The blogosphere is all atwitter with reports that the Red Cross is proposing that gamers who play violent war games on the Xbox, Nintendo or whatnot should be charged with war crimes if their avatars violate international law, i.e., the rules of war.
It's not true!
The kernel of truth behind this hysteria is that the International Committee of the Red Cross, at a meeting in Geneva, raised the question of how war-like video games might be used to promote respect for international law. The proposal was to work with the gaming community to promote international humanitarian law. There never was a proposal to charge gamers for committing "virtual crimes," which all agree would be ludicrous.
However, the ICRC's proposal raises legitimate issues in a world where insurgencies, guerrilla movements and terrorist organizations operate outside the control of recognized sovereign governments. Promoting respect for international humanitarian law and the dignity of individual combatants or bystanders is a worthy cause. The gaming community could make a great contribution to this cause by making international law an element of their game strategies or tactics.
The American Red Cross is not the same organization as the International Committee for the Red Cross. Both organizations are part of the global Red Cross and Red Crescent network, but they operate separately. The American Red Cross is a humanitarian organization based in the United States, whose mission is to help people prevent, prepare for and respond to emergencies. The ICRC is an independent organization providing humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of war and armed violence.
The American Red Cross considers a discussion of international humanitarian law and the rules of war to be healthy, but it does not support (nor does the ICRC) a campaign against the video gaming industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment