IN CASE OF ATTACK

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 05, Issue 83, 27 July 1942, Page 5

IN CASE OF ATTACK

MARKING OF HOSPITALS

INSTIIUCTION QUESTIONED

The following letter Avhicli appeared in a recent issue of the Wellington paper The Dominion, questions the correctness of the instructions .sent to all hospital boards and received at the last meeting of the Thames Hospital Board advising that under no circumstances shall the board display a red cross on any, of the board's hospitals.

Mr Falconer writes on the subj2?t as under: —

TJie Minister of Health, Mr Norclmeyer, in liis. reply to a question in the House regarding the protection of hospitals, said that "'no good purpose can lie achieved by attempting to mark hospitals with, a special sign.'" He goes on to state that "there was no sign which had been internationally agreed upon for affording protection to buildings against land or aerial bombardment" and arrangements between belligerents would be necessary .before any such sign could be arranged for and brought into use." Arc Mr Nordmeyer and his advisers correct in their statements and in their judgment? "The public are urged to provide slit trenches and our streets are full of air-raid shelters. The patients in our hospitals cannot rush into these, but if some sign marked the hospitals against low bombing and ma-chine-gun lire, surely some good purpose would be achieved. There would at least be some mental satisfaction that the patients were being given all the protection available. Mr Nordineyer says that there was no sign internationally agreed upon against land or aerial bombardment. He omits mention of, to us, the most important—that of the navj r . His advisers must be aware that The Hague Convention (IX), October IS, 1907, was concerning bombardment by naval forces in time Of Avar. That any aerial bombardment likely to be made in. NewZealand would be made by the fleet air arm-. Apparently his advisers are of opinion that -bombardment by the fleet air arm is not a naval bombardment.. "During the Great War Britishcivil hospitals Avere'-using the Red Cross emblem, and the War Office wrote protesting against its abuse, but pointed out that provision had been made by Article 37 of the Annex of The Hague Convention for the proper protection of civil hospitals. The letter stated: Tt is provided that such buildings in sieges and bombardments shall be indicate ed by distinctive and visible signs, and in this connection I am to state that the sign which' has been adopt-, ed by His Majesty's Government and notified to the enemy ments in a large stiff, rectangular panel diA'ided diagonally into two painted triangular portions, the upper portion black, the lowest portion White.' The Convention places the responsibility for the prevision of such signs on the civilians. 'It shall be the duty of the inhabitants to indicate such places by visible- signs.'

"Mr Nordmeyer's third point is that the arrangement must be. mutual. -Just so. Why not? Why does New Zealand hesitate td make the. advance? Our enemy in the Pacific has been scrupulous in his regard for the Red Gross sign. Would he. not respect Ihe Hague sign? "May I respectfully suggest that Mr Nordmever reconsider his reply, which would appear to be fundamentally wrong and quite inadequate ? A very good purpose would be achieved by the use of the sign. p er " many, Italy, Japan, Great Britain and Russia signed the international agreement regarding The Hague emblem. Why not notify Japan, as Italv notified Great Britain when she entered the war?—l am, etc., Chas. S. Falconer. .