The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross: Commentary

Principle of Humanity 

The Red Cross, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavours – in its international and national capacity – to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, co-operation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.

Preamble 

The Proclamation begins with a brief reference which obviously does not constitute part of the principle of humanity itself. It is a kind of historic preamble, recalling that the Red Cross was born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield .

Doubtless, this phrase has no logical place in a declaration which should be devoted only to fundamental principles. It has the merit of serving as a reminder however to those – and they are numerous – who have a tendency nowadays to forget that the Red Cross was born of the sufferings of war. At the time of its creation and for the first years of its existence, the Red Cross had as its only mission the assisting of wounded soldiers and preparing itself to do so.

However, in order to measure up to their task in th e event of conflict, the National Societies very soon realized the need to work in peacetime. First of all, they had to train personnel and prepare necessary material, in other words be ready for instantaneous mobilization. This personnel, on the other hand, could not be allowed to remain idle between conflicts and become demoralized by uselessly awaiting action. One could not train a huge phalanx and hold it in readiness for a very uncertain eventuality, especially when there were so many wounds to heal throughout the world.

The Societies therefore began to care for sick civilians, to run hospitals and nurseries, set up schools for nurses, to work for improved hygiene and to intervene in the event of natural disasters. Finally, they included the entire population in their sphere of activity, and this peacetime work became an end in itself. This tendency was accelerated after the First World War, at a time when it was felt that the spectre of war had been banished forever, and gave rise to the League of Red Cross Societies. The Red Cross movement would certainly never have achieved its universal extension and worldwide popularity if it had remained within its original bounds.

In the early days of the Red Cross, assistance to the war wounded mainly took the form of close co-operation with the military medical services, of which the National Societies were the natural auxiliaries. In a number of countries however it worked the other way and the foundation of the National Society stimulated major reforms in the military medical services. Today, in the most prosperous countries, the military services have assumed such proportions and attained such a high level of efficiency that they hardly have any more need for assistance from National Societies. We should not draw hasty conclusions from this, however, for this is not at all the case in a majority of countries and if, unhappily, a great battle should take place in a developing continent, there is every reason to believe that it would be a new Solferino.

Nowadays, in terms of volume, peacetime work constitutes the greater part of the day to day tasks of the National Societies. The historic reference which stands first in the Proclamation is a very opportune reminder however that the war activities for which the Red Cross was created conserves its precedence in the scale of values. This is not only true for the ICRC, which is the preeminent neutral agent in wartime. It is equally true for the whole movement. Other benevolent institutions may care for sick civilians, cripples and orphans, whereas for the Red Cross, war is the decisive test. It is in wartime, when everything seems lost, when man has chosen the path of suffering and annihilation, that the Red Cross stands as the defender of the supreme interests of humanity.

The preamble also provides a reminder of the necessity, recognized from the very beginning, of providing assistance “without discrimination”. This concept, which we shall discuss in greater detail in the next chapter, deserves to have a prominent place, for it is inseparable from the Red Cross and from the very principle of humanity itself. If, in a spirit of equity, the Red Cross extends its action to everyone, it will, in a spirit of humanity, exclude no one, even those one might be tempted to hate. Thus, as was written long ago by the Chinese philosopher Meh-ti, Only a love which makes no distinction will save the world. Any philanthropy which based its action upon the merits of the people it helped would be doomed in advance, starting from a false premise and ending in failure.

 Terminology 

Confusion sometimes arises between the words hum an and humanitarian, humanism and humanitarianism, abstract expressions which all derive from the same origin – the word man.

 Human , in its original sense, refers to all that concerns man. However, in the sense which is now of interest to us, the word human is used to describe a man who is good to his fellow beings. We shall come back to this point.

 Humanity is therefore the sentiment or attitude of someone who shows himself to be human. Following Littre’s dictionary, we would define humanity as a sentiment of active goodwill towards mankind. The word humanity in this sense is so perfectly suited to the Red Cross that it was chosen to designate its essential principle. At the same time, the word also serves to specify human nature and even the human species as a whole. In addition, it is rather more a feeling than a principle, so that perfect logic would suggest a preference for the word humanitarianism. These are minor drawbacks however and we should maintain the word humanity, for it is simple, direct and closer to man.

