The Red Cross and Peace: Realities and Limits

Abstract

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.