Comité International de la Croix Rouge - Comments

1) The mission

-The ICRC’s mission, initially limited to the wounded in armies in the field, was progressively extended to prisoners of war, political prisoners and, finally, to civilian victims of armed conflicts in general. The transition was not a smooth one. Concerned with its primary function, the Committee first wanted to focus solely on wounded soldiers. To avoid confusion during the 1870 Franco-Prussian war, for example, it chose to establish a separate office in Bale specifically to deal with captured soldiers, under an ephemeral green cross emblem . Because the case was outside of the scope of Geneva, the 1874 Brussels Declaration and the Hague Conference of 1899 also planned to create new national bodies to assist prisoners of war. It was the 1914-1918 conflict, however, that finally led the ICRC to fully assume the extent of its mandate de facto, well before these actions were legally endorsed by the Geneva Conventions adopted in 1949. The First World War and its repercussions also led to the Committee’s involvement in other humanitarian areas. In October 1914, the ICRC’s Central Agency for Prisoners of War set up a civilian department which had around 1,200 employees in November 1918, most of whom were volunteers (including the French writer Romain Rolland). This situation resulted from the fact that civilian and military prisoners were mixed in camps run by French and German forces. Consequently, argued the ICRC, all adult men should be treated as prisoners-of-war because civilians could have been drafted anyway. While the ICRC’s arguments were only partially successful, the organisation then took advantage of peace to extend its humanitarian activities. It began assisting political prisoners in Russia from 1918 onwards. The following year, it also agreed to take care of children by repatriating Russian orphans to Stanislav. But these advances were not formalised until a later date. While the Bale experiment did not last after 1871, for instance, the CTA (Central Tracing Agency) of 1914 remained an autonomous enterprise until its absorption by the ICRC in 1982.

-Extremely cautious and legalistic by nature, the Geneva Committee encountered many difficulties extracting itself from the very narrow framework imposed by its mandate. Unlike other aid organisations, it actually played a legal role, and risked jeopardizing its humanitarian status if it bypassed national sovereignties and acted without governmental authorisation . Crossing borders illegally, for example, would amount to flouting the rules of the Geneva Conventions that the Committee itself had helped establish and which the states were required to follow. To be allowed to intervene without formal approval, the ICRC therefore had to claim a “right of humanitarian initiative” that, on 28 August 1930, was included in its statutes of 10 March 1921 as modified on 12 October 1928, 21 June 1973, 1 May 1974, 14 September 1977, 29 April 1982 and 20 January 1988. Theoretically, this enabled the Committee to act independently of biased Red Cross societies that refused to seek its assistance during conflicts in their country. It also allowed the ICRC to intervene in rebel areas with political entities that were not recognised by the international community or that had not signed the Geneva Conventions. This was very useful during civil wars or independence struggles. Considering that the ratification of the Geneva Conventions bound whole states, including rebel zones, the ICRC could thus circumvent governments’ opposition to its relief operations in Iraqi Kurdistan , Eritrea or Southern Angola during the 1970s for example. Occasionally, the Committee had insufficient time to get operations off the ground and its humanitarian initiatives were forgotten in history. In April 1950, during the independence war of the ephemeral Moluccas Republic on Ambon Island, for instance, the ICRC tried in vain to deliver food supplies to the rebel zone and was ready to violate the Indonesian blockade to do so . After seeking from Jakarta a guarantee that its plane would not be attacked by the army, the crew was diverted at Koepang, in the Indonesian part of Timor. The ICRC finally gave up on this project as its team arrived too late, the insurgents having already been defeated.

-Beyond the more stringent aspects of the Geneva doctrine, the humanitarian “initiatives” of the ICRC relied heavily on the personal qualities of its delegates in the field. In Hungary during the Second World War, Jean de Bavier and Friedrich Born saved the honour of the institution by trying to protect Jews despite the restrictions in the organisation’ s mandate. On the other hand, in his autobiography, Nelson Mandela tells of how unimpressed he was by the Geneva envoy to his prison at Robben Island, a white conservative Rhodesian. Similarly, explains David Forsythe, an ICRC delegate in Sudan refused to allow a little girl who needed urgent medical attention to board his plane, under the pretext that she was not war wounded and did not come within the framework of the organisation’s mission.

-Understanding the Committee’s mandate in all its complexity requires a detailed look at the different components of the Geneva Conventions. The ICRC, a specialist in emergencies and wars , is mainly concerned with developing international humanitarian law. Its aim is to protect the emblems of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, to promote training in health and safety, to assist civilian and military prisoners, to coordinate exchanges of captives, to transmit messages to and reunite family members separated by armed conflicts , to distribute aid packages and, more unusually, to mediate, for example to facilitate a truce or the release of hostages. Each of these activities deserves an explanation.

-Historically, the ICRC’s first objective is not to send relief, as shown in the media, but to ensure legal protection for conflict victims thanks to the Geneva Conventions, which are supposedly universal. In Europe, notes Martha Finnemore, it has dramatically contributed to changing and improving the laws governing interstate wars and protecting civilian populations. Hence James Pattison now suggests that the ICRC should initiate a new international convention to regulate peace operations and military interventions conducted as per the United Nations’ resolution on the “responsibility to protect” victims. According to him, this framework would help to define “just wars” and, for instance, compel blue helmets to target voluntary militias and genocidal groups instead of child soldiers or conscripts who are recruited by force. Meanwhile, the role of the ICRC is still to disseminate the Geneva Conventions, and guarantee their application where possible. Practically speaking, this is no easy task. The articles of the Conventions are very general and their interpretation is made even more difficult by the lack of international standards in this domain. In his study of some 100 reports written by ICRC delegates about prisoner-of-war camps in Germany between 1940 and 1945, Vasilis Vourkoutiotis shows that their requirements change over time and became less and less stringent as food shortages began to have their effect on the country. Today, prisoners are still subject to different conditions of detention according to the local living standards.

-Equally obscure in the media is the second major thrust of the Committee’s actions: visits to civilian or military prisoners. There have been some particularly impressive developments in this area. The ICRC has not always been able to carry out this part of its mandate. This was particularly true during the Second World War. In the first place, the Committee was restricted to assisting military prisoners and not civilians. Also, it only had access to camps on solid ground. Not until the Falklands War in May-July 1982 was it authorised to visit prisoners of war held at sea. Following this conflict, Argentinean forces captured by the British were repatriated by the ICRC during an operation involving some 11,000 soldiers and marines. The extension of the Committee’s mandate to civilian prisoners is fairly recent, and dates back to the early 1970s. Since then, the ICRC has had access to many military and political prisoners: 70,000 in 1975, 18,000 in 1976, 17,800 in 1977, 41,000 in 1978, 7,100 in 1979, 42,800 in 1980, 44,000 in 1981, 86,400 in 1982, 35,500 in 1983, 58,000 in 1984, 30,000 in 1985, 84,800 in 1990, 154,000 in 1991, 95,000 in 1992, 143,600 in 1993, 99,000 in 1994, 146,600 in 1995, 172,500 in 1996, 200,000 in 1997, 212,100 in 1998, 225,300 in 1999, 216,600 in 2000, 346,800 in 2001, 448,100 in 2002, 469,600 in 2003, 571,500 in 2004, 528,600 in 2005 and 478,300 in 2006. As these numbers increased, the Committee extended the geographic coverage of its interventions by carrying out inspections in 250 detention locations in 60 countries in 1970, 154 in 28 in 1975, 244 in 22 in 1976 and 1977, 400 in 80 in 1980, 523 in 30 in 1982, 614 in 31 in 1983, 700 in 34 in 1984, 719 in 37 in 1986, 522 in 27 in 1987, 830 in 36 in 1988, 839 in 45 in 1989, 1, 327 in 42 in 1990, 2,000 in 49 in 1991, 2,355 in 54 in 1992, 2,367 in 55 in 1993 and in 1994, 2,282 in 58 in 1995, 2,100 in 52 in 1996, 1,680 in 56 in 1997, 1,546 in 59 in 1998, 1,726 in 60 in 1999, 1,651 in 65 in 2000, 1,988 in 72 in 2001, 2,007 in 75 in 2002, 1,923 in 80 in 2003, 2,435 in 80 in 2004, 2,594 in 76 in 2005 and 2,577 in 71 in 2006.

-Regarding prisoners of conscience, the activities of Amnesty International and the ICRC are to a certain extent complementary. The former denounces the causes of suffering; the latter works on alleviating the symptoms. One follows the trials, questions the motives behind the incarceration and sometimes demands the release of suspects; the other works in prisons and only deals with detention conditions. With several rare exceptions, ICRC interviews generally occur without witnesses so that the prisoners are protected from possible retaliation by their jailers. According to a study by Jacques Moreillon dealing with the period 1958-1970, these visits result from the Committee’s initiatives as well as requests by governments , international organisations or, in 40% of cases, opposition parties. Unlike Amnesty International, which used to limit its mission in this regard, the ICRC even provides assistance to prisoners of conscience who have resorted to violence: the Irish and the Basque terrorists of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) and the ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) in the past; the Islamic fundamentalists of al-Qaida today.

-The ICRC’s role in providing supplies and medical aid to war victims is more widely heard of, but is only one of its many activities. Moreover, the ICRC claims no monopoly in this area, unlike in the domain of legal protection. Historically speaking, Geneva’s direct implication in aid programmes is quite recent. The Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970) was the turning point that incited the Committee to equip itself with a real medical division. This happened as the organisation's shortfalls were brought to light after having to seek help from external volunteers like Bernard Kouchner. Subsequently, in 1975, the institution recruited a surgeon general, Doctor Rémi Russbach, who set up a powerful medical division that was relatively independent of the Director of Operations. At the time of the Cambodia crisis in 1980, the medical division had 1,112 professionals in the field compared with 511 in 1979 and 338 in 1981. As for the Operations Department, it was run from 1973 by a former car salesman from Nigeria, Jean-Pierre Hocke. He joined the ICRC at the start of the Biafran War and was personally responsible for modernising the logistics of the organisation. Ever since, the technicians sent abroad have become major players in the institution, like the delegates, doctors and jurists before them. The number of logisticians no less than tripled in 1999. As a result, the Committee greatly improved its reactivity by preparing ready-to-use aid kits and pre-packing medicine in warehouses near Geneva and Nairobi. Created in 1998, the logistics division was, for example, charged with the task of spearheading all supply activities: purchasing, storage and transport.

-While food aid or medical assistance operations are often spectacular, they must not overshadow less publicised missions that are just as important. First and foremost is the CTA (Central Tracing Agency). Its laborious task is to manage records of around 70 million names for the purpose of reuniting families scattered by hostilities, locating missing persons during conflicts and identifying civilian or military prisoners. The importance of these programmes was asserted during the thirtieth international conference of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies that took place in Geneva from 26 to 30 November 2007.

-Among the “forgotten” functions of the ICRC, we should also mention the activities that touch on diplomatic mediation, be it negotiating truces or freeing hostages. The Committee started to act as a go-between during World War One and after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In January and July 1921, for example, Raymond Schlemmer, an ICRC delegate, was charged with negotiating the release of Bulgarian and Turkish hostages held by Greece. Later on, t he increase in hijackings in the early 1970s also led the Committee to get involved in matters that were not traditionally within its domain. On 26 October 1971, for example, the ICRC supervised an exchange of prisoners on the border between the People’s Republic of Congo and the Angolan enclave of Cabinda: Portuguese military and civilians were released after being taken captive when their planes were diverted at Brazzaville in June 1969 and at Pointe Noire in June 1971. From Geneva's perspective, such an intervention was not strictly within its mandate. The ICRC’s executive criticised its Regional Representative in the Middle East, André Rochat, for acting as intermediary for hijackers who had stormed an Olympic Airways flight at Athens airport on 22 July 1970. André Rochat, unwittingly caught up in events, negotiated the release of all passengers in exchange for the freedom of seven Palestinian militants held in Greek jails. On his return to Geneva, however, he was forced to resign for going beyond his mandate, giving in to terrorist blackmail and overriding the local justice system.

-From Columbia to Jordan or Peru, the ICRC’s involvement in hostage-taking situations now seems to be established. Concerned with preserving its neutrality, the Geneva Committee is careful not to get involved in political negotiations. If it was able to offer its services to allow the warring parties of Chiapas to meet in 1994, it nevertheless avoids playing the role of intermediary and proposing solutions to resolve a conflict. For this reason, it preferred to officially cut ties with the Henry-Dunant Institute. Initially a training centre created in 1965 by the Federation (IFRC) and the Swiss Red Cross, the Institute was rebuilt as a Foundation in 1998. Subsequently placed under the leadership of the Swiss government and renamed the “Henry-Dunant Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue”, this organisation aims to prevent conflicts and has offered to act as an intermediary in East Timor, the Philippines and the Central African Republic. From January to May 2003 in Indonesia, it monitored a ceasefire that was brutally broken off by the declaration of martial law in Aceh, the northern province of Sumatra where separatist groups were fighting. From January 2004, the Henry Dunant Foundation also tried to mediate in Darfur through a former governor of the region, Ahmed Diraige, who was unsuccessful in convincing the government in Khartoum to go to Geneva to negotiate with rebels.

-During the last decade, the ICRC has de facto enlarged its mandate. Ten years after the Chiapas uprising in 1994, for instance, it was supporting agriculture and cattle breeding to rehabilitate Indian families in Mexico. Moreover, protracted crisis led the Committee to take care of indigenous populations, and not only refugees. In Kenya in 2006, the ICRC thus funded water programmes in Lamu, a coastal town, not so far from war-torn Somalia. In the beginning of the 2000s, it also helped people who were expelled from slums in Zimbabwe. To prevent conflicts, eventually, it got involved with gangs in Haiti or pastoral groups in Kenya since 2004. Nowadays, the ICRC is used to deal with criminal organisations and drug traffickers, as in Afghanistan or Columbia. It is not anymore concerned by wars and emergencies only. Today, it claims to have a role to play in sustainable development, as advocated by Jean-François Mattei, chairman of the French Red Crosss, and Ian McAllister, an adviser to the IFRC. Hence the Committee took the risk to revive old conflicts with the Federation despite the famous report of Donald Tansley, who recommended that the organisation focuses on emergencies only.

-Ecology and environmental protection is another surprising activity the ICRC is involved in. Given the movement’s public health objectives , it is not particularly strange to see the local Red Cross or Red Crescent organisations supervising waste management programmes, cleaning up slums, fighting pollution or managing reforestation and natural resources. However, it is much more surprising to see the ICRC dealing with waste collection or the installation of latrines, even though this helps prevent epidemics and provides drinking water to urban populations at war, as was the case in Monrovia in 1991, Mogadishu in 1992, Kabul in 1994 and Jaffna in 1996. Likewise, the Committee undertook drainage maintenance operations in Sarajevo in 1994, Baghdad in 1995 and Grozny in 1996. But these kinds of activities were not limited to war-torn cities. ICRC-led programmes also started clearing waste in Cité Soleil, a Haitian slum in Port au Prince in January 2005, and in Lhokseumawe and Banda Aceh following floods in Indonesia in November 2000.

-Legally speaking, the Geneva Committee is particularly involved in ecological issues when there is a possibility that the environment may be used by warring parties. An observer at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, it criticised the pollution caused by Saddam Hussein's troops when they fired oil wells during the first Gulf Crisis in 1991. This was not the first time the Committee made its position on the environment known. In 1925, it drafted an agreement on chemical weapons. In 1976, it took part in the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. In the late 1960s, it was particularly alarmed by the use of defoliants by the American army during the Vietnam War. These herbicides, more commonly recognised by the colours of their agents (orange, violet or pink), destroyed the natural vegetation that was used as camouflage and cover by the communists . Nearly a million people were affected according to the reunited Vietnamese Red Cross, which did not drop demands for compensation until 1995, when diplomatic relations were restored between Hanoi and Washington. In 1977, the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions also paved the way for further environmental protection clauses that did not exist previously . Admittedly, the ICRC was not behind such a move and its first draft failed to mention them. As Alexandre Kiss recalls, the initiative actually came from countries sensitive to environmental issues (Australia, Finland and the Democratic Republic of Germany, amongst others) and was strongly opposed by Great Britain, who stressed the importance of human rights above all. As a result, only the first Additional Protocol of 1977 prohibited the use of arms and any methods that would cause “prolonged, widespread or critical damage to the natural environment.” Legal developments in this matter were so limited that even damage “deliberately” inflicted on the environment during war times was recognised as simply “flouting the rules” rather than a “serious” breach of the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, articles 35 and 55 of the first Additional Protocol of 1977 only applied to periods of armed conflict and enemy territories. No provisions were made for environmental damage perpetrated by domestic forces (like burning forests or flooding regions) to delay the advance of enemy troops. Nor did provisions sanction using the environment to put pressure on or harm a neighbouring state during peacetime (by diverting water supplies, for example). Finally, provisions set no standards as to what constituted “serious” damage in time or space, despite the fact that damage to the environment can last for several generations.

-Despite these limits, one has to acknowledge the overall extension of the ICRC’s mandate to a wider and wider range of activities, including visits to political prisoners, medical assistance to all kinds of war victims, relief supplies to civilians, the reconstruction of rural economies and the protection of the environment. As the Red Cross increased its scope, so have its claims for universality, on both the legal and geographical levels.

-Geographically speaking, the expansion of the movement has been impressive. Initially focused on Europe and the United States until World War Two, it moved into former colonies as they gained independence and set up their own national Red Cross or Red Crescent societies. Reflecting this trend, the movement began to shift away from emergency relief towards development in order to provide basic health facilities, education and access to drinking water. The number of national Red Cross or Red Crescent societies recognised by the ICRC grew from 16 in 1867 to 38 in 1918, 64 in 1945, 66 in 1946, 74 in 1955, 80 in 1957, 84 in 1959, 85 in 1960, 87 in 1961, 90 in 1962, 102 in 1963, 104 in 1964, 106 in 1965, 108 in 1966, 109 in 1967, 111 in 1968, 112 in 1969, 114 in 1970, 115 in 1971, 116 in 1972, 121 in 1973, 122 in 1974, 125 in 1977, 126 in 1979, 128 in 1981, 131 in 1983, 135 in 1984, 137 in 1985, 144 in 1986, 145 in 1987, 147 in 1988, 149 in 1989, 153 in 1992, 161 in 1993, 163 in 1994, 169 in 1995, 170 in 1996, 171 in 1999, 177 in 2000, 178 in 2001, 182 in 2004, 183 in 2005 and 186 in 2006. Today, the Sultanate of Oman is one of the last countries in the world where neither the Red Cross nor the Red Crescent exists, and this is due to legal restrictions regarding private charitable activities.

-Since the end of the Second World War, the ICRC’s interventions have taken place in an increasing number of countries, mirrored by growth in the organisation's workforce abroad. The proportion of expatriate staff increased from 7% in 1945 to 26% in 1975, 50% in 1985 and 61% in 1995 and 2005. While activities were geographically limited during the 1960s, they later extended to developing countries, as they began to gain independence, and to the Soviet block, when it opened up to Westerners after 1989 . Between 1950 and 1980, the percentage of total aid devoted to Europe decreased from 88% to 0%. Meanwhile, total aid to Africa and Latin America increased from 0% to 33% and 15% respectively. The Nigerian Civil War in 1968 was a turning point for the ICRC. After this date, the institution began launching material aid programmes and no longer provided mere legal assistance. As a result, its organisational capacities became considerable. Today, it is common for the ICRC to be active in several countries at once. Theoretically, the ICRC can now operate across the entire planet, even in the most isolated regions. Africa still receives most aid, up to 30% in 1983, 50% in 1984, 78% in 1985, 75% in 1986, 62% in 1987, 55% in 1988, 35% in 1989, 34% in 1990, 43% in 1991, 67% in 1992, 57% in 1993, 58% in 1994, 35% in 1995, 39% in 1996, 22% in 1997, 43% in 1998, 29% in 1999, 42% in 2000, 40% in 2001, 38% in 2002, 37% in 2003, 43% in 2004, 42% in 2005 and 39% in 2006. Depending on the year, it is followed by the Middle East (21% in 1983, 13% in 1984, 7% from 1985 to 1987, 20% in 1988, 16% in 1989, 14% in 1990, 46% in 1991, 7% in 1992, 1% in 1993, 6% in 1994, 4% in 1995, 6% in 1996, 7% in 1997, 5% in 1998, 2% in 1999, 2% in 2000, 7% in 2001, 13% in 2002, 24% in 2003, 16% in 2004, 12% in 2005 and 20% in 2006), Latin America and the Caribbean (14% in 1983, 16% in 1984, 9% in 1985, 13% in 1986, 21% in 1987, 12% in 1988, 7% in 1989, 5% in 1990, 1% from 1991 to 1997, 15% in 1998, 4% in 1999 and 2000, 6% in 2001, 7% in 2002 and 6% in 2003), Asia and Pacific (13% in 1983, 11% in 1984, 6% in 1985, 5% in 1986, 10% in 1987, 13% in 1988, 11% in 1989, 18% in 1990, 4% in 1991, 3% in 1992, 2% in 1993, 6% in 1994, 7% in 1995, 14% in 1996, 22% in 1997, 3% in 1998, 11% in 1999, 12% in 2000, 17% in 2001, 26% in 2002, 17% in 2003, 16% in 2004, 26% in 2005 and 24% in 2006), Europe and Central Asia from 1992 to 1998, North America from 1999 and Latin America from 2004 (22% in 1983, 11% in 1984, 0% from 1985 to 1988, 31% in 1989, 9% in 1990, 6% in 1991, 22% in 1992, 39% in 1993, 30% in 1994, 54% in 1995, 40% in 1996, 28% in 1997, 34% in 1998, 53% in 1999, 40% in 2000, 17% in 2001, 16% in 2002, 13% in 2003, 20% in 2004, 15% in 2005, 13% in 2006).

-In addition to its operational capabilities, the ICRC has another role: promoting the Geneva Conventions. Its aim is to uphold a universally accepted set of humanitarian standards, even if it has not been able to establish a common understanding on how to apply them . The Committee has not limited its advocacy to states and governmental armies. It also attempted to make these standards known to rebel groups after the Nigerian Civil War in 1969, the assassination of two delegates in Rhodesia in 1978 and the negotiations for the ratification of the Additional Protocols of 1977. In this regard, t he ICRC’s first advocacy activities were in El Salvador from 1980, via radio and pamphlets . According to Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, two ICRC jurists, many of the Geneva Conventions have found their way into states’ common law and are even used by rebel movements. It is their opinion that basic humanitarian rules now apply to both civil and international wars. Some of these principles include distinguishing between civilians and combatants, prohibiting actions aimed at retaliation, protecting defenceless people or those who cannot fight, forbidding crimes of murder or rape, respecting the family, and recognising the specific needs of women, children, the elderly, the sick and invalid.

-However, the study of Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck is limited to states’ official positions and does not necessarily examine rebel movements. Moreover, their investigations are not concerned with finding out whether governments’ actions are mere declarations, or whether the Conventions have a chance of being really implemented through jurisprudence. They have not examined countries where serious and massive violations of the Geneva Conventions have been committed, for instance, Cambodia, Somalia, Congo-Kinshasa , Sudan, North Korea, Vietnam and Burundi. Finally, their conclusions do not reflect practices observed in the field and even contradict the ICRC's own findings. In the late 1990s, for example, the Greenberg Research Agency and the Geneva Committee carried out a survey of 1,005 people in Somalia. Barely 20% thought it was necessary to spare civilian lives, and only 8% were opposed to soldiers killing the elderly and children. To insist on the customary aspects of international humanitarian law proved dangerous in this regard. It aimed to encourage states and rebel groups to adopt the Geneva Conventions. But in Africa, for example, it compelled the ICRC to modify, adapt and translate its message to ensure its longevity in the form of proverbs or references to tradition. According to Simone Delorenzi, this experiment had limited success and simply highlighted the limits of international conventions that often lacked local cultural equivalents. In developed countries, it is also questionable whether the Geneva Conventions are universally recognised, not to mention applied. Kimberley Johnson and Kelly Kennedy mention one survey carried out on behalf of the American Defence Ministry. According to the results of this study, only 47% of soldiers and 38% of marines in Iraq in 2006 considered that non-combatants deserved dignity and respect.

