|
Since
1998, certain groups in Israel and the USA
have been using well-practiced campaigning
tactics to put pressure on the
International Red Cross Movement. There
has been virtually no public response to
what has been going on. These groups want
to replace, or rather supplement, the
symbol of humanitarian help, the red
cross, with a new sign consisting of a red
rhombus. At the same time they want the
Geneva treaties, through an additional
protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions,
to recognize the Red Shield of David as an
equal-ranking emblem representing the
Israeli aid organization. Switzer land as
the depository
of the Geneva Conventions would be
expected to provide diplomatic assistance
for
this change. Consultations have already
taken place. Although Dr Kellenberger,
President of the ICRC, tried personally to
negotiate in America, resistance to this
move has been expressed by different
countries on different grounds. The Swiss
Federal Ministry for Foreign
Affairs (EDA) has already stated that as a
result of events in the Middle East, the |
preconditions for a diplomatic conference
on the emblem are not fulfilled.
Nevertheless, in this power struggle
against the Geneva treaties, the ICRC and
the Federation of the individual national
Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, what
is at stake is not only an American
political issue of clientage policy but
the essential concept of neutral
humanitarian aid in armed conflicts. In
the event of future ‘military
interventions’, which in reality are wars
and occupations, powerful countries appear
to want to bring humanitarian aid only to
their own clientage. The idea of
humanitarian aid brought to both sides by
independent, neutral institutions like the
Red Cross, does not suit their plans at
all. Equally, in this age of
neo-imperialism, they take a dim view of
ICRC delegates serving as independent
witnesses. The matter of the emblem must
be seen against this background. It has a
far-reaching and important background and
context as well as consequences which,
however, are not widely appreciated.
ICRC emblem since 1864 |
|
The more precarious the
situation in the Middle East becomes, and
the more US/Israeli policy towards the
Palestinians leads into a blind alley, the
more regrettable it becomes that at
present Israel—and only Israel (backed by
the American Red Cross)—is unwilling to
accept the worldwide significance of the
red cross as the symbol of neutrality and
of humanitarian aid for all victims of
armed conflict. All the states which
emerged after the Second World War from
the heritage of colonialism have accepted
it. They all accept the red cross as the
universal symbol, with exceptions only
made for the red crescent and the red lion
in countries where the population is
predominantly Muslim (though the red lion
has been de facto out of use since World
War II). Even the new states which emerged
after the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc
have made their choices between these two
symbols, and regularised their
relationships with the international
humanitarian treaties according to
international law.
The Seven Principles
Humanity
International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to
bring assistance without discrimination to
the wounded on the battlefi eld,
endeavours, in its international and
national capacity, to prevent and
alleviate human suffering wherever it may
be found. Its purpose is to protect life
and health and to ensure respect for the
human being. It promotes mutual
understanding, friendship, cooperation and
lasting peace amongst all peoples.
Impartiality
It makes no discrimination
as to nationality, race, religious
beliefs, class or political opinions. It
endeavors to relieve the suffering of
individuals, being guided solely by their
needs, and to give priority to the most
urgent cases of distress.
Neutrality
In order to continue to
enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement
may not take sides in hostilities or
engage at any time in controversies of a
political, racial, religious or
ideological nature. |
The Israeli Magen David Adom (MDA)
has been in existence since 1930 as a
society for humanitarian aid in Palestine,
and has always used the red star of David
as its symbol. Because it refused to
acknowledge the red cross, it was refused
admission to the treaties in 1952. But in
practice on the ground the different
national Red Cross Societies have always
managed to work together amicably,
including the Red Star of David with the
Palestinian Red Crescent and the ICRC.
What will happen in the coming war between
Israel and the Palestinians over Gaza and
the West Bank is still an open question.
What has brought us to
this debate over a new emblem?
Why, and to what end, this
pressure to accept the Shield of David as
a third emblem and thereby bring about an
‘inflation’ of special
national or religious emblems? This would
of the Red
Cross
Independence
The Movement is
independent. The National Societies, while
auxiliaries in the humanitarian services
of their governments and subject to the
laws of their respective countries, must
always maintain their autonomy so that
they may be able at all times to act in
accordance with the principles of the
Movement.
Voluntary service
It is a voluntary relief
movement not prompted in any manner by
desire for gain.
Unity
There can be only one Red
Cross or one Red Crescent Society in any
one country It must be open to all. It
must carry on its humanitarian work
throughout its territory.
Universality
The International Red Cross
and Red Crescent Movement, in which all
Societies have equal status and share
equal responsibilities and duties in
helping each other, is worldwide. automatically destroy the
unity of the protective movement. What is
clear is that the Israeli
Magen David Adom, the Israeli government, and
the American Red Cross under its President
from 1999-2000, |
Dr Bernadine Healy
(see case on page 8), apparently a
member of the Jewish community, was and is
still conducting full-power lobbying to
elevate the shield of David to
international status as a new, special
national-religious symbol. Her behavior
towards the treaties and the Federation of
Red Cross Societies is particularly
penetrating and she demanded nothing less
than full recognition of the shield of
David as the third symbol. That, and that
only, is what opened up this discussion
some three years ago. The situation then,
in which Switzerland was coming under
strong international pressure from Jewish
and American quarters, was exploited to
open up the debate over a possible new
emblem for the Red Cross. At that time,
before the New York settlement agreed upon
by Swiss banks, Mrs Healy was already
using the phrase favoured in Tel Aviv
‘Change it now, fi x it and fast.’ The
general confusion in Swiss institutions
was to be used to force through demands.
The Red Cross Movement —the treaties, the
ICRC and the Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies—with its
consensus-oriented, open structures, was
unprepared for this onslaught.
The
history of the emblem
According to the governing articles
presently in force, the red cross is the
universally valid symbol. The red crescent
used by some particular countries, and the
red lion used by Persia/Iran, are seen as
exceptional cases. In the case of the red
lion, according to a diplomatic note of 4
September 1980, the Islamic Republic of
Iran no longer uses it, so it has been in
abeyance for more than twenty years, i. e.
since the Second World War.
A look back at the
problematic history of this exception
provides background information with which
one is able to form an opinion on the
present situation. At the same time it
illuminates just
how closely Swiss neutrality is tied up
with the Red Cross; it is ‘conditio sine
qua non’. The
danger of political manipulation threatens
both aspects, both the proliferation of
emblems and the weakening of neutrality.
In this world of impending
wars and conflicts the Geneva
Conventions and the whole Red Cross
Movement, as the unique, proven medium of
humanitarian activity in times of war, deserve protection which is lasting
and which moreover benefits all people
regardless of nationality, religion or
race. In the face of America’s and
Britain’s war policy, which according to
‘USA Today’ |
from 19 November 2001 after
Afghanistan already have other countries
like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia
and South America in their sights,
Switzerland as depository of the Geneva
Conventions is accorded great
responsibility in the future towards all
people, in particular towards all those
affected and defeated: the victims of
these wars only have the Red Cross
Movement for their protection. Since the
UN is becoming increasingly clearly part
of the ‘sole world power’s’ war policy and
as a result biased in these wars and their
political consequences, it will no longer
be able to provide neutral and
disinterested aid.
The
founding
After the Battle of
Solferino on 24 June 1859 it was only a
few years before
Henri Dunant had
gained the agreement of representatives of
the various countries on the need for a
treaty for the protection of those wounded
in war. When they came together in 1863
there was from the very beginning a
striving to establish a universal symbol for the
medical services of the combatant forces
and for th national services for helping
the wounded.
‘A badge, uniform, armlet
might usefully be adopted, so that the
bearers of such distinctive and
universally adopted insignia would be
given due recognition.’ At one of these
foundation sessions in October 1863 Dr Brière,
speaking as the Swiss representative,
brought up the matter of the
indivisibility of the two basic concepts:
the universality of the identification
emblem and the creation of an
international system to protect the
wounded. This was reflected in the
Protocol as follows:
‘Mr Briere recommended that
the wounded be succoured irrespective of
the side to which they belonged; that
those who tended the wounded be
safeguarded and not taken prisoner; that
the same flag be given to all military
hospitals and ambulances of the various
nations; that any place displaying that
flag be considered as an inviolable place
of asylum; and that a single distinctive
sign, if
Pictures, documents and
videos illustrate life and work of Henri
Dunant, the first Nobel peace prize
winner, in the Henri-Dunant-Museum in
Heiden, Switzerland. Contact: phone
+41-71-891 44 04 www.dunant-museum.ch
To Read More
Click Here to get the
full article in pdf format. |
