You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Red Cross neutrality jeopardised by US action in Iraq, British chief says
2004-12-15
The chief executive of the British Red Thingy Cross has warned that the international movement's neutrality is fast becoming a casualty of the global "war on terror".

Sir Nicholas Young told the Guardian that the US-led coalition's defiance of international law in Iraq threatened to obliterate the capacity of the Red Thingy Cross and Red Moon-Shaped Thingy Crescent movement to operate in areas of conflict. In an interview in today's Society Guardian, he says: "The respect the Red Thingy Cross relied on, the sense that when we're wearing our emblem and doing our work we are protected, we are sacrosanct, is under threat.

"We are able to work across the frontline for only as long as we are seen as neutral. The moment that sense of impartiality is lost, our mission is lost.

"We might as well pack up and go home. We'll be seen as part of the war machine and we'll be unable to operate."
I recall we at Rantburg have been making this very point to you for quite a while now.
Driving through the streets of Baghdad in a clearly marked Red Thingy Cross vehicle last year, Sir Nicholas says, he was acutely aware that local people did not recognise the agency's neutrality. "I had a very strong sense that we were regarded as Saddam's collaborators the occupying powers," he says. "And this was something I hadn't felt before."

He adds that the Red Thingy's Cross's mission was severely jeopardised when Colin Powell, the former US secretary of state, called humanitarian aid "an important part of our combat force" in Iraq. "The humanitarian space that we operate in has been narrowed; on one side by the sense that the white guys in the white Land Rover must be part of the coalition force because we seem to be doing the same kind of job as them; on the other by the sense that the non-state groups don't understand international humanitarian law, don't understand the role of NGOs in the region."

Last month the US forces breached international law when they publicly snubbed the Iraqi Red Moon-Shaped Thingy Crescent by denying it access to Falluja after weeks of heavy bombardment. It was a "hugely significant" gesture, Sir Nicholas says. "It sets a dangerous precedent. The Red Thingy Cross had a mandate [under the Geneva convention] to meet the needs of the local population facing a huge crisis and, given their neutrality, they should have been allowed to meet those needs."
The Moon-Shaped Thingy guys have a credibility problem. Something about ambulances in Paleostine.
The International Federation of Red Thingy Cross and Red Moon-Shaped Thingy Crescent Societies incorporates national societies in more than 180 countries, with almost 300,000 staff.

The worst prospect for the Red Thingy Cross is having to pull out of an increasing number of conflict zones round the world, Sir Nicholas says. "We pride ourselves on building a more civilised world, yet are we doing that if we allow this sense of help to people in vulnerable situations to just disappear? "It's an incredibly dangerous situation for the Red Thingy Cross Red Moon-Shaped Thingy Crescent to be in."
Posted by:Steve White

#18  I've been reading Townhall, National Review, and a dozen papers today, and everything I read makes me want to reach for an axehandle. The world is full of idiots that have no idea what's going on, but want their fair share of opportunity to expound upon every subject known to man. A lot of these nutcases need a full cup of STFU, followed by an axehandle firmly emplanted between the eyes with as much force as a human being can muster. These idiots are taking up valuable space, consuming resources best left to others, and spewing idiocy that just makes it harder to get the job done. As the Lord High Executioner said, "I've got a little list...", only mine is reaching unmanageable proportions. I need to trim it down a bit. Can someone lend me a nuke or three? Mine are all in the shop, being upgraded.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2004-12-15 3:53:03 PM  

#17  WHAT Red Cross neutrality?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-12-15 1:02:16 PM  

#16  they already did choose a side, lex.
Posted by: 2b   2004-12-15 11:58:31 AM  

#15  the non-state groups don't understand international humanitarian law, don't understand the role of NGOs in the region

"Non-state groups" - LOL.
Care to be a bit more precise, St Nick? Surely you mean the fascist neck-sawers and ba'athist assassins, right? They understand perfectly well your role. They're trying to crush you and your role, the same way they're trying to destroy every other humane and liberal value in Iraq.

Wake up, fool: There is no moral equivalence between us and the fascists. Yes, the Red Cross must choose a side here. If you can't do so then the people of Iraq are better off without you.
Posted by: lex   2004-12-15 11:40:35 AM  

#14  They're pissed since we are encroaching on their business. What, 5 or 6 million refugees have returned home just from Afghanistan and Iraq. Stats like that and they will soon be out of business. Then how will Swedish and Belgian ner-do-wells ride around in SUVs like the Great White Hunters of yore and whore around with the underage natives.
Posted by: ed   2004-12-15 11:11:11 AM  

#13  what the red thingy havent figgered out yet is that non-muslims who are not actively siding with the house of war (dat's us!) are Dhimmis! Either they genuinely don't undersand the implications of what they are doing, or haven't glommed on to the fact there is NO neutrality unless BOTH sides agree on it.

And guess who declared first that there is no neutrality (it wasn't the U.S.).
Posted by: N Guard   2004-12-15 11:05:02 AM  

#12  on one side by the sense that the white guys in the white Land Rover must be part of the coalition force because we seem to be doing the same kind of job as them; on the other by the sense that the non-state groups don't understand international humanitarian law, don't understand the role of NGOs in the region."

