The Politics of Humanity

in particular, debates on humanitarian intervention, but have also been latent in
discussions about the necessity of independence, that is, of excluding actors with
suspicious or mixed motives. It also explains the frequent reification of altruism, to
the point where humanitarianism often becomes synonymous with altruism.^79 I will
attempt to debunk this category error in Chapter 3.
The other tension that emerges is that between charitable, discretionary
action, and action that merely respects, say, a piece of binding humanitarian
legislation. This is linked to debates on charity versus justice, which I will introduce
below. The relevant point here is the paradox that much humanitarian action is
described as the pursuit of justice, and thus presumably of establishing non-
discretionary duties, yet only charitable acts become classified as humanitarian.
Professional humanitarians are still often smitten with the idea of themselves as
Good Samaritans.^80 But humanitarianism cannot, on this account, bank any moral
gains, and locks itself in to always being an “emblem of failure”, in David Rieff’s
words.^81

Unity

There can be only one Red Cross Society in any one country. It must be open

to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory.^82

The issues arising from the principle of unity build on those surrounding voluntary
service. Pictet writes that:

For practical reasons, which are nonetheless imperative, the Red Cross

Society must be the only one of its kind in the territory of each nation, for

this is essential to the efficacy of its work. We can well imagine the

confusion which would prevail in a country if several associations, all

79
80 Vaux, The Selfish Altruist.
81 Weiss, "Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action": 14.
82 Rieff, A Bed for the Night , 304.
Pictet, The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross , unpaginated text.