Finally the Red Cross has spoken out about the "deliberate misuse" of its emblem by the Colombian soldiers who rescued Ingrid Betancourt. The long silence of the International Committee of the Red Cross since CNN reported on 16 July that one of the rescuers was wearing an ICRC bib must be an indication of how conflicted the ICRC is about upholding its own rules in this case. For using the neutral logo of the Red Cross is a violation of the Geneva conventions and could constitute a war crime.
Yet the end result in this case was the freeing of the Franco-Colombian hostage who had been held for six years in unspeakable conditions in the Colombian jungle. But there is a point here about the dangers of setting a precedent.
The UN has already been abused by governments - take the case of Iraq, for example, where intelligence agents were placed inside UN inspection teams. And for the same reason regimes such as North Korea and Burma object to humanitarian workers poking their noses into the far reaches of their secretive countries.
In the last few years, the UN, the ICRC and humanitarian workers have become targets in conflict, instead of a trusted neutral agent. The Colombian rebels trusted the soldiers wearing the Red Cross markings and handed over the prisoners into their care. But by acting with the best intentions, the Colombian army - which seemed more upset about the leaking of the army video than the actual misuse of the symbol - may have hammered the last nail into the coffin of neutrality.
The Red Cross and other simular organisations are totally dependent on the respect given to their emblems and identity to allow them to operate in high threat areas thoughout the world. Compromising this is too high a price to pay for the success of any operation, no matter how justified or successful it is.
Posted by: Andrew Wimble | Monday, 11 August 2008 at 09:19 AM