-In fact, the ICRC's plans to operate on a universal level have always run up against opposition – whether because of the circumstances or because of nationalist interferences . Early examples of this are the pressures from France in 1867, Tsarist Russia in 1887, the United States in 1919 and Sweden and the Soviet Union in 1945 to introduce representatives of their Red Cross societies to t he Geneva Committee. The competition first came from Paris . When the World Fair was held in 1867, the French government claimed it was setting up a Red Cross museum in order to promote information on the movement’s activities. It then attempted to take over the Committee’s newsletter, the Bulletin international des sociétés de secours pour les militaires blessés , launched in 1869. After paying scant regard to the Geneva Conventions during the Franco-Prussian war in 1870, France disparaged the authority of the ICRC and was a driving force behind the creation of the Red Cross League in Paris in 1919. Subsequently, the Committee was forced to justify its independence, pointing out that Switzerland’s neutral stance was a better guarantee of impartiality. To thwart French ambitions, it emphasized Geneva's advantages. Thanks to its position as a commercial crossroads and a haven for Protestants fleeing persecution in Catholic Europe, the city had developed an international character after forming distant alliances to avoid being taken over by the House of Savoy. Actually , explains François Bugnion, the relationship between Geneva and the Red Cross was beneficial for both parties: the ICRC’s presence contributed to the city's influence and dynamism. It was an important incentive for other organisations that later chose to set up their headquarters in Geneva, especially the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in 1951, the World Health Organisation in 1948 and, with British backing, the League of Nations in 1919, which incidentally the French opposed, preferring a Brussels base.

-Other flaws in the ICRC’s universal aspirations were soon visible. One notable example was the use of the Red Cross symbol itself. The Committee was based in a protestant stronghold, regarded as an important hub for preaching and spreading the evangelical faith. It was therefore difficult for it to break free of its religious background. While the ICRC’s president, Gustave Moynier, was a key member of Geneva’s p rotestant bourgeoisie, he took every care to portray a secular image. For example, he declined an invitation to attend a conference for religious charities in Austria in 1898. In 1877, the ICRC formally banned the use of the movement's emblem by the Rome-based Order of St. John. However, national societies at the time did not follow these restrictions. The Knights of Malta were an integral part of the Italian, Dutch and British Red Crosses, with representatives at an administrative level. In France, the Société de secours aux blessés militaires was led by papist aristocrats who were opposed to Republicans and Protestants. Catholic Bavaria and Austria had also hesitated to subscribe to a humanitarian project which was backed by Protestant Prussia. As for the Vatican state, it joined the Geneva Convention in 1868 hoping that Henry Dunant’s ideals would “further religion in the armed forces”. The Catholic clergy also assisted the first Latin American Red Cross societies. In Colombia, for example, the archbishop of Bogota helped set up and presided theCruz Roja Colombiana. He carried on the work of Santiago Samper, a businessman, who had attempted to launch a relief organisation during a civil war in 1899 and who had only been able to work with rebels (t he Society was reconstituted in July 1915 by one of his associates, Joaquín Samper, with a Lieutenant Colonel, Luis Acevedo, and a D octor, Hipólito Machado ; it was recognised by the government in February 1916, then the army and the ICRC in March 1922, before working alongside the Colombian military when war broke out against Peru in September 1932). The protestants too were not inactive. According to Rainer Baudendistel, many of them worked for the Red Cross during the Italo-Ethiopian War of 1936, because missionaries were often the only ones to accept to live in the bush. The Swedish “ambulance”, in particular, tried to convert the population instead of treating the wounded.