Ok Red Cross, the real problem is the latter, blame the insurgents instead, not the US military, dipsh*ts!
Posted by: GI JOE   2004-12-15 11:00:55 AM  

#11  complaining about the competition coming from U.S. cov humanitarian aid.

good point! That, combined, with their ties to terrorism and their propensity to focus on rough treatment (rather than torture) by the US, has had to put a massive dent in their fundraising efforts. I'm sure they were hoping for massive refugees and starvation in order to increase their coffers. It's just not happening. Looks like they are begininng to understand the consequences of their actions. Tough luck guys. I hear they are hiring in the jungles of Africa.
Posted by: 2b   2004-12-15 11:00:25 AM  

#10  Let's see. Representatives of the US Gov drive around in white SUVs, handing out food and aid. Representatives of the ICRC drive around in white SUVs, handing out food and aid. So, which is his beef?

1) The Iraqis can't tell the good food givers (the ICRC) from the evil food givers (US gov), and so attack the good food givers?

2) The Iraqis can't be allowed to think that the US government is not 100% evil?

3) The "Iraqi" "insurgents", who want Iraq to turn into a giant shithole, don't understand the role of humanitarian aid in furthering their goal, and so attack the ICRC?

4) The Thingy on the side of our trucks offends the local nutzis?
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2004-12-15 10:53:31 AM  

#9  neutrality is fast becoming a casualty of the global "war on terror".

Neutrality? What neutrality? There are no neutrals in this war.
Posted by: Steve from Relto   2004-12-15 9:16:00 AM  

#8  ...the US-led coalition's defiance of international law in Iraq

Yeah, that sounds like a "neutral" attitude to me.
Have they officially joined the other side or are they still just thinking about it?
Posted by: tu3031   2004-12-15 9:04:08 AM  

#7  "...Colin Powell, the former US secretary of state, called humanitarian aid "an important part of our combat force" in Iraq. "The humanitarian space that we operate in has been narrowed; on one side by the sense that the white guys in the white Land Rover must be part of the coalition force because we seem to be doing the same kind of job as them;..."
Sounds to me like he complaining about the competition coming from U.S. cov humanitarian aid.
Posted by: raptor   2004-12-15 6:33:57 AM  

#6  But it's probably just a version of the instinctual anti-Americanism one finds in most (not all) humanitarian NGOs and their personnel. All so fitting, since in so many cases they rely on US financial support and -- of course -- US military logistics support or security to perform their missions.

we need to seriously rethink how we do things.

Such a shame too. One of the biggest casualties in this war has been the loss of confidence over contributing to charities...all charities world wide. Too often they fund the creation of the victims they then support.
Posted by: 2b   2004-12-15 4:35:38 AM  

#5  SPo'D - Make sure the Red Thingy you whack is the International Red Thingy - The American Red Cross is totally independent and does not share funds nor do they coordinate. I have no direct experience with the Int'l version, but the American org does exactly what it's always done, just not as cost-effectively as we'd like, I'm sure - although you can specify what your donation is to be used for - and they apparently honor it.
Posted by: .com   2004-12-15 4:16:10 AM  

#4  In an interview in today's Society Guardian Sez it all. Forum for rich Lefties to whine.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-12-15 4:06:33 AM  

#3  First, I'm not sure there isn't a jurisdictional problem here. While all humanitarian organizations need to be regarded as neutral in combat zones, it's the ICRC, not a national federation like that in Iraq, that's specially connected to the Geneva Conventions. Local Red Thingy/Moon-shaped Thingy types probably don't even have training in the Conventions or laws of war.

How ironic, though, that this guy would lament the loss of neutrality, and how that will gut the Red Thingy's mission. Actually, the abandonment of key principles by the ICRC over the last several years has been one of the most shocking elements of A World Gone Stupid With Anti-Americanism (TM). The ICRC has conspicuously violated its own principle of discretion in several high-profile instances involving the US, both times leaking confidential reports or parts thereof (pertaining to Camp X-Ray and Iraqi detention centers) and then TALKING ABOUT IT on the record. Amazing. (same stuff you're talking about, Sock Puppet)

Having worked with the ICRC in some grim places and seen their professionalism, the spread of anti-US insanity to Geneva shocked me (not easy to do, especially since 9/11). But it's probably just a version of the instinctual anti-Americanism one finds in most (not all) humanitarian NGOs and their personnel. All so fitting, since in so many cases they rely on US financial support and -- of course -- US military logistics support or security to perform their missions.

The IFRC is of most interest for 'burgers because of their refusal to recognize the Israeli chapter's symbol (Red Star of David). Especially nice, that -- an organization snubbing an exemplary chapter at the behest of chapters often beset by corruption and gross violation of humanitarian and neutrality principles (others have referred to those above).
Posted by: Verlaine   2004-12-15 1:52:41 AM  

#2  (1)Start packing.
(2)Loading guns and rpgs into ambulances and leaving wounded and dieing. Facilitating the movement of terrorists they have "shattered the image of nutrality."
(3)When civilization and societies are the victims to terrorism the Red Cross Sides with the terrorists. How many hostages has the Red Cross visited and insured the saftey of? Have they once demanded it? They demand access to prisoners held by the US every day then violate the confidentality they are supposed to maintain after they do.

Yea Red Cross screw you.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2004-12-15 1:09:22 AM  

#1  ..."neutrality is fast becoming a casualty of the global "war on terror."

That assumes there was neutrality before -- I suggest there wasn't.
Posted by: Capt America   2004-12-15 12:52:50 AM  

00:00