 Humanitarian characterizes any action beneficent to man. Humanism is a philosophical doctrine whose ultimate object is the human being. This concept is a broader one than humanitarianism, with which we are mainly concerned.

 Humanitarianism is a doctrine which aims at the happiness of the human species, or, if one prefers, it is the attitude of humanity towards mankind, on a basis of universality.

Modern humanitarianism is an advanced and rational form of charity and justice. It is not only directed to fighting against the suffering of a given moment and of helping particular individuals, for it also has more positive aims, designed to attain the greatest possible measure of happiness for the greatest number of people. In addition, humanitarianism does not only act to cure but also to prevent suffering, to fight against evils, even over a long term of time. The Red Cross is a living example of this approach.

Closely associated with humanity is charity. Charity is an effort demanded of us, either inwardly or from the outside, which becomes a second nature, to relieve and put an end to the sufferings of others. Here again there is a risk of confusion of terms, for the word has also come to refer simply to the giving of alms. Charity is above all an expression of Christian morality and is synonymous with love for one’s neighbour. Since there is generally only one word for ” love” in modern languages, there has sometimes been a confusion between love in the sense of desire and love in the sense of devotion. It is naturally in the latter sense that we use it here, for we are speaking of altruistic and disinterested love, which can be required of us, which calls for a certain degree of self-control, a love which is extended even to our enemies.

 Pity is one of the driving forces of charity. It is a spontaneous movement, an instantaneous affective reaction to the suffering of others. Littre defines pity as “that sentiment aroused at the sight of suffering that prompts one to relieve it”. It is also called compassion, that stirring of the soul which makes one responsive to the distress of others , according to Larousse. Pity is like a forerunner of charity.

 Commentary 

In the doctrine of the Red Cross, the principle of humanity, from which all the other principles flow, obviously has to stand in first place. As the basis of the institution, it provides at the same time its ideal, its motivation and its objective. It is indeed the prime mover for the whole movement, the spark which ignites the powder, the line of force for all its action. If the Red Cross were to have only one principle, it would be this one.

Such a text also enables the institution to define its tasks, to outline the field for its intervention and mark its limits, which is a major necessity. Although it is the purpose of the Red Cross to make the world a better place, it can do so only in certain respects. It cannot undertake every activity regarded as benevolent but must concentrate on specific responsibilities. Only in so doing will it guard itself from a dangerous dispersal of effort.

The principle of humanity was formulated for the first time in 1955, as follows, The Red Cross fights against suffering and death. It demands that man shall be treated humanely under all circumstances [1 ] .

In the Proclamation, this principle includes three elements [2 ] . very closely related to one another, apart from the reference to peace, a programme element which we shall deal with separately, as follows:

 (a) To prevent and alleviate suffering 

For the purpose of this commentary, we shall reverse the order of the terms in the declaration since, in its history, the Red Cross has been concerned first of all with relieving human suffering, before giving thought to preventing it. Furthermore, its restorative action, which consists in relieving distress, has continued to constitute by far the greater part of its endeavours.

Everyone knows suffering, that ancient and intimate enemy of man; from his birth it follows him like a shadow and one shudders to think of the indescribable accumulation of pain which has weighed down the human race since the beginning of the world. The most odious form of suffering is that which man inflicts deliberately. As Montaigne said, I bitterly hate cruelty as the worst of all vices .

By suffering, we refer not only to all pain, but also to every injury, even though it is not felt. We must make an exception however for cases in which the suffering may be due to therapeutic necessity, for it is then admissible to cause pain to avoid a greater pain. We are therefore mainly concerned with unnecessary suffering.

In the past, there was a tendency to accept misery – especially that of other people – with resignation. There was an acceptance of the excessively facile explanation of inevitable destiny. Nowadays, it is true, the total sum of suffering which afflicts the world has certainly not diminished and in some regions it is on the increase. The sense of human solidarity has developed however and people are more aware of the duty of combating distress wherever it manifests itself, and no matter how disproportionate to it are the means available.

