|
|
|
Press Releases
Another
International Institution That Has Lost its Way?
> By Jon Kyl
>
> As Congress scrutinizes the financing and operations of the United
Nations, we have also found an unfortunate need to focus on other
multilateral institutions that receive significant funding from the
American taxpayer. One such organization is the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC).
>
> Since its founding in Switzerland in 1863, the ICRC has provided vital
and laudable emergency relief to the victims of war and natural disasters
around the world, operating under its > "> Seven Fundamental Principles>
"> : humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service,
unity, and universality. But in recent years, it has moved to broaden its
non-emergency relief portfolio, engaging in a level of political activism
that appears to contradict its foundational mission of being a neutral and
impartial organization. In some cases, actions and statements by ICRC
leaders have been directly in opposition to, and even attacked, the
interests of the United States.
>
> Specifically, the ICRC has engaged in efforts, among others, to:
>
> * Lobby on arms control issues;
> * Reinterpret and expand international law so as to afford terrorists
and insurgents the same rights and privileges as military personnel of
states that are party to the Geneva Conventions; and
> * Inaccurately and unfairly accuse the United States of not adhering to
the Geneva Conventions, even while demonstrating a reluctance to pursue
those same protections for American prisoners of war.
>
> It> '> s important to make clear here that the American Red Cross (ARC)
and the ICRC
> are not one and the same - in fact, they operate completely separately.
The ARC is not in any way involved in the ICRC> '> s policy decisions or
statements.
>
> Even so, this trend at the international level is more than worrisome.
The ICRC helped save American lives in two world wars and has played a
vital role in conflicts around the globe as a neutral arbiter. But under
its current leadership, the organization appears to have lost its way by
deviating from its core principles. In doing so, it risks forfeiting its
hard-earned credibility and moral authority.
>
> Like Amnesty International, which recently diminished its credibility
by allowing one of its leaders to compare our terrorist holding center at
Guantanamo Bay to a Soviet Gulag, the ICRC> '> s political forays have
done significant damage to the international perception of America> '> s
defense and foreign policy. This is particularly troubling given that the
United States government has remained the ICRC> '> s single largest
contributor since its founding; to the tune of $233 million in 2003 alone.
>
> How this happen? In recent years, the ICRC has undergone a significant
and accelerating change, leaning more in the direction of the liberal and
frequently anti-American international nongovernmental organization
community. According to analysts Lee A. Casey and David Rivkin, Jr., the
ICRC made > "> no discernible effort> "> to improve the plight of
America> '> s POWs from the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq wars, despite
pressure from the U.S. government and POW families. The ICRC has also
conspicuously failed to criticize the North Vietnamese, North Korean, and
Baathist Iraqi governments for their torture, killings, and other abuses
of U.S. POWs.
>
> Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger criticized the ICRC in the
report of the independent review commission he chaired on prison problems
in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, stating flatly that the ICRC> '> s legal and
policy positions were fundamentally wrong. In particular, the report
condemned the ICRC> '> s insistence that the same Geneva Conventions
protections afforded uniformed soldiers in military conflict be granted to
terrorists who do not wear uniforms and indiscriminately target
civilians. Shortly afterward, the > Wall Street Journal quoted an ICRC
official on a visit to a U.S.-run Iraqi prison telling U.S. authorities
that > "> you people are no better than and no different than the Nazi
concentration camp guards> "> after she was denied immediate access to
the prison - for personal safety reasons, because it had just experienced
a riot.
>
> As frustrating as such incidents are, the bigger problem is that we need
a truly impartial and independent ICRC to tell the world the truth about
the way America operates - that abuses are aberrations, that our soldiers
go to extraordinary lengths to protect civilians, and that our foreign
policy rests on the principle that all people deserve to be treated with
dignity and respect. There> '> s no other organization in a position to
play that role; without it, many foreign populations are pre-disposed to
believe the worst about us. It> '> s in everyone> '> s interest that the
ICRC return to its core mission, because that mission is indispensable,
and there> '> s no one else out there in a position to fulfill it.
>
> Sen. Kyl serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees and
chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
|
|
l
|