Last week, we were introduced to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and watched the short video of the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
This week, we look at a special education program produced by the ICRC, called Exploring Humanitarian Law (EHL – http://www.ehl.icrc.org (Links to an external site.)). It is an international education programme for young people between the ages of 13 and 18. This video introduces the programme, its content and methodology:
Exploring Humanitarian Law : Presentation (Links to an external site.)
Exploring Humanitarian Law : Presentation
In terms of application of IHL to case studies, last week we also looked at Rule 59, governing the use of the Red Cross symbols, and applied the rule to a case study. This week, we look at the first of the EHL online modules (to be clear, the EHL program has five (5) modules, all posted online). This first module is called “Module 1: The Humanitarian Perspective (Links to an external site.),” and the case study is “A Witness Comes Forward (Links to an external site.):”
Background:
“South Africa, officially the Republic of South Africa (RSA), is the southernmost country in Africa. It is bounded on the south by 2,798 kilometres (1,739 mi) of coastline of Southern Africa stretching along the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans;[9][10][11] on the north by the neighbouring countries of Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe; and on the east and northeast by Mozambique and Swaziland; and surrounds the kingdom of Lesotho.[12] South Africa is the largest country in Southern Africa[13] and the 25th-largest country in the world by land area and is the world’s 24th-most populous nation.”
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa (Links to an external site.)
A Witness Comes Forward – 03.PNG
A Witness Comes Forward – 02.PNG
With this background in mind, here is the story of the assassination of Chris Hani (28 June 1942 – 10 April 1993), born Martin Thembisile Hani, who was the leader of the South African Communist Party (Links to an external site.) and chief of staff of uMkhonto we Sizwe (Links to an external site.), the armed wing of the African National Congress (Links to an external site.) (ANC). He was a fierce opponent of the apartheid (Links to an external site.) government, and was assassinated (Links to an external site.) on 10 April 1993.
Now that we have the background, here is the case study for this week:
A Witness Comes Forward.PNG
The woman who phoned the police with the license plate number of the killer’s car took a huge risk. She later testified in court:
“Margarita Harmse was the Afrikaner housewife whose call to the police secured Mr. Walus’s arrest within 10 minutes of the crime. As an ANC leader said afterwards, had she not performed her civic duty so diligently, had the identity of the alleged killer remained a mystery, the nationwide protests which followed the Hani assassination might well have degenerated into anarchy and racial war.
Mrs. Harmse told the court she was driving past Hani’s home in the suburb of Dawn Park, east of Johannesburg, at about 10am on 10 April when she heard two shots. She slowed down, saw a man crouching with a gun in his hand and then heard two more shots. She read the number-plates on the gunman’s red hatchback car, repeated the numbers out aloud to herself, and then called the police.
Under vigorous cross-questioning from Mr. Walus’s lawyer, Mrs. Harmse responded indignantly, in a shrill, child-like voice, to suggestions that she was lying: ‘I saw it. I saw what I saw. That’s all there is to say.’”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/witnesses-identify-hani-killer-street-scuffles-and-racial-insults-as-trial-starts-of-three-charged-1508727.html (Links to an external site.)
For this discussion, I want you to address the following issues in your response:
1) What obstacles or dangers did Mrs. Harmse face? What was she risking?
2) What were the immediate results of Mrs. Harmse’s actions?
3) Make a comment regarding your judgment of Mrs. Harmse’s decision. Was it right or wrong? State why you think so.
4) Make a comment regarding your judgment of Mrs. Harmse’s decision. Was she morally obligated to act? State why you think so, or why not.
5) Is International Humanitarian Law (IHL) involved in this case? Why or why not? State why you think so, or why not.
6) AFTER you have made your comment, read through the comments of your classmates, and respond to at least TWO of their comments on the same subject.
I look forward to the discussion.
P.S. Remember:
Again, we have plenty of time, so make sure that you have read the IHL materials before responding to the case study. The biggest problem we have had so far is contributions to the discussions that have not incorporated the material.
Read the material, and then give a complete, comprehensive response to the issue raised in the case study, AND respond to (at least two) of the contributions of your classmates.
Do not rush into this. Here is why you want to give this some time and thought:
1) The responses need to be on-time (I will accept late responses, but they are graded down);
2) The responses need to be complete, meaning they answer fully all the questions in the case study (I will accept short responses, but they are graded down);
3) You need to offer your own contribution, and then respond to the contribution of at least two classmates (if you submit only your contribution, you will be marked down for not responding to your classmates); and
4) Most importantly, you need to incorporate the lessons of the IHL material into your contribution (if you offer only your moral thinking, but not how it is reflecting in the terms or concepts of the material, you will be marked down).
The four guidelines above are not meant to be negative, but to offer you a rubric so that you know ahead of time how you will be graded.
