Darling, a cross is just so passé, I want a crystal!
Representatives from all 192 countries that signed the Geneva Conventions are discussing the merits of a new, third emblem for the Red Cross.
I am a big fan of the Red Cross. Me dad worked for them for several years, in both Bangladesh and Indonesia, two Muslim countries. I was about 10 years old when I first heard that he was working for the ‘ICRC‘ and got rather confused. Then I heard about the ‘IFRCRCS‘ and was completely flummoxed. I soon learnt what an intensely complex setup the Red Cross and its various subsidiary/contributory bodies have. However the main thing that struck me was when I saw pictures of my dad’s team in Jakarta, it was all crescent moons. Where were the crosses?
It’s a reasonably well-known fact that Muslim countries have not been keen on letting little red crosses drive around their land, committing the heinous act of helping people in need. Still only a whippersnapper, I was outraged by this. I thought some firebrand Muslim despot must’ve made a song and dance in the 80s about the cross in his land and made the Red Cross change their logo. I was a bit hasty in my judgement.
The Red Cross works by having a national version of the organisation in each country. Here we have the British Red Cross, but in 31 of the 181 recognised societies around the world, the national body is called the Red Crescent. The Crescent actually dates back to the Russo-Turkish War (1876-1878), when the Ottoman Empire thought that the cross would alienate its Muslim soldiers. In 1877, Russia became the first country to state that they would recognise the Red Crescent as exactly equivalent to the Red Cross. The ICRC declared that non-Muslim countries would be able to adapt the crescent and be entitled to exactly the same protection and neutrality the cross conferred.
At present, the red cross and the red crescent are the only two recognised emblems that ensure that anyone or anything carrying them is protected by international law, as stipulated in the Geneva Conventions. They must be granted free access to areas where people are in need of help.
So the crescent has been around for yonks. I felt less bothered by it, but still somewhat peeved as the whole objection to the cross was a misnomer. The Red Cross was never a Christian organisation, the emblem is simply a reversal of the Swiss flag, which is a white cross on a red back. It was chosen to honour the Swiss founder, Henry Dunant.
However, one country remained stubborn. Israel. And here’s where it all gets sticky.
Many countries have attempted to have their own emblem recognised for use within their borders. The list includes Sri Lanka and India, which both tried to get a red swastika (a Hindu symbol for those that only saw it behind Adolf) approved in the 70s. All these requests were refused as it was (IMO rightly) thought that too many emblems would mean they weren’t recognised and protection would be compromised. So why has a third emblem been brought to the table?
Some Arab states will tell you that it is the ICRC bending over to please Israel. Israel’s national Red Cross equivalent is called the Magen David Adom Society (MDA) and they have refused to either carry the cross or the crescent for decades. They presently use a red Star of David as their logo, which does NOT have international protection. Bear in mind that the MDA, like all ICRC groups, work all over the world. National relief societies are supposed to use either the cross or the crescent outside their borders, which means that MDA using the star in occupied territories is a bit naughty. Arab states have made it quite clear they will never recognise the Star of David.
So the Red Lozenge was put forward. Then it became the Red Diamond and it’s now referred to as the Red Kris-tal, homeboy. This way, the MDA could work with the Palestinian Red Crescent in occupied territories. Surely the world’s most boring and innocuous emblem EVAR, right? MDA said “yo!” Palestine said “yeah okay, we’ll sort something out when it comes to disputed regions”. But Syria said “we need to be involved in the Golan Heights, you infidel punks” so Israel said “Oye ve! We will never work with Syrian bastards!”
All this has thrown a spanner into the negotiations about the Crystal. Masood Khan is the Pakistani ambassador (vroom vroom!) and is trying to unify the 56 countries in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. He wants the Syrian and Israeli national societies to make friends, “can’t everyone just get along?”
However it seems likely it will be pushed through. Countries with mixed religious populations, such as India, may well adopt the neutral (= DULL) emblem. I’m hoping the Russians will too, so we can report “The Russian Red Square has left Moscow and arrived in Iraq”.
Update: The crys-taaaal has been adopted.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs, The World
the red crystal looks terrible! If the ICRC is truly a secular organisation, it must be bold and ditch both the red cross and crescent which will always have religious connotations and have just one easily recognised and elegant symbol the letter X. It is still a (sneaky) tribute to Dunant the founder being somewhat cross like and a warning to all nationalistic/religious trouble makers. Why didn’t anyone ask me?
Rohin
Great piece explaining all about the Red Cross.
Hopefully all those countries will adopt a symbol which doesn’t cause offence.
cheers
Leslie
Good post Rohin.
Hmm, um, give me a red swastika any day! Not recognisable in Asia? Ha! Only for the severely lost. Boy was I in for a shock when I walked into a Buddhist restaurant in China for the first time. One heckuva massive swastika on the wall = real holy vegetarian food, and cheap too. Live ‘n learn.
I dunno. Looking for peaceful respect in a religious war zone, with a cruddy PC crystal symbol? Sounds like bad tactics. Let’s stick with tradition, and just expand it a bit.
Vroom vroom!
Big up Masood Khan. He’s been doing a lot to bring countries together over negotiating the future of the internet too and seems to be quite a diplomat in getting people to sit together when previously they haven’t been. Great things may beckon for him.
As for this business in general, it is sad that the cross has become so politicised, but when you have the Hindu Forum complaining about a bloody Royal Mail stamp – its not really all that surprising. Lol at the Red Swastika. I can see that going down well.
What a dull crystal! Try this
http://www.godunov.com/Bucky/buckyball-1.gif
I’m confused. But if I get injured in a battle head for something with a red symbol on it right.
Why not a red dot? Oh wait they designate liquor stores in South Carolina.
So a five sided star is out what a bout a six sided one.
Or a red heart (nope heart foundation has bagged that)
Hmmm red Kris-tal has to do then.
Really good info.
Rohin,
Actually when i was in Malaysia last year, i happened to see a building in Penang declaring itself to be the headquarters of Red Swastika Society. Lateron i found out that its the Buddhist Equivalent of Red Cross. Queer indeed.
The debate over the symbol shouldnt deflect attention from what the Red Cross/Crescent actually does. What I find remarkable is that despite everyone’s differences during a war, people from both sides still respect the symbol of the cross. It is a powerful symbol of human co-operation.
I have a solution!
The red fish
The only reason the Red Cross should be altered is where in war-zones where jihadist chav terrorists take aim at these aid workers. To change the whole red cross is just pathetic.
Point of information: Although the Red Cross is simply a reversal of the Swiss flag, surely the Swiss flag itself has Christian roots, no?
Can you imagine the gall of these people, spreading their insidious ideologies by – shock! horror! – treating sick people!
By the way, I would like to make it clear that I will formally recognise the legitimacy of anyone with a white and red symbol who comes to attend to my bleeding, wounded body. Cross, Crescent, Star, Lozenge, Love-heat, whatever.
Fuck it, I’d take treatment off a person with a giant red penis on their arm. Which surely makes me more likely to survive than any of my more symbol conscious brothers and sisters.
Lol at the red fish. I like it, though then vegetarians might complain just for the hell of it! Actually…. I’m a vegetarian…. doh!
If someone came to help with a flag of a big red penis. I’d run.
this was really boring .. please dont write stuff like this
why not? i think sunny’s highlighted a good point – there’s plenty of confusion about the red cross red crescent thing.
Vikrant,
point of information: The Red Swastika society is a buddhist charitable foundation that runs schools and hospitals in the far east; it IS NOT the msian equivalent of the Red Cross.
Imagine the Red Swastika hindu/buddhists coming to the aid of Jewish Israelis! Now there’s the casewhere I can think of where a misunderstanding might occur!
If someone came to help with a flag of a big red penis. I’d run.
In any case, I presume the giant red penis idea would cause arguments over whether it was circumcised or not.
A vegan Punjabi Sikh?
Imagine the Red Swastika hindu/buddhists coming to the aid of Jewish Israelis! Now there’s the casewhere I can think of where a misunderstanding might occur!
Another point of information: Am i right in thinking that the original Eastern Swastika has arms that point in a different direction to the Nazi variant? If so, then a wounded Jew can simply check the armbands for clockwise or anti-clockwise swastika, and instantly know whether the skinhead running towards them with a first-aid kit is a Buddhist monk or a neo-Nazi.
This of course doesn’t work if a Red Swastika Ambulance is zooming up behind your car, and you look at the symbol in your rear-view mirror.
I hope this clarifies things.
Robert – that is true. Once it becomes a phallic symbol, then expect everyone to start comparing their dicks (well, people do that anyway).
Vikrant – I never said I was Sikh, and neither am I fully vegan (yet).
Robert the problem is… Hindu swastikas are clockwise.
Bollocks to you alban, who asked your opinion? If you don’t like it, piss off.
Thanks for the shout on Points of Jew Leslie, I like the “rather brilliant” description!
Sonia, look again at who wrote the piece!
Robert the Hindu and Nazi swastikas are identical, other than the Nazi one being rotated 45 degrees. But not mirrored!
Robert (again) the Swiss flag has an unclear background, but yes two of the prevailing theories are that is has Christian origins. However that wasn’t the intended sentiment when the Red Cross was launched!
Exclamation mark!
Hindu and Nazi swastikas are identical, other than the Nazi one being rotated 45 degrees. But not mirrored!
Damn. That means the Hindus medics will just have to run standing up straight whilst running towards Jews. This may of course leave them vulnerable to being hit en route by the giant red penis, but I suppose that’s a risk you take in the roller-coaster world of multicultural war-zone healthcare.
Glad we got that cleared up.
“Hindu swastikas are clockwise”
Indic-buddhist swastikas can be clockwise or not, upright or slanted. it really does not matter. Btw the swastika is found other cultures beside asian, like in native american depictions.
come to think of it, ! is a very expressive symbol for the organisation formerly known as the Red Cross/Crescent.It can be made to look like a drop of blood is dripping off …and i am sure it will aid everyone in a warzone to vocalise some strong feelings. No? Why doesn’t anyone ask me to solve piffling issues like this!!! No damn need for a diplomative offensive by our man Masood, and the expense of a 192-nation meeting!!!
The International RED !
if you are going to accept the red crescent then there are no reasonable grounds for discriminating against other symbols, even if the original cross wasn’t really to symbolise christianity.
the fact is that MDA applied to join the ICRC in 1949 – that’s way before the six-day war, or the occupation, or any of the usual grounds that are brought up to single out israel for condemnations. back then it was the days of the full-blown arab boycott, when the stated position was “no compromise, no recognition”.
the ICRC, for reasons best known to itself (hah!) decided to cosy up to the outraged arabs. as it happened, it also didn’t appreciate it when investigations began to take place into its extensive role in helping nazi fugitives escape to south america. and it’s a swiss organisation – the same country which took all those nazi deposits of assets stolen from holocaust victims and then denied they existed.
hmmmm.
so, all in all, the ICRC has always had a kind of difficult relationship with israel.
it’s nice to see that it can all be sorted out without hysterics half a century later.
not.
b’shalom
bananabrain