Independence
The Red Cross is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the
humanitarian services of their Governments and subject to the laws of their
respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may
be able at all times to act in accordance with Red Cross principles.^72As will become clear during the course of the argument, true independence has
always been something of a chimera for humanitarians, but the struggle for
independence, especially from states, is at the heart of professional humanitarians’
attempts to define themselves.^73 This is partly because it is always easier to define
oneself against another, but mainly because humanitarians fear becoming
instrumentalised. Famously, many humanitarians were deeply disturbed by Colin
Powell’s unashamed cooption of their moral authority in the context of the war in
Afghanistan:
As I speak, just as surely as our diplomats and military, American NGOs are
out there serving and sacrificing on the front lines of freedom.... I am
serious about making sure we have the best relationship with the NGOs who
are such a force multiplier for us, such an important part of our combat
team. [We are] all committed to the same, singular purpose to help every
man and woman in the world who is in need, who is hungry, who is without
hope, to help every one of them fill a belly, get a roof over their heads,
educate their children, have hope.^74The anxiety here is that, in the absence of strict independence, neutrality and
impartiality are unsustainable, and that anyone will be able to co-opt humanitarian
moral authority for their “combat team” so long as they claim to act in the name of
humanity. They fear that their “humanitarian space” is shrinking.
72
73 Pictet, The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross , unpaginated text.
74 This will be further explored in Chapter 6.
Nicolas de Torrente, "Humanitarian Action under Attack: Reflections on the Iraq War ",
Harvard Human Rights Journal 17 (2004): 9.