Weekly Column
June 27, 2005
Another International Institution That Has Lost its Way?
By U.S. Senator Jon Kyl
As Congress scrutinizes the financing and operations of the
United Nations, we have also found an unfortunate need to focus on other
multilateral institutions that receive significant funding from the
American taxpayer. One such organization is the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Since its founding in Switzerland in 1863, the ICRC has provided
vital and laudable emergency relief to the victims of war and natural
disasters around the world, operating under its "Seven Fundamental
Principles": humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary
service, unity, and universality. But in recent years, it has moved to
broaden its non-emergency relief portfolio, engaging in a level of
political activism that appears to contradict its foundational mission
of being a neutral and impartial organization. In some cases, actions
and statements by ICRC leaders have been directly in opposition to, and
even attacked, the interests of the United States.
Specifically, the ICRC has engaged in efforts, among others, to:
a.. Lobby on arms control issues;
b.. Reinterpret and expand international law so as to afford
terrorists and insurgents the same rights and privileges as military
personnel of states that are party to the Geneva Conventions; and
c.. Inaccurately and unfairly accuse the United States of not
adhering to the Geneva Conventions, even while demonstrating a
reluctance to pursue those same protections for American prisoners of
war.
It's important to make clear here that the American Red Cross
(ARC) and the ICRC are not one and the same - in fact, they operate
completely separately. The ARC is not in any way involved in the ICRC's
policy decisions or statements.
Even so, this trend at the international level is more than
worrisome. The ICRC helped save American lives in two world wars and has
played a vital role in conflicts around the globe as a neutral arbiter.
But under its current leadership, the organization appears to have lost
its way by deviating from its core principles. In doing so, it risks
forfeiting its hard-earned credibility and moral authority.
Like Amnesty International, which recently diminished its
credibility by allowing one of its leaders to compare our terrorist
holding center at Guantanamo Bay to a Soviet Gulag, the ICRC's political
forays have done significant damage to the international perception of
America's defense and
foreign policy. This is particularly troubling
given that the United States government has remained the ICRC's single
largest contributor since its founding; to the tune of $233 million in
2003 alone.
How this happen? In recent years, the ICRC has undergone a
significant and accelerating change, leaning more in the direction of
the liberal and frequently anti-American international nongovernmental
organization community. According to analysts Lee A. Casey and David
Rivkin, Jr., the ICRC made "no discernible effort" to improve the plight
of America's POWs from the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq wars, despite
pressure from the U.S. government and POW families. The ICRC has also
conspicuously failed to criticize the North Vietnamese, North Korean,
and Baathist Iraqi governments for their torture, killings, and other
abuses of U.S. POWs.
Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger criticized the ICRC
in the report of the independent review commission he chaired on prison
problems in Guantanamo and
Abu Ghraib, stating flatly that the ICRC's
legal and policy positions were fundamentally wrong. In particular, the
report condemned the ICRC's insistence that the same Geneva Conventions
protections afforded uniformed soldiers in military conflict be granted
to terrorists who do not wear uniforms and indiscriminately target
civilians. Shortly afterward, the Wall Street Journal quoted an ICRC
official on a visit to a U.S.-run Iraqi prison telling U.S. authorities
that ?you people are no better than and no different than the Nazi
concentration camp guards? after she was denied immediate access to the
prison - for personal safety reasons, because it had just experienced a
riot.
As frustrating as such incidents are, the bigger problem is that
we need a truly impartial and independent ICRC to tell the world the
truth about the way America operates - that abuses are aberrations, that
our soldiers go to extraordinary lengths to protect civilians, and that
our foreign policy rests on the principle that all people deserve to be
treated with dignity and respect. There's no other organization in a
position to play that role; without it, many foreign populations are
pre-disposed to believe the worst about us. It's in everyone's interest
that the ICRC return to its core mission, because that mission is
indispensable, and there's no one else out there in a position to
fulfill it.
Sen. Kyl serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees
and chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
Linear Mode
