Red Cross neutrality in Syria

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/red-cross-neutrality-syria

Version 0 of 1.

Simon Jenkins (Comment, 2 November) suggests the International Committee of the Red Cross has become an inadvertent tool of western powers who disguise adventurism as humanitarian action. It is not a reality we in the ICRC recognise, particularly not in places like Syria, where our independence from political sponsorship by any state or faction is key to our being able to deliver assistance in both government- and opposition-controlled areas.

Throughout the 150 years of the ICRC response to the needs of the victims of conflict, our organisation has weathered numerous attempts to cast us a lackey of interest groups, power blocs or belief systems. Every day in Syria we reassert our neutrality, in order to feed the hungry, provide water or get medicine to the sick. It is not easy to counter negative perceptions, whether they come from the misuse of the language of humanitarianism or allegations that we have a hidden ideological agenda. And notwithstanding setbacks – kidnappings and attacks on staff – we have found that constant dialogue with all sides and a demonstrably impartial response to people's needs are the most effective arguments. In Syria it works.

This year, we have conducted 120 missions across the country, through dozens of checkpoints and across frontlines. With volunteers from the Syrian Arab Red Crescent we feed 450,000 people every month. However, our efforts to provide medical care are sadly impeded by those who do not accept the principle that all sick and wounded are entitled to treatment. Neutrality must be demonstrated, not declared. That's the difference between an intervention that helps those in need impartially, and deserves the name humanitarian, and one that does not. Robert Mardini Head of operations, Middle East, ICRC, Geneva

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.