The innovation introduced by Dunant was to keep humanitarian activities separate from the vicissitudes of the battlefield by granting the protection of a neutral status, recognized by both sides, to all those who care for the wounded.
This concept represented a departure from standard practice. Until then the organization of care had been entrusted to national medical services, and the application of the term “neutral” to the latter initially met with strong reservations.
Much more was involved, however, than organizing a system for medical care, for Dunant advocated that assistance, determined solely by the suffering of those in need, be given without discrimination. This meant refraining from judging their previous actions and, if necessary, showing the same concern for both tormentors and victims.
The credit for this pioneering concept indisputably goes to Dunant. In the grim wars of the nineteenth century, exacerbated by the growing resources available to the armies of Europe, it was a bold venture.
With no religious motivation, political philosophy or ideology to lend it support, expounded, moreover, by a single man and later by a small committee of five outstanding citizens of Geneva, Dunant’s idea came up against the crushing weight of age-old traditions and the temptation for observers to step out of their assigned role and denounce the appalling scenes they witnessed in terms of good and evil.
Even when the generous nature of Dunant’s proposals was taken into account, objections were rife.
International Review of the Red Cross (IRRC)
Humanitarian Debate: Law, policy, action
History of humanitarian ideas
The historical foundations of humanitarian action
by Dr Jean Guillermand
PART II
https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0020860400078359a.pdf
Humanism and philosophical thought
In addition to the religious motivation, another equally old tradition can be said to have played a part in the emergence of the Red Cross Movement. This involved the perception, by the sole means of human intelligence, of an ideal concept of goodness separate from, and in some cases even opposed to, the consideration of a person’s immediate interests.
This idea rarely finds expression in the oldest iconographical and written sources of remote Antiquity, which on the contrary exalt the triumph of brute force in the conduct of human affairs. In this respect, Assyrian methods of warfare and their treatment of the vanquished reached a pinnacle of barbarity which was not, however, confined to ancient history.
…
Beyond doctrines
Although these religious and philosophical doctrines undoubtedly have their own merits as rules of social conduct, the spirit embodied for over a century in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is based on entirely different principles.
While the Movement’s inception may undeniably be traced to the shock experienced by Henry Dunant at the Battle of Solferino on 24 June 1859, others before him had been equally horrified by the sight of suffering on the battlefield, particularly during the Crimean War. Although this had led to campaigns to increase the means available to army medical services, economic constraints and the weight of traditional institutional structures had limited the scope of the hoped-for improvements, as was eloquently demonstrated by the plight of the wounded at Solferino.
The innovation introduced by Dunant was to keep humanitarian activities separate from the vicissitudes of the battlefield by granting the protection of a neutral status, recognized by both sides, to all those who care for the wounded.
This concept represented a departure from standard practice. Until then the organization of care had been entrusted to national medical services, and the application of the term “neutral” to the latter initially met with strong reservations.
Much more was involved, however, than organizing a system for medical care, for Dunant advocated that assistance, determined solely by the suffering of those in need, be given without discrimination. This meant refraining from judging their previous actions and, if necessary, showing the same concern for both tormentors and victims.
The credit for this pioneering concept indisputably goes to Dunant. In the grim wars of the nineteenth century, exacerbated by the growing resources available to the armies of Europe, it was a bold venture.
With no religious motivation, political philosophy or ideology to lend it support, expounded, moreover, by a single man and later by a small committee of five outstanding citizens of Geneva, Dunant’s idea came up against the crushing weight of age-old traditions and the temptation for observers to step out of their assigned role and denounce the appalling scenes they witnessed in terms of good and evil.
Even when the generous nature of Dunant’s proposals was taken into account, objections were rife.
The first concerned the perilous issue of assisting the enemy in wartime. In the eyes of one’s fellow countrymen such assistance to a declared foe, however impartially it was carried out, might seem like treason. Although benevolence is in itself a weapon — an invincible one according to Marcus Aurelius — and violence sometimes produces effects counter to the desired end, such arguments appear weak indeed when viewed strictly in terms of efficiency.
Another serious criticism was directed at the principle of remaining uninvolved in armed conflicts and refusing to condemn men simply because they were enemies, an attitude which could apparently be seen as a form of cowardice.
This point of view was bluntly echoed in The Bridge on the River Kwai. When Colonel Saito, a caricaturally portrayed Japanese officer, is presented with the Geneva Convention, he calls it a “code of cowards” and extols the Yamato (the Japanese code of warfare), thus expressing a similar opinion to that of Clausewitz on the logic of war.
Appearances notwithstanding, accusations of cowardice were just as unfounded as the first objection. It sometimes requires courage at least equal to that of a combatant to overcome one’s natural impulse and respond to evil with good, risking one’s life in the process.
Today, when people feel a sentimental attachment, as a matter of principle, to fundamental rights, to refrain from judging situations that give rise to violations of those rights in itself causes surprise and even indignation. Such an attitude may even be mistaken for a form of complacency towards the very people responsible for the suffering which required humanitarian relief.
In the first place, however, the assertion that suspension of judgement constitutes approval may be refuted on purely logical grounds since the reasoning behind it is clearly syllogistic in nature.
But above all, the suspension of all value judgement is a necessary prerequisite for ensuring that non-discriminatory assistance is efficient, and accepted in the first place. In many circumstances it is the only way to gain access to victims and bring them the aid they are waiting for. Such a possibility would be irreversibly compromised if it were accompanied by attempts to interfere in the workings of flawed systems which, by their very nature, are always open to criticism.
This condition is doubtlessly the most difficult for ideologists of any kind to accept. Non-discriminatory assistance obviously does not claim to reform the world or transform society. Its only aim is to gain access to suffering people and offer them as much help as possible.
In view of this — and whereas more spectacular attitudes may have greater public appeal — the lasting response which Dunant’s plea continues to arouse in spite of national sensitivities and self-interest is both surprising and heartening to observe.
The ground was certainly favourable. There is little doubt that it had been prepared by nineteen centuries of Christianity and two centuries of philosophical renewal and that, even at an unconscious level, these influences played a role. Yet the response was just as strong in other parts of the world with different cultural backgrounds.
The Movement’s universal appeal raises a problem in itself. Those who hold the most optimistic views on human nature will explain it by the fact that a religious conscience and philosophical awareness are innate in all mankind, even where they find no collective expression in Churches and schools of thought.
Others will refer to the progress of civilization, based on an accumulated store of experience and ideas; and others still will see in the mounting confusion in the world the basic cause of a positive reaction. Whatever the explanation may be, the movement set in motion by Dunant definitely calls upon the best in human nature.
At present there is no reason to believe that its end is in sight. In troubled times, when people of good will are pressured to commit themselves to conflicting causes and history proves that even the best intentions may be led astray, the certainty of acting for the good of others continues to exert a powerful attraction.”This is why it is so urgent to ensure that the Movement remains true to its spirit and maintains the pureness of purpose that its founder wanted it to have.
(sk)
小説や映画の『The Bridge on the River Kwai』のなかに、ニコルソン大佐が「ジュネーブ協定に反する」と言うと、斉藤大佐は「そんなものは臆病者の規範だ。武士道の規範を知らないのか」と言い返す場面がある。でもそれは、フィクションでしかない。斉藤大佐などという人は実在しなかった。
その物語のなかのフィクションを文章のなかに持ってきて、斉藤大佐をクラウゼヴィッツの戦争論の論理と同じ考えを持つ人だというのは、少し無理がある。まあ、それほど、『The Bridge on the River Kwai』の影響は大きかったということだろう。
日本軍の軍人のイメージが、ICRCの精神に反する人たちというような固定観念で塗り固められているのは、なんとも悲しい気がする。