proclaiming the same principles, were to advertise that they were carrying
out the same tasks independently!^83Though unity, in this sense, has been achieved within the Red Cross movement, it
has long been forsaken in the wider sector of professional humanitarianism.
Different issue-areas often see a multitude of organisations competing with each
other for donations, funding and contracts, and rushing to be the first to plant the
flag. As Pictet predicted, this has often resulted in confusion and in ineffectiveness,
with organisations feeling they need a presence in X or Y crisis, rather than
genuinely meeting a need.^84 Some of the measures employed to self-regulate will
be discussed in Chapter 5. But the more profound issue here is that if many
professional humanitarians feel they need an unquestionable, homogenous identity
to legitimise their action, such an identity is clearly in tension with the need to
compete and distinguish oneself from other organisations.
Universality
The Red Cross is a world-wide institution in which all Societies have equal
status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other.^85The question of universality brings us full circle, back to the issues raised by the
principle of humanity. Though ostensibly just referring to the organisation of the
Red Cross, Pictet’s commentary relates this to universality of purpose. For Pictet,
humanity and impartiality imply universality, and an egalitarian universality at
that.^86 But we face the question of whether universality precedes the principle of
humanity, or whether the principle of humanity precisely emerges from the lack of
agreement on universal respect for human dignity, or even on the content of such a
83
84 Ibid.
Randolph C. Kent, "International Humanitarian Crises: Two Decades before and Two
Decades Beyond", 85 International Affairs 80, no. 5 (2004): 862.
86 Pictet, The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross , unpaginated text.
Ibid.