Under this heading, the principle of humanity sets for the Red Cross its task in time of war – its primary and essential function – and also its work in time of peace. It governs its work of material, medical and social assistance, both in national and international terms. It does not aim only at relieving physical pain, but also the moral suffering which the Red Cross attempts to alleviate, for example when it relieves a family of uncertainty and anguish as to the fate of a loved one. The principle is valid furthermore no matter what the cause of the suffering may be – whether it is due for example to a catastrophe resultin g from natural causes, shortages of life’s necessities or to human negligence or malignity.

The Proclamation correctly emphasizes that the restorative action of the Red Cross must be accompanied by preventive action. The best means of fighting against suffering, after all, is to prevent it from arising, to seek out and eliminate its causes, to nip the evil in the bud. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the common expression has it.

In the field of health, prophylaxis, vaccinations, hygiene, early detection of diseases, teaching, etc. are increasingly extensive activities among the National Societies.

In the field of administration, prevention takes the form of advance preparation, for the Red Cross must be ready at any time to face the tasks it may encounter. This necessity was apparent from the very beginning of the Red Cross and it was a mark of the genius of Henry Dunant that he understood that in order to be effective relief for the victims of war had to be prepared incessantly in times of peace. This takes the form of training personnel, preparing material, perfecting methods and conducting scientific research. It is therefore one of the conditions for recognition of new Red Cross Societies that they become prepared in time of peace for wartime activities .

In the legal field, prevention calls for the work of developing international humanitarian law. As we know, the ICRC has been concerned since the beginning with promoting and perfecting the rules protecting the victims of conflicts and it was the architect of the Geneva Conventions. Lastly, it is prevention which determines the role of the Red Cross in favour of peace. There are those who are not satisfied to see it confine itself to attenuating the effects of war, but insist that it attack the evil of war at its root and participate directly in the fight agains t this scourge.

 (b) To protect life and health 

It has often been said in the past that the Red Cross fights against suffering, but up to now little has been said about its fight against death. This, nevertheless, is just as important an aspect as the former; it is a supreme objective of the Red Cross to save lives. It achieves this both by its action of assistance and its action of protection [3 ] . But, since death is finally inescapable, it can clearly act only to delay its coming.

Statistics inform us that the average length of human life in western Europe was 20 years under the Romans, 40 years in 1800 and around 70 years today. In the Crimean war in the last century, 60% of the wounded died, whereas 100 years later, in the Korean war, the figure for the American forces was down to 2%. In addition, during the military campaigns in the second half of the 19th century, deaths due to disease among the troops were triple or even quintuple the number of losses caused by arms. All this has radically changed, thanks to antiseptic measures and the great advance of medical science. The action of the Red Cross has also been a substantial factor.

Some philosophers maintain that the moral value of an act of charity depends upon the nobility of purpose of the one who performs it. Possibly so, but for the Red Cross what counts is that it be effective, that it be beneficial to those who suffer. As stated in the Koran, The perfect man is the one most useful to others . It does not matter a great deal, after all, in what spirit the act is performed. It is certainly true that donors sometimes have ulterior motives of self-interest, vanity or political propaganda – but it already counts for a great deal that people have been relieved, who otherwise would have received no help.

But the way in which that help is given is of great importance. When nursing a patient or giving help, one must show some humanity, that is to say, in this instance, tact, imagination and intelligence. What is charity which shows no sense of decency towards the unfortunate person and which, before comforting him, begins by crushing his self-respect? wrote Marivaux. It is true that an act of kindness clumsily bestowed may humiliate the person receiving it and even be taken as an insult. Therefore, the person who is giving or helping must not make his pity felt, but must show a cheerful face to the world. Why? Because happiness is contagious and it does good. It is as simple as that. To give happiness is also charity; sometimes even very great charity. Besides it is not difficult to smile. It is enough to reflect that one is bringing a little happiness to a frequently unhappy world.

Only in the past few years has there been a recognition of the need to “humanize” hospitals. It is no longer enough to make sure that the care is good; the time in hospital must be made as agreeable as possible for the patient and the utmost respect must be accorded to his customs and to his freedom, that most precious possession. Hospitals have made great technical advances, but even today, too often, sicknesses are being treated instead of individuals, who are regarded simply as “numbers”, and there is a neglect of the human relations between those giving and receiving the treatment. This of course is just one consequence of the degeneration of social relations which we observe everywhere, on the highways, in stores, buses and trains – resulting from the erosion of family patterns.

It is in the hospitals, however, and in asylums and old people’s homes where, feeling themselves to be in a state of inferiority and dependence and all the more vulnerable and sensitive, people suffer most from an absence of human sympathy and warmth. Research has demonstrated that patients show better and quicker recovery in a sympathetic and gay atmosphere. There is no merit to be found in grey walls, sour faces and tasteless food. Then, let us have pretty pictures on the walls and smiles on our faces! The giving of joy is also charity, and perhaps the greatest charity sometimes.

The National Societies, in their training of nurses and social workers, can play a splendid role in this respect.

 (c) To assure respect for the individual 

Francis Bacon once wrote that a man who does not treat his neighbour humanely is not truly human . The ideal of the Red Cross is much greater than its own action. It does not therefore limit itself to assistance and protection, but demands that everyone must respect the human person, his life, liberty and happiness – in other words, everything that constitutes his existence. This must naturally correspond to the requirements of public order and, in wartime, of military necessity.

This is a duty imposed upon the whole Red Cross movement at all times. In practice, it is manifested primarily by the interventions of the ICRC with the responsible authorities on behalf of victims of armed conflicts and disorders, the wounded and sick, shipwrecked persons, prisoners of war and civilians. These ICRC interventions, backed up by visits to places of detention, tend to bring about a strict and faithful application of humanitarian law, which has found its most complete and up to date expression in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Protocols of 1977. These basic documents, serving as a barrier against the arbitrary exercise of power, are inseparable from the Red Cross, in their source as in their living reality.

 All the provisions of humanitarian law constitute no more than the affirmation, constantly renewed, that the victims of convicts are first of all men and that nothing, not even war, can deprive them of the minimum things required by respect for the human person [4 ] . This law demands that everyone shall be treated as a human being and not as an object, as an end in himself and not as a mere means to an end.

The Geneva Conventions can be summed up in a single principle: persons who have been put out of action or who do not take a direct part in hostilities shall be respected, protected and humanely treated. These ideas are closely akin, but are not synonymous. Together, they constitute a coherent whole.

 To respect is primarily an attitude of abstaining, meaning: do not harm, do not threaten, spare the lives, integrity and the means of existence of others, have regard for their individual personality and dignity.

 To protect is a more positive attitude. It is a question of preserving others from evils, dangers or suffering to which they may be exposed, to take their defence and give them aid and support.

As regards humane treatment , it would be useless and hazardous to enumerate all it constitutes, since it varies according to circumstances. To determine it is a question of common sense and good faith. At least. we can say that humane treatment is a minimum to be reserved for the individual to enable him to lead an acceptable existence in as normal a manner as possible.

We shall give a real example of this action of the ICRC. Amid the hot sands of the desert, in a country where a civil war was raging and in which neither the Red Cross nor the Geneva Conventions had previ ously penetrated, ICRC delegates obtained an agreement from the two conflicting parties that they would abandon their ancestral practice of executing defeated enemies. Soon afterwards, a local chief suddenly came face to face with an adversary. In the single combat which followed, both were wounded, but the chief, less seriously injured, was able to bandage his wound. Then he turned to the man who, just a moment earlier, had tried to kill him, and treated his wound as well. He then took his captive to his own home. Here, his whole family, all the other warriors and all of his friends were against him and demanded that he kill the enemy. His own mother told him, If you are a real man, prove it . This chief held his ground however, and after his wound was healed took the prisoner to military headquarters. This combatant, and hundreds like him, were saved in this manner.

 The Red Cross and peace 

The Red Cross promotes mutual understanding, friendship, co-operation and lasting peace amongst all peoples , in the words of the Proclamation. This phrase, introduced at a meeting of the Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross at Prague in 1961, was not a part of the original draft, because its authors considered that it was a programme question.

In their opinion, it was not for the declaration of fundamental principles to enumerate the tasks of the Red Cross but only to specify the imperatives which inspired them. Thus, in their view, action for peace flowed quite naturally from the principle of humanity with its command to prevent human suffering . It will be well to bear this point in mind if the Proclam ation should ever come to be revised.

The foregoing comment does not in any way tend to minimize the importance of the question which it is customary to raise at meetings of the institution under the heading “The Red Cross and Peace”. It cannot be stated too many times that this does not entail a study, in all its amplitude and complexity, of the whole programme for maintaining peace in the world and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts, but only the modest influence which the Red Cross can bring to bear in this connection.

The founders of the Red Cross. Henry Dunant in particular, considered at the very beginning that the ultimate objective of the work they set in motion and the Convention they inspired was none other than that of universal peace. They understood the fact that the Red Cross, by pressing its ideal to its logical outcome, would be working for its own abolition, that a day would come when, men having finally accepted and put into effect its message of humanity by laying down and destroying their arms and thus making a future war impossible, the Red Cross would no longer have any reason for being. This is the meaning of the motto, Per humanitatem ad pacem which stands before the Constitution of the League of Red Cross Societies, along with the traditional slogan, Inter arma caritas [5 ] .

The fact that since that time the Geneva Conventions came to cover other categories of victims and that the Red Cross enlarged its field of action to cover virtually all forms of human suffering has changed nothing – except of course that no one thinks any longer about the disappearance of the Red Cross once war has been abolished; people think rather of the complete conversion of its energies to charitable peacetime work.

In 1921, after the First World War, the ICRC and the young League o f Red Cross Societies jointly launched “an appeal in favour of a spirit of peace”. It was only in 1930, however, that the subject was first discussed and exhaustively examined by the International Red Cross Conference which then passed a resolution of the greatest importance, since it established guidelines which remain valid today [6 ] . The resolution said, in part:

“The Conference… considering that an essential condition of this activity is a scrupulous observance of the principle of racial, religious and political neutrality, a principle which enables the Red Cross to recruit its helpers among all races, creeds and parties, without excluding any,

considering that the National Societies, in this manner, develop and organize within their territories, on a neutral basis, the efforts of charitable persons with a view to strengthening the efficacity of their work,

considering that the National Societies – extending over all countries and collaborating, through their international organization, towards the realization of a common aim under a distinctive sign consecrated by a universal treaty – represent a moral force in international affairs and an element of mutual aid and reconciliation between peoples,

expresses its conviction that the Red Cross, by its efforts to establish these points of contact will bring the support of its moral force and prestige to the world movement towards comprehension and conciliation, the essential guarantees for the maintenance of peace, and will thus work efficaciously against war as the sole means of preventing that suffering the mitigation of which originally formed the primary object of its activity”.

Since the adoption of that resolution, Red Cross gatherings have passed many others on the same subject. In these long texts, we find an abundance of repetition and “literature” but not so much in the way of constructive pr oposals. Two resolutions nevertheless deserve our attention; both relate to direct action by the Red Cross in favour of peace. The first of these emerged from the Congress which marked the Centenary of the Red Cross [7 ] . It approved the role played by the ICRC in the “Cuba affair” at the request of the United Nations [8 ] and concluded in general terms that, it is desirable that the Committee respond to the call made upon it simultaneously by States in convict to act as intermediary or assist in the proper discharge of the obligations they have undertaken, thus contributing to the maintenance of peace .

The second resolution we should like to mention was passed by the International Red Cross Conference in 1969 [9 ] . This resolution

“recommends that in cases of armed conflicts or of situations which are a threat to peace the ICRC shall, if necessary, ask the representatives of the National Societies of the countries concerned to meet together or separately with the ICRC to study the resolution of humanitarian problems involved and in agreement with the Governments concerned to examine what contribution the Red Cross could make to preventing the outbreak of the conflict or achieving a cease-fire or cessation of hostilities”.

Twenty years later, we should note that no case has arisen analogous to the Cuba crisis and that the contingencies provided for in the 1969 resolution are exceptional and inevitably call for an extremely delicate approach. It is not impossible however that certain discussions under the auspices of the Red Cross between countries seriously at odds with one another relieve tension and thus reduce the danger of conflict.

In 1967 and 1969, the ICRC brought together two round table conferences on this subject and the Yugoslav Red Cross convoked a World Red Cross Conference on Peace at Belgrade in 1975, choosing for the agenda a number of items which had been discussed at these meetings. This gathering drew up a detailed programme of action of which the Council of Delegates took note in 1977 [10 ] .

The first part of that programme is devoted to the indirect activities of the Red Cross in favour of peace. It takes note of the fact that the work of protection and assistance being carried out every day by the Red Cross, wherever man suffers from the acts of his fellow beings, contributes to peace. This part contains nothing new.

The second part deals with direct action: to contribute, in co-operation with the United Nations, to the elimination of threats to peace, preventing the outbreak of hostilities and helping to bring them to an end and even, as some National Societies wished, to denounce aggression. This extension of the mandate of the Red Cross did not receive the approval of all the participants, some of whom considered that in taking this path the institution would be departing from its proper role and venturing into the political field. The 1977 Council of Delegates recognized that it was essential for their comments to be attached to the programme and taken into account in its interpretation. The Council furthermore specified that the application of the Belgrade document would have to take place ” with full respect for the fundamental principles of the Red Cross”. This indeed is the key to the problem. We shall never go astray when we refer, as a criterion, to this primordial charter. In doing so, the various organisms of the Red Cross can see, as each case arises, what they can undertake, pursuant to the programme, without violating the doctrine of the movement [11 ] .

From knowing war at close hand, the Red Cross understands better than anyone that war is inhuman, that it is just as contrary to charity as it is to justice, in that it does not necessarily lead to the victory of the righteous. There are few causes that are closer to its hea rt than the cause of peace.

The Red Cross cannot for all that depart from its principles, and in particular the principle of neutrality, which fixes the limits for its interventions in this field. The essential mission of the Red Cross remains that of protecting human beings in the event of conflict and of relieving their suffering. For the Red Cross, there is no just war and no unjust war – there are only victims in need of help. It cannot carry out its task except by virtue of its apolitical character, which it must safeguard above all else. At the same time, it is through the faithful execution of its traditional mandate that it gains the moral force and credibility without which its appeals in favour of peace would have no weight.

In the field of prevention of war, as in every other field, the Red Cross must refrain from taking sides between countries. This reserve with regard to controversies alien to it is profoundly wise and must be maintained. Indeed, even though peace is dear to all peoples, they are seldom agreed on the way to bring peace into being or to maintain it – even on the character peace should have [12 ] . To take a position on any of the questions presented by the manner of organizing the world, whether we like it or not, means that one is putting oneself on the level of politics. To seek to exert a direct effect in this sphere nearly always implies a descent into the arena of nations and parties. To exert its influence in this way, for example, it would be necessary for the Red Cross to take a position on such matters as military budgets, the manufacture and sale of arms, and, in general, that it would either support or attack numerous political actions. By involving itself in this way in impassioned struggles for which it is not equipped or prepared, it would find itself on an icy slope upon which it could find no footing, leading it to rapid destruction.

On the other hand, other institutions which have been created to defend peace and bring about a better organization of the world do not have the same limitations and can act more freely. It is apparent, in the crusade against war, that everyone should fight with the means at his disposal, in terms of his own essential nature and inescapable destiny. The means available to the Red Cross to eliminate war are limited. They may even seem to be ridiculous, when we can see all around us the great powers making enormous deliveries of arms to their allies of the moment, and in so doing driving them inevitably into new conflicts.

But, in the general framework of this effort for peace, the Red Cross nonetheless constitutes an important moral element. It is the symbol of peace, present in the midst of combat. Every one of its acts thus becomes a pacifying gesture. To act as intermediary between enemies, to promote humanitarian law, means the creation of a climate of appeasement and reconciliation. By asserting solidarity among men in the face of suffering and by providing assistance, the Red Cross tends to level the inequalities among them and attenuate their frustrations and resentments. It contributes to bringing together individuals and perhaps eventually whole peoples. It is just this which the Proclamation demands of the Red Cross. It is also the mandate confirmed by the Twenty-third International Conference in 1977 in its resolution on the mission of the Red Cross, which stated, that

“the Red Cross, in respecting its principles and in developing its manifold activities, should play an essential part in disseminating to the population, and especially to youth, the spirit of mutual understanding and friendship among all peoples, and thus promoting lasting peace’.

 Philosophical considerations 

The wellspring of the principle of humanity is in the essence of social morality which can be summed up in a single sentence, Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them . This fundamental precept can be found, in almost identical form, in all the great religions, Brahminism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Islam, Judaism and Taoism. It is also the golden rule of the positivists, who do not commit themselves to any religion but only to the data of experience, in the name of reason alone. It is indeed not at all necessary to resort to affective or transcendental concepts to recognize the advantage for men to work together to improve their lot.

The idea of mutual assistance originates first of all in the very instinct for preservation. It contributes to the survival of the species; it offers more in the way of rewards than it does of burdens. Through objective consideration of the evidence, basing ourselves on the consent of the majority, we also arrive at the concept of solidarity as an ideal for the organization of the community. The maxim, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, another version of the “golden rule” cited above, therefore represents a universal truth, for it is in full conformity with human nature and the needs of society.

In other words, humanity impels each of us to act for the well-being of our fellow men. What is “well-being”? It is the whole pattern of action which, at a given time, seems to be useful, just and reasonable. The inclination to do good is what we call goodness.

Goodness is a complex motive, in which we can recognize a number of related virtues or sentiments, such as benevolence, generosity, devotion, pity, toleration. To be good is also to be sensitive, charitable, helpful and useful.

If w e wish to sum up all of this and express it in practical terms, using other language, we may say that a good man, moved by good intentions, is touched by the suffering of others and tries to relieve it; with respect and affection for his fellow being, he protects and assists him, and devotes himself to him. With a tranquil mind, he endures evil; he does not yield to hatred against another, but joyfully forgives him.

Modern humanitarianism is born of this social morality and attempts to organize relations between individuals on the basis of a compromise between their interests, recognizing that charity and justice constitute a far from negligible element in their true interest. Humanitarianism works toward the establishment of a social order which should be as advantageous as possible for the largest possible number of people. It takes man both as its objective and as its means, without deifying man.

Humanitarianism is not a religion in opposition to other religions, a moral philosophy opposed to other moral philosophies. It does however coincide with the precepts of many religions and moral codes. It is one of the rare meeting places where people of all beliefs can come together and grasp one another’s hands, without betraying what is most intimate and sacred to each of them.

How does humanitarianism differ from charity, which, as we have seen, is one of its major sources of inspiration? Charity is primarily the mainspring of immediate action by an individual in the presence of a stricken victim. Humanitarianism extends its merciful action to the whole of humanity. It is in permanent revolt against misery and rejects fatalism. It brings together people of good will and creates the necessary institutions. Humanitarianism takes thought and requires a degree of rational discipline.

Does humanitarianism find its inspiration in justice or in charity? Justice, generally speaking, consists in ren dering to each person his due. It has different aspects which must not be confused with one another.

First of all there is legal justice, which accords to each person what is rightfully his. This is the kind of justice sanctioned by law and administered by the courts. But, in moral terms, there is also an ideal justice, known also as equity.

If we consider legal justice, we see at once that it differs profoundly from charity. It has been symbolized as a blindfolded woman holding scales. This symbol might also, of course, serve to represent charity, in one sense. Like justice, charity knows man only as a human being, and does not need to know his name. Like justice, charity holds the scales even between men. Like justice, charity gives for a valid reason. The analogy stops here however, for while justice rewards each person according to his rights, charity gives to each according to his suffering. To judge means to separate the good from the bad, the just from the unjust; to measure the degrees of individual responsibility. Charity on the other hand has nothing whatever to do with this kind of justice. It refuses to weigh the merits or faults of this or that individual. It goes much farther. Going beyond and above the opposition between good and evil, it attains, in full serenity, the level of wisdom. Then it becomes the very image of mercy, of goodness without limit, as exemplified by the expression of Lao Tse, With a good man, I am good; with an evil man, I am also good. 

But, as we said, justice has many levels. From its origins in primitive vengeance, it has passed through different stages of law and of civilization, of time and place, to reach a point far beyond simple legal justice and attain a very high level. On this level, it takes on the qualities of understanding and forbearance; it is not so much concerned with reckoning the responsibility of men, their virt ues and faults, but tends rather to become equalitarian and in so doing to offer everyone the same chance to seek a place in the sun. It is more interested in providing people with what they need than it is with punishing them. It is no longer merely a matter of applying the established standards of distribution, but indeed of correcting the inequalities of fate. Such a conception is an ideal, and it is commonly not understood; most of the time it cannot be put into practice by society, which must maintain a degree of social order. At this higher level, one might say that justice joins hands with charity, and in

so doing finds its own ultimate fulfilment. Thus we can see that charity and justice, far from standing in opposition to one another, finally come together and support one another, at a higher level. The Red Cross appeals to justice in its highest form, when charity takes precedence over the laws of men.

To conclude, the Red Cross movement gathers under its flag all those who wish to serve, even though the deeper reasons for their commitment may differ greatly. As Max Huber wrote, The most varied points of view in philosophy, religion and human experience enable man to understand the idea of the Red Cross, the moral principle it embodies and the action it demands [1 ] .

 Notes 

1. Jean Pictet: Red Cross Principles .

2. This triple mandate was reaffirmed, in the same language, by the Twenty-third International Red Cross Conference at Bucharest in 1977 (Resolution I, entitled “The Red Cross Mission ” .).

3. The Twenty-third International Red Cross Conference, in Resolution I (“The Red Cross Mission”) emphasized the extreme importance of the National Societies’ medico-social activities in preventing disease, promoting health and encouraging among their members a sense of social responsibility and the giving of voluntary

4. Frederic Siordet: Inter arma caritas , ICRC, Geneva, 1947.

5. Meaning, respectively, “Through humanity towards peace” and “In war, charity”.

6. Resolution XXV of the Fourteenth International Red Cross Conference, Brussels, 1930.

7. Resolution XXIV of the Council of Delegates, Geneva. 1963.

8. In 1962, at the time of a grave international crisis, the ICRC was asked to verify whether ships en route to Cuba were carrying nuclear missiles. The ICRC had agreed to do so and had organized a team of qualified observers. Finally, a political détente was arrived at before this team started its operations. The very fact of acceptance of this task by the ICRC, however, a task far removed from its traditional pattern of operations, encouraged this détente and had an impact on people’s thinking. The ICRC had naturally made its participation subject to acceptance by all the three parties directly concerned and had received formal assurances in this respect from the General Secretariat of the United Nations. Later on however, at a Red Cross Conference, the Cuban representative stated that his government had not been consulted.

9. Resolution XX of the Twenty-first International Conference, Istanbul, 1969. 

10. Decision No. 1 of the Council of Delegates, Bucharest, 1977.

11. The last meeting of the Council of Delegate set up a Commission to oversee the application of the Belgrade programme and propose suitable measures to achieve its objectives.

12. Nevertheless, in recent exchanges of views within the International Red Cross, it was emphasized that peace is inseparable fr om justice and that there can be no true peace in which the human person is not respected.

13. Preface to The Good Samaritan