be photographed or videoed
for public consumption, which we are told is not treating them with dignity. After hearing this, you should know that it
goes without saying that civilians should be treated with dignity if they end up close
to an army. They should not be hurt and obviously not
be killed. They should be shielded from conflict as much
as is possible. Again, you can find many breaches of this
law over the years. If you want to spend some time reading news
stories containing evidence of soldiers willfully killing civilians, you could be reading for
a long, long time, and we are not just talking about militaries of less developed nations. This is a Guardian headline from 2010, “U.S
soldiers killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies.” We don’t mean to pick on the USA, but only
point out that very developed nations breach the rules of warfare from time to time just
as less developed nations do. The good news is that often soldiers that
carry out war crimes are charged for their violence, as were the soldiers in the case
of the U.S. we just mentioned. Killing civilians is plain unacceptable, as
is stealing things from them. If their property, or anything else they have,
is destroyed during conflict then those civilians should be compensated. If civilians are injured or killed, then the
army that did that should also compensate the family. These are known as “condolence payments.” The Intercept tells us that the U.S. military’s
price of life is usually capped at $5,000. This is tricky business of course as who wants
to put a price on life. One U.S. attorney told The Intercept, “If
I have a case of a 28-year old doctor, they are going to be paid more than we’d pay
for a child of four.” So, what is lost, whether a thing or a person,
under the rules of law, should be compensated for. Those civilians that did not die should not
be removed from their homes unless it’s for their own safety. They cannot be forced to fight, but they can
be made to work if that work is not directly related to violence. They should also be paid for their work and
paid according to proper wages, not used as slaves. If a civilian decides that they should want
to up and leave during the conflict they must be allowed to do so. But if a good reason can be given why they
should not be allowed to leave then they can be stopped. All civilians have the right to appeal this. Militaries are also told to protect what we
call “cultural property.” As you can guess, this might include monuments,
certain buildings, places of science, but also just books, works or art, many things
that have importance within a culture. You should never mess with the heritage of
a culture as far as is possible. There are also laws relating to what weapons
one can use. As you probably know, militaries cannot just
start dropping the plague on towns or spraying biological weapons around. Yes, militaries all over the world have put
considerable effort into developing such weapons, but they are now illegal in war. We might take mustard gas for instance, which
was used in the first world war. This is not allowed to be used anymore. Other things illegal are nerve gas, tear gas,
phosphine gas and even pepper spray as it’s a kind of chemical weapon. Foreign Policy magazine tells us that the
use of land mines is a war crime, although we are told that 20 countries have not signed
the land mine ban agreement, including the USA, Russia and China. The treaty also asks countries to clean up
all their landmines, which would be some job for certain nations. We are told napalm is not illegal to use,
but it can’t be used to kill people, only to burn things. The same goes for flamethrowers, they can
be used to clear forests and such, but cannot be used to set people alight. The list is a long one when it come to other
kinds of banned weapons. For instance, militaries should not use dirty
bombs, salted bombs, or hollow-point bullets or poisoned bullets. Can you add to our list of what’s not allowed
in war? What do you think about the rules of war? Tell us in the comments. Also, be sure to check out our other show
Battle of Thermopylae - Spartans vs Persians. Thanks for watching, and as always, don’t
forget to like, share and subscribe. See you next time.
