Red Cross Neutrality jeopardized by US Action in Iraq, British Chief Says by Annie Kelly & Alison Benjamin The Guardian / UK 9:28pm 16th Dec, 2004   December 15, 2004    The chief executive of the British Red 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 Cross and Red Crescent movement to operate in areas of conflict.    In an interview in today's Society Guardian, he says: "The respect the Red 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."    Driving through the streets of Baghdad in a clearly marked Red Cross vehicle last year, Sir Nicholas says, he was acutely aware that local people did not recognize the agency's neutrality. "I had a very strong sense that we were regarded as the occupying powers," he says. "And this was something I hadn't felt before."    He adds that the Red Cross's mission was severely Jeopardized 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 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 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 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies incorporates national societies in more than 180 countries, with almost 300,000 staff. The worst prospect for the Red 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 civilized 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 Cross Red Crescent to be in."    ©Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item