The Red Cross and Peace: Realities and Limits
| DOI | 10.1177/002234338702400308 |
| Date | 01 September 1987 |
| Published date | 01 September 1987 |
| Author | Yves Sandoz |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The
Red
Cross
and
Peace:
Realities
and
Limits*
YVES
SANDOZ
Principles
and
Law
Department,
International
Committee
of
the
Red
Cross
The
Red
Cross,
from
the
outset,
was
conceived
to
relieve
victims
but
not
to
prevent
war.
This
aim
fulfils
a
clear
humanitarian
requirement
—
aid
to
the
injured
on
the
battlefield
—
and
the
desire
for
realism,
but
it
does
not
mean
indifference
to
the
problem
of
war
in
general.
The
role
of
the
Red
Cross
in
conflict
situations,
like
international
humanitarian law
which
was
established
by
the
Red
Cross,
has
always
been
understood
as a
contribution
to
peace.
To
humanize
war
is
not
to
encourage
it,
but
to
spread
a
spirit
of
peace
in
the
midst
of
war
which
can
contribute
towards
its
conclusion.
It
is
not
only
during
conflicts
but
at
all
times
that
the
Movement
of
the
Red
Cross
and
the
Red
Crescent
is
endeavouring
worldwide
to
spread
amongst
all
peoples
the
spirit
of
peace
and
to
facilitate
understanding
and
tolerance
which
are
the
great
enemies
of
war.
Universal
peace
and
disarmament
are
obviously
desirable
objectives
which,
however,
seem
very
distant.
For
these
objectives
as
well
as
those
more
precisely
connected
to
certain
conflicts,
the
Red
Cross
may
neither
impose
its
role,
nor
neglect
it.
For
the
latter
objectives,
encour-
agement
and
initiatives
with
regard
to
international
humanitarian
law
by
the
Red
Cross
were
great
steps
towards
peace:
with
regard
to
the
first
objectives,
they
cannot
be
reached
without
mutual
understanding,
which
the
Red
Cross
contributes
to.
However,
there
is
no
peace
and
disarmament
without
politics
and
the
Red
Cross
must
be
wise
enough
not
to
be
involved.
In
wishing
to
do
too
much,
the
Red
Cross
would
enter
politics
and
would
lose
the
strength
of
its
message,
namely,
its
universality
and
its
unity.
For
these
reasons,
and
in
particular
because
of
its
exemplary
character
as
well
as
its
humanitarian
and
impartial
action,
the
Red
Cross
contributes
to
peace.
ISSN
0022-3433
Journal
of
Peace
Research,
vol.
24,
no.
3,
1987
1.
Introduction
The
Red
Cross
was
originally
conceived
and
organized
for
the
purpose
of
assisting
victims
of
armed
conflicts,
without
seeking
to
avoid
the
conflicts
themselves:
’if
war
is
unavoid-
able,
then
it
should
be
waged
with
as
little
barbarity
as
possible’
(Dunant
1862,
1969,
p. 120).
Thus,
in
its
first
undertaking,
the
Red
Cross
confined
itself
to
’the
amelioration
of
the
condition
of
the
wounded
in
armies
in
the
field’,
these
being
the
exact
terms
of
the
first
Geneva
Convention
of
1864.
The
Red
Cross,
realistic
like
its
initiator,
did
not
aspire
to
the
task
of
putting
an
end
to
war;
it
merely
aimed
to
humanize
it
by
seeking
to
attenuate
its
horrors.
Even
at
this
early
stage,
however,
Louis
Appia,
one
of
the
founders
of
the
movement,
wrote:
’Let
us
openly
express
our
deep
regret
and
unhappiness
at
being
unable
to
do
more,
and
let
us
protest
against
the
great
collective
iniquity
of war’
(Appia
1864,
p.
144).
*The
views
expressed
in
this
article
are
personal
and
do
not
necessarily
reflect
the
official
position
of
the
International
Committee
of the
Red
Cross.
Subsequently
Henry
Dunant
himself
made
it
clear
on
numerous
occasions
that
he
was
vehemently
opposed
to
war.
The
Red
Cross
has
nevertheless
been
reproached
with
the
allegation
that,
in
seek-
ing
to
humanize
war,
it
sanctions
man’s
moral
acceptance
of
the
primacy
of
force.
Or,
on
the
contrary
’the
foundation
of
the
Red
Cross
and
the
first
Geneva
Con-
vention
-
bound
up
inseparably
with
it
-
constituted
one
of
the
most
powerful
onslaughts
made
on
war
since
the
world
began’
(Pictet
1951,
p.
127)
and
have
from
then
on
prevented
it
from
being
considered
a
’normal’
phenomenon.l
1
One
must
nevertheless
remain
aware
of
the
fact
that
efforts
made
to
attenuate
to
some
extent
the
immense
suffering
caused
by
wars
do
not
in
any
way
change
the
horror
of
war.
Indeed,
no-one
has
dared
to
maintain,
in
any
specific
case,
that
humani-
tarian
Conventions
are
liable
to
encourage
men
to
engage
in
war.
Thus,
for
as
long
as
wars
continue
to
be
fought,
no-one
can
jus-
tify
calling
upon
the
people
engaged
in
the
Red
Cross
activities
to
remain
inactive
on
the
pretext
that
their
humanitarian
work
To continue reading
Request your trial