Few would argue that historically the International Committee of the Red Cross (“ICRC”) has not achieved some meaningful humanitarian relief efforts, with at most somewhat minimal unacceptable or questionable diversion into politics. How dramatically that recently has changed!

It generally isn’t the ideal to rely upon a study by a partisan political entity. However, the work product of the United States Senate Republican Policy Committee, chaired by the conscientious and objective Senator Jon Kyl, of Arizona, often illustrates the exception to the general rule. The Committee does so in its recent Report, “Are American Interests Being [sic] Disserved by the International Committee of the Red Cross?”

The Report, wisely and accurately, notes that international Red Cross activity has benefited hundreds of thousands of ill-fated people around the world. The Report also observes that ICRC has helped save American lives in World Wars I and II (although the experience, perhaps isolated, of some World War I veterans, including my late father, was far more favorable to the Salvation Army).

More recently ICRC has gotten into politics and into the seething world, and especially European, elitist anti-American chorus. More particularly, ICRC has sought to set itself up as an authority on international law ? that version of international law which purports to offer terrorists and insurgents the rights due military personnel of those sovereignties which are part of the Geneva Convention. As if that diversion from humanitarian relief were inadequate, ICRC now lobbies for various types of arms control ? you bet, control of American arms; and accuses the United States of violations of the Geneva Convention, while seeking to use the Convention to hurt, not help, U. S. prisoners of war.

In fairness and to facilitate clarity, suffice it to say that neither the American, nor probably any other national, Red Cross is consulted about these activities.

Let us turn to a facile, so-what’s-new question. The taxpayers of what country are the largest donors of funds to ICRC? You guessed it: The United States, which, since 1990 alone, has provided some $ 1.5 billion ? yes, billion ? in ICRC funding.

The Report offers specific recommendations as to what Congress should do to investigate and to gear appropriations of American taxpayers’ money to honest humanitarian relief. The procedural recommendations appear realistic but for purposes of this column we need not enumerate or evaluate them. Congress controls the pursestrings. To coin the reverse of President Harry S. Truman’s memorable statement, with a poor pun tossed in, “The buck stops here.” “Here” is the Congress, beginning with the House Appropriations Committee.

 

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author