"With all who are suffering in war."
In the age of CNN and social media, is it necessary for the Red Cross to publicly denounce violations of International Humanitarian Law?
“In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Red Cross and Red Crescent may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.” - Principle of Neutrality
The image made waves: Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), shakes hands with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during his visit to Moscow in April 2022. Smiles on both sides, in the background a Russian flag and a Red Cross flag, each the same size. Only those involved know with which tone Maurer addressed Lavrov behind the scenes. The picture became a wordless statement that outraged not just Ukrainians. Many countries who are in solidarity with Ukraine also saw it as a provocation. German political scientist Carsten Wieland thinks Russia would “use a neutral organisation for its own purposes.” Rumours soon began: Ukrainian political analyst Roman Rukomeda spoke of the“strange behaviour of the ICRC”, saying that, “The organisation opened an office in the Russian city of Rostov to help Russian terrorists deport Ukrainian citizens.” Molotov cocktails flew through the windows of Ukrainian Red Cross offices.
Handshakes included
Swiss historian Irène Herrmann keeps a cool head: In the accusations, she sees a confirmation of the ICRC’s method of operation. Peter Maurer’s visits were part of the organisation’s neutral work, just like those to Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and Mayor Vitali Klitschko in Kyiv, a week before Mauer’s Moscow visit. Pictures can be found on the former ICRC president’s Twitter account, handshakes and smiles included. But they didn’t have the same resonance in the media. This is not a coincidence. It is “unclear who is behind the disinformation campaign, but the ICRC is convinced that it has been deliberately targeted," said the ICRC in a public statement. Clearly, the idea of neutral humanitarian aid has once again been called into question. But it’s not defeated.
"We must speak with all the people who influence the fate of victims in armed conflicts."
A limited mission
Neutrality is not an abstract concept, but rather a means to an end which allows war victims to be visited and assisted – regardless of which side of the frontline they may be on. In order for this to happen, the Red Cross must converse with all those in power. “Who needs help because of this war?” is the main question, not “Who is right in this war?” That is why, “we must speak with all the people who influence the fate of victims in armed conflicts,” says ICRC spokesman Christoph Hanger.
Faced with freezing and starving families crammed into the basements of Mariupol, dead civilians on the streets of Butcha and in mass graves of the Donbass, denied civilian evacuations and POW visits, and with images resembling those from the Flanders battles of World War I: Is the principle of neutrality still morally defensible? Shouldn’t the Red Cross also publicly denounce violations of International Humanitarian Law?
Well-intentioned fantasies of omnipotence
This question was already on the minds of the founding fathers of the ICRC 160 years ago. As citizens, they had much broader ideas about what needed to be done for peace and justice in the world. But they were also conscious to create an organisation with a very restricted mandate to do something very specific. “Neutrality requires real self-control,” wrote lawyer Jean Pictet, the spiritus rector of the Geneva Conventions. “If someone confronts the Red Cross with the dilemma: Whoever is not with me, is against me, it should answer: I am with all who suffer, and that is enough.” David Rieff, chronicler of modern wars, recommends dismissing well-intentioned fantasies of omnipotence and focusing on what is possible: “There is no reason to degrade the idea of humanitarian aid into a catch-all for all the longings of our time that are constantly thwarted by reality.”
"The cavalry is not coming."
Always stay local
When the Red Cross raises its voice in public, the response is usually as restrained as the reaction to Peter Maurer’s pictures from Kyiv. During the wars in the former Yugoslavia, the Red Cross publicly criticised the detention and inhumane treatment of civilians. Likewise, the “systematic slaughter” and “extermination of a significant portion of the civilian population” in Rwanda in 1994. ICRC Director General Robert Mardini called “the magnitude of death, destruction and suffering that continues to be inflicted on the civilian population in Ukraine” “abhorrent and unacceptable.”
The words have had no effect. If the opposite were true, the Red Cross would have long since found its way to a clear language of public protest. “But the cavalry is not coming,” an ICRC delegate succinctly summarises. What is left to do? At the least, to continue to assist civilians, to ensure better treatment of prisoners of war, and push for evacuation. But even these things are only possible if aid workers remain in the area.
The heart of our work
Staying close to the victims of war is the mantra of the Red Cross. Without proximity, it is impossible to have the entire picture of the actual needs. The trust of the parties in conflict can also only be gained on the ground. In addition, the ICRC maintains strong relations with national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, which in turn facilitate rapid contact with war victims. “Neutrality is at the heart of our work,” says ICRC Director General Mardini. “We try to maintain a dialogue with all parties of the conflict to try to persuade them to respect the rules of International Humanitarian Law.” In all places, aid workers are completely dependent on the arbitrariness of the respective de facto command.
The human rights organisation Amnesty International takes a different approach: It protests publicly and loudly against human rights violations. Heinz Patzelt, the Secretary General of Amnesty Austria, appreciates the “complementary work” of his organisation and the Red Cross, but says, “It is naive to believe that the Red Cross should find a language of public protest in these situations.”
Can both be done at the same time?
Publicly denounce human rights violations and stand in front of closed doors – or remain silent and gain access to war victims: Both can’t be done at the same time – or can they? The organisation “Doctors without Borders” (Médecins sans Frontières, MSF) tried yet a different way. In 1971, its strict neutrality led to a schism between the ICRC and a group of doctors who no longer wanted to accept the Red Cross’ silence. But the dual strategy did not work. MSF staff were kicked out of the country at best and, at worst, murdered. 50 years later, MSF Director General Joe Belliveau says, “The biggest challenge for MSF is deciding when and how to speak out publicly. We need faith and trust on the ground to help people in their greatest need.”
In 1942, just like the Vatican and the governments of the Allied forces, the ICRC had the information that, in addition to the prisoners of war, there were millions of civilian internees in the German Reich territories in Poland.
Ghosts of the past
There are also historical reasons why the idea of neutral Red Cross aid is controversial. Almost 80 years after the Holocaust, the ghosts of the past still haunt the organisation. In 1942, just like the Vatican and the governments of the Allied forces, the ICRC had the information that, in addition to the prisoners of war, there were millions of civilian internees in the German Reich territories in Poland. The Wannsee Conference, at which it was discussed how Jews, Roma, Sinti, and other population groups were to be systematically murdered using industrial methods, had taken place only a few months earlier. The reports now left no doubt that the Nazis had begun their “Final Solution”.
The ICRC nevertheless decided not to protest publicly but tried to gain access to the civilian internees in the German camps through diplomatic channels. With limited success, as is well-known. But would a few press releases have stopped the mass murder? During the years of the Third Reich, an entire civilisation failed – and the Red Cross along with it.
Prisoner and Minister
In contrast to the 1940s, the Red Cross no longer has information that is hidden from the general public. “The fact that the Red Cross doesn’t publicly highlight war crimes doesn’t mean the world doesn’t know about them,” says International Law scholar Miriam Bradley of the University of Barcelona. In an age of CNN, human rights groups and social media, “we don't need the Red Cross to point out war crimes,” says Bradley, taking a stand for neutrality. This is the best way to retain “the confidence of all,” as the principle of neutrality states.
Ursula Weger experienced what this means directly on the ground. As an ICRC delegate, she worked for months in a West African country to bring about improvements for the inmates of a prison. One prisoner in particular suffered from the hostility of the prison guards. Weger was able to secure his transfer, and the harassment stopped.
During her home leave, an upheaval took place in the country. After her return to Africa, she was required to apply again at the Ministry of the Interior for permission to visit prisoners. Ursula Weger was baffled when she entered the office: The new Minister of the Interior was the former prisoner for whom she had obtained the transfer. She received her permission.