-The founders and presidents of the ICRC were all practising Christians. Even if Henry Dunant's evangelism was not exactly compatible with the Calvinist prudence of Geneva's high society, he adopted an almost messianic attitude to spread his humanitarian vision of the world. In this, he was inspired by Book of Daniel, and he went on to write an essay entitled “Charlemagne's Empire Rebuilt”. Gustave Moynier was more of a realist, but still published a “Biblical Biography of St. Paul” in Lausanne in 1859. His successor, Max Huber, continued the organisation’s moralising trend. In his essay on the Good Samaritan and the Gospel published in 1943, he showed that a Christian could practice his faith and give meaning to it by helping the Red Cross. As for Cornelio Sommaruga, who headed the ICRC from 1987 to 1999, he was an Italian-speaking, practising Catholic, born in Rome. After his membership at the Committee ended in 2002, he became the president of a very conservative foundation called Moral Rearmament, known today as Initiatives of Change. Paul Grossrieder, who came to the ICRC in 1984 and managed the institution from 1998 to 2002, had also worked from 1975 to 1983 as an editor for the Vatican’s official journal, l’Osservatore Romano.

-The question of the Red Cross emblem is a good indicator of the limitations of the ICRC's universal aspirations. Anchored in the Christian tradition, t he symbol was problematic because of its obvious religious connotations . In addition , Geneva was never able to impose a single emblem on the national societies of the movement and it was repeatedly required to prevent its abuse by other religious or political movements. Historically, the “competition” came from the working class and Muslim groups, where generally there was no concern for neutrality. An “anarchist Red Cross” was set up in Great Britain and the United States between 1907 and 1918 to help political prisoners in Russia who were members of libertarian movements. Meanwhile, communists attempted to set up a “People's Red Cross” to help left-wing victims exclusively. In France, the Red Aid (Secours Rouge), subsequently named “ People’s Aid” (Secours populaire), had similar ambitions. Muslims were also quick to voice their opposition to the Red Cross emblem and create their own C rescent symbol. Various disparate initiatives appeared that had little to do with the national societies connected to the states. After a fleeting Green Cross appeared in Tunisia in the 1890s, the Ismailis in London created a “British Red Crescent” that operated between 1911 and 1948. Initially set up to provide assistance to Libyans being invaded by Italy, it was supported by the Aga Khan. It had no links to the ICRC and provided aid that was both material and spiritual in nature. Supplies and warm clothing were sent to Muslims only: Indian soldiers fighting on the European front in 1914, victims of the Greco-Turkish war in 1921 and Turkish populations in 1940. Ever since, other Red Crescent organisations have tried to outdo the ICRC. From 1977 onwards, Arab groups began to set up a rival institution called the ICIC ( Islamic Committee of the International Crescent) under the auspices of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Finally created in 1982, its goal was to promote “justice”. Its headquarters were in Benghazi, Libya, but it never actually became operational. In political terms, the organisation was resolutely on the side of Muslims combating Christians or Jews. Consequently, the ICIC is a good example of an organisation that distanced itself from the Red Cross principles of neutrality, impartiality and universality. While working class and trade union movements gradually lost their strength, Islamic fundamentalism remained the biggest challenge to Western-inspired humanitarian ideals. In Arab countries, essentially, activists continued to set up their own organisations. For instance, two Muslim Brothers, Ahmed Qutaish al-Azaideh and Hamzah Mansour (a M ember of Parliament), led a Green Crescent specifically set up in Jordan in 1990 to help victims of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. As for Islamic theocracies like Saudi Arabia , they also jeopardized the Committee’s universal aspirations . Thus during the first Gulf Crisis in 1991, the ICRC’s representative in Riyadh had to take down signs bearing the Red Cross emblem because it was seen as a Christian symbol. According to Andreas Wigger, this is no small issue, given that half of all ICRC operations in the world addressed the needs of Muslim victims in the 2000s.