NationStates Jolt Archive

Red Cross mulls 'neutral' emblem


In Geneva diplomats from the 192 countries which have signed the Geneva conventions are meeting to discuss a third emblem for the international Red Cross.

Red Cross officials hope approval of a third emblem will finally put an end to decades of controversy over the issue.

At the moment, the only two emblems recognised under the Geneva conventions are the red cross and the red crescent; relief workers and ambulances bearing these symbols are protected under international law.

In war zones or disaster regions, they must be granted free access to people in need of help.


Over the years, a number of countries have applied to have their own distinctive emblems recognised, but all have been refused. Francois Bugnion, director of international law with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), believes too many emblems could compromise protection. ...

Find the article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4497840.stm)

I'm not really quite sure what to think of this... on the one hand, I definitely agree with a symbol that is not directly associated with any religion, on the other hand I think a lot of time, effort and money is wasted on that matter, turning iit into a futile an unnecessary political debatte rather than promoting the intended neutrality....

They'll probably open up a competition on Blue Peter...

They'll probably open up a competition on Blue Peter...

What's Blue Peter?

An english kids tv show

You don't get it in Ireland?

I'd prefer it if it was a solid red diamond rather than a outlined red diamond - it's a simpler shape.

I'd prefer it if it was a solid red diamond rather than a outlined red diamond - it's a simpler shape.

I think it might then be mistaken for the Japanese flag from a distance... you never know.

Looks like a traffic sign...

Are medics going to wear that on their uniform as well now?

Aha! So now they're spreading propoganda for New-age crystal healers! The bastards! :D

Seriously though, I really don't care at all. The cross they use isn't the Christian version, anyway.

Looks like a traffic sign...

Are medics going to wear that on their uniform as well now?

According to the article, they will in Israel. Everywhere else, the cross or the crescent will remain

I think they should have the snake round the staff

What was wrong with the universal cross anyway? It was the inverted emblam of Switzerland, how much more neutral could you get?

What was wrong with the universal cross anyway? It was the inverted emblam of Switzerland, how much more neutral could you get?

Israel obviously won't allow members of the organisation to work under the cross, nor under the crescent.

What was wrong with the universal cross anyway? It was the inverted emblam of Switzerland, how much more neutral could you get?
Facts doesn't matter with things like this. It's all about perception. Incidentially, Switzerland's neutrality is in the eye of the beholder.

I think it's a good idea, and I hope the Red Cross/cresent organisations at large will adopt the symbol. Arguments about this have been going for a generation already, so arguing that it's a waste of money or energy is missing the point. The argument is already there, and trying to ignore it obviously doesn't work.

What was wrong with the universal cross anyway? It was the inverted emblam of Switzerland, how much more neutral could you get?
More people are familiar with the cross as a symbol of Christianity than as a symbol of Switzerland.

I think a medic also can use guns so why give them shelter by a red cross?

I'd prefer it if it was a solid red diamond rather than a outlined red diamond - it's a simpler shape.
I believe the point was eliminating the problem of recognition or non-recognition of national emblems as such. A country that wants to mark their ambulances with the national emblem can now put it inside of the "diamond".

The whole emblem thing was one big hypocricy on the part of the Red Cross.

Originally, since 1864, only the cross was recognized, but the Muslim countries (Ottoman Empire primarily) refused to use the cross, instead preferring the crescent. So in 1929, when the Muslim lobby in the Red Cross grew sufficiently, they pressured for recognition of the Muslim symbols- the crescent and the "lion and sun" emblem that was used by Iran. Israel's MDA was formed in 1930 and submitted the request to recognize the Red Star of David in 1931- a mere two years after the recognition of the crescent and the "lion and sun"- and was rejected by the Red Cross for 80 years.

The red dot on a white background is out.
That was the flag of Imperial Japanese during WW2.

well let me think, I couldn't care less if it was a Cross, A Cresent or a Rhombus (Crystal my arse! its a red Rhombus (I tink it as a better ring to anyway)

and to be honest I think that any person that is in need of assistance from the IRC is going to turn it down wen required (the poiticians and the people who are least going to need redcross assistace will of course bitch and moan). how can a country in need of assistance refuses the IRC due to the shape of the flag (how many countries was it again?)

why not go for the staff of Hermes (or rod of Aesculapius) it is used by most health services, and is te sybol for te hippocratic oath, or are those not allowed either because they relate to Polytheistic Gods (I Loathe Religion that gets in te way of common sense)

Israel behavior = :headbang:

I mean jeez they just want to help people what does it matter if they wear a cross shape or a red dildo shape.

I could understand if they would wear Nazi hakenkreuze but I mean jeez....

The red dot on a white background is out.
That was the flag of Imperial Japanese during WW2.
And is the flag of Japan now. Your point?

The whole emblem thing was one big hypocricy on the part of the Red Cross.


Hypocrisy? Not likely. According to your own words, the Crescent was only adopted once sufficient pressure was mounted on the Red Cross by Muslim groups. Additionally, you also admit by your own words that some 65 years passed before the Muslim lobby group managed to have theirs recognized.

The Israeli MDA is unlikely to have their symbol adopted unless they also produce sufficient pressure and/or support for it. And how can you say 80 years? It is not the year 2011 and the request was only submitted in 1931. Do not presume to pad your bill so that you may make your argument look better.

You call the acceptance of the Crescent by the Red Cross hypocrisy because it was accepted and not the Star of David. But you fail to link the fact that it was only sufficient lobbying by the Muslim groups that allowed such acceptance in the first place and instead, cry foul that the Star of David was not given a free ride.

The only hypocrite here sir, is you.

And is the flag of Japan now. Your point?

I think he may have been thinking of the one with 16 bars radiating from the circle in the middle.


As an aside you get some rather odd results from google image search for "flag of Japan"

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=%22flag+of+japan%22&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=100&sa=N

Think of it as a fund-raising method for the IRCC..."look, we have so much difficulities getting recognized, perhaps a little sum of money donated would help us in our eternal struggle against blabla"...I have been working for the red cross (Germany) some time ago and now refuse to talk to their cold-calling, doorstep-selling fund raising employees...no slight intended.