Shortly after adoption of the red cross emblem, the first conflict arose.
The Ottoman Empire, a mostly Muslim population, went to war with Russia between 1876-1878. The Muslims claimed that the Red Cross emblem reminded them of the Crusaders who had ravaged their land in centuries past, trying to spread Christianity. These Crusaders or members of the Knights Templar wore tunics with similar red crosses on them, so the Turks associated the Red Cross emblem with Christianity. As a result, many aid workers were killed or injured. The Swiss president was told that "the cross 'wounded the feelings' of the Muslim soldier," and thereafter, the ICRC workers began using a crescent instead of a red cross (Benthall 160).
|
In June, 1877, even though Russia objected, the International Committee gave the Ottoman Empire permission to use a red crescent instead of a red cross as its emblem, but they also agreed to respect the red cross used by the other side ("Emblems"). This was meant to be a stopgap measure but was not intended to create a precedent because the Committee "saw strong arguments for maintaining the single emblem" (Benthall 160).
|
Persian (Iran) ProblemsThe Persians (Iran) opted for another different symbol: the red lion and sun. Both of these emblems were recognized at a diplomatic conference in 1929 in a document called Protocol I of the Geneva Convention.
|
So now the organization is barely fifty years old and it has been forced to adopt three different emblems to appease people in different parts of the world. Fortunately, after the fall of the Shah in 1980, Iran changed to the red crescent emblem.
Japan had a problem with the red cross emblem about the same time. Their national authorities arbitrarily substituted two parallel, horizontal rectangles in place of the red cross. Thankfully, they eventually adopted the red cross.
|
The Red Cross has been criticized for its failure to help the Jewish people imprisoned in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany; however, it couldn't do anything for them because they were not soldiers in international wars so they were not covered under the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
An organization called the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) was formed for the purposes of expanding the humanitarian to aid more than just participants in war.
The IFRC agreements expanded their work to include civilian and military victims of armed conflicts and internal disturbance of human rights issues that transcend conflict situations, such as disaster response, disaster preparedness, health and care in the community (Torres 224).
The ICRC and IFRC now work in conjunction with the societies of individual countries to help not just war victims but all citizens of their countries.
An organization called the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) was formed for the purposes of expanding the humanitarian to aid more than just participants in war.
The IFRC agreements expanded their work to include civilian and military victims of armed conflicts and internal disturbance of human rights issues that transcend conflict situations, such as disaster response, disaster preparedness, health and care in the community (Torres 224).
The ICRC and IFRC now work in conjunction with the societies of individual countries to help not just war victims but all citizens of their countries.
If we rewind to 1948, we see a new country, Israel, stepping onto the world scene. Although Israel hadn't been an official country before that, once it was recognized by the world, the Mogen David Adom (MDA) group, Israel's humanitarian relief organization, which used the Red Shield of David emblem, quickly requested entrance to the ICRC and IFRC. Unfortunately, the ICRC could not recognize the MDA since it didn't use one of the three approved emblems. The Israelis wouldn't accept either the cross or crescent, and they argued that their symbol went back 3,500 years and, because of the Holocaust, had become a symbol of life and charity to Israelis.
This controversy continued for fifty-eight years because the Red Cross movement felt it would be setting a very undesirable precedent if it accepted the Red Shield of David. The controversy continued through the new millennium and even led to the resignation of the ARC's President, Bernadine Healy. The ARC, with Healy at the helm, had made the unpopular decision to withhold ARC dues from the ICRC in protest against the committee's refusal to give full membership to the MDA (Hanley 51). Healy claims that when she publicly confronted some American Muslim organization leaders on the issue right after 9/11, she was forced to resign.
This controversy continued for fifty-eight years because the Red Cross movement felt it would be setting a very undesirable precedent if it accepted the Red Shield of David. The controversy continued through the new millennium and even led to the resignation of the ARC's President, Bernadine Healy. The ARC, with Healy at the helm, had made the unpopular decision to withhold ARC dues from the ICRC in protest against the committee's refusal to give full membership to the MDA (Hanley 51). Healy claims that when she publicly confronted some American Muslim organization leaders on the issue right after 9/11, she was forced to resign.
Johnson & Johnson vs. American Red Cross
This controversy over the emblem involved only the American Red Cross, and it didn't become an issue until Johnson & Johnson sued the American Red Cross to get them to quit using the emblem in 2007 (Saul).
This was after the Red Cross started licensing companies to produce first aid kits and other items that they could use as fundraisers. The product lines had been infringed. Although technically, the company had used and trademarked the symbol first, its legal representatives made a terrible miscalculation about the negative publicity and hard feelings its lawsuit would produce.
Johnson & Johnson ended up eventually settling with the American Red Cross after gaining almost no benefit from the lawsuit.
This was after the Red Cross started licensing companies to produce first aid kits and other items that they could use as fundraisers. The product lines had been infringed. Although technically, the company had used and trademarked the symbol first, its legal representatives made a terrible miscalculation about the negative publicity and hard feelings its lawsuit would produce.
Johnson & Johnson ended up eventually settling with the American Red Cross after gaining almost no benefit from the lawsuit.