1. NON-DISCRIMINATION

Commentary

The fundamental idea of non-discrimination among men is expressed in the first sentence of the Proclamation. It had been expressed as follows in 1955: The Red Cross is ready to come to the help of each individual, equally and without any form of discrimination. [1]

At the outset, we shall relate an actual event. At the end of the Second World War, a column of soldiers reconquering their own country came to a small town. The commander of the unit approached the woman in charge of the hospital and told her that he had a number of wounded men to leave at the hospital. She told him that the hospital was already full of enemy wounded. “Put them out then and make room for our own men,” the officer said. “Over my dead body” she replied, and he realized that she really meant it as she stood barring the doorway. For a moment, the officer was nonplussed, and then he realized the truth – that enemies who had been wounded were no longer enemies – and ordered his unit to move on.

This is the principle of non-discrimination, illustrated in this instance in a simple manner with respect to nationality. We shall revert to this example later on.

To define non-discrimination, we shall first have to say what discrimination is. The relatively new and usually pejorative use of the term refers to a distinction or segregation which one makes to the detriment of certain other persons, for the sole reason that they belong to some specific category.

Non-discrimination among men is the greatest of Red Cross principles, after that of humanity, to which it is in any event related. The principle of humanity has its starting point in human suffering. It is this suffering which inspires the charitable action and determines the form it takes. The solicitude of the Red Cross cannot submit to limitations; it extends to all beings whom we recognize as our fellow-men because of the common nature we share with them [2]. In its relations with those in need of assistance, whoever they may be, the Red Cross will show an equal readiness to be of service.

At the very beginning, after the battle of Solferino. Henry Dunant made this appeal with its ultimate connotation: care for the enemy wounded as friends. From its inception, the Red Cross has insisted upon this imperative element of humanity. If it were to be false to this ideal, it would disappear.

From 1864 onwards, non-discrimination found expression in the Geneva Conventions and, later on, in legislation on human rights. It is also a principle of long standing in the field of medical morality and ethics. We shall nevertheless seek it in vain in the Hippocratic oath, as proclaimed by that great physician of antiquity. Hippocrates himself, in fact, refused to go and care for the Persians when they were stricken by a plague, “because they are our enemies,” as he put it. Non-discrimination now stands in a prominent place in the “Geneva Oath” and the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association, adopted in our own century.

This is an aspect of great progress made in modern thought. Today, as Louis Pasteur wrote, We do not ask a suffering man what country he comes from or what his religion is, but say simply that he is in pain, that he is one of our own and that we will give him relief.

After the sorrowful experiences of the Second World War, it was considered necessary to condemn specifically all the other forms of arbitrary discrimination along with that of nationality. Accordingly, the Proclamation forbids discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. One might also have forbidden distinctions based on any other similar criteria as was done in the Geneva Conventions, since it is obvious that the enumeration given above is not limitative but refers only to the most flagrant examples.

In what fields is the Red Cross called upon to fight against discrimination? In all the fields of concern to it and first of all so far as its material action is concerned, in the giving of care and distribution of relief. Then – and this is above all the mission of the ICRC – when it demands that authorities accord the same humane treatment to all victims. Lastly – and we refer here to the National Societies, as will be discussed further with regard to the principle of unity – membership must be available to everyone who wishes to become a member. In this latter case, we are referring to an organic principle and are no longer in the domain of objectives, but in that of means.

We have said that this requirement is absolute. However, in exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to make a choice; for instance, when a doctor or nurse, for want of medicines in sufficient quantities, is only in a position to cure a certain number of patients in his care. This is frequently a tragedy for the Red Cross, comparable to that of a raft which will sink if any more castaways cling to it. Can one, in all conscience, use an oar and rap the knuckles of human beings, children perhaps, whose misfortune it is to have not arrived first? I know of several cases where doctors have only treated the sick, wounded or starving who still had a chance of survival, leaving those for whom there was no longer any hope to die. All this represents a matter of conscience, as it is called, because the decision must be left to the individual responsible, who will reach it after deep reflection and carefully weighing the pros and cons.

In such extreme cases as those mentioned above, the doctor or Red Cross worker must make choices on the basis of the social and human attitudes prevailing in the community to which he belongs. He may, for example, give priority to those who have family responsibilities rather than to those who do not; to the young instead of to the old; to women instead of men. It may also be left to chance. If he allows himself to be guided by personal reasons, so long as they are exempt from self-interest, who has the right to reproach him? Who, after all, can claim to hold the scales of perfect justice?

Philosophical considerations

Those who want to go more deeply into this question will have to ask themselves why and how it ever came about, in this world of ours, that recognition should have been given to this principle of non-discrimination, or, if you prefer, to the principle of equality of rights among men.

All things which are equal in some of their aspects are at the same time unequal in other aspects, even if this is for no other reason than that they are in different places. What is true for objects is true as well for men: they are both equal and unequal, depending upon what aspect we are considering. In the field of rights. one looks at man in terms of equality; in the field of need and assistance, in terms of inequality. When discrimination occurs. it is invariably due to reasons unrelated to the specific case before us, and because we do not see, in this particular case. anything but the elements which display inequality between men, in a field where it is equality which should prevail.

Under the present heading, we shall examine the problem of equality. If we have been brought to the point of recognizing the equality of rights among men, this is primarily for reasons of practicality. We certainly know very well that in this world men are not equal. Some are tall. others short; some are intelligent. and others less so – and we could find an abundance of other examples. It is obvious indeed that men differ in their physical, intellectual and moral qualities.

By applying equality of treatment to them, we would be following a mathematical rule, but not a rule of equity and even less one of humanity. Equality in treatment would be right only if it involved identical people, under exactly comparable circumstances, something that never happens.

The ideal thing would be to give to each individual not the same thing but that which is appropriate to him personally because of his nature and particular situation. Such a manner of distribution is not impossible when we are concerned with a small number of persons, but it is not practical in terms of the whole community. For one thing, the individual cases, which are inevitably complex, are then so numerous that we would soon be totally lost. In addition, we would be committing ourselves to subjective evaluation, with all its great risks of partiality and error. When the state concerns itself with establishing the abstract rights of its citizens, differentiation among them in this respect is simply impossible.

This is why society has taken as a fundamental postulate the equality of rights between men. In the final analysis, this idea is the most convenient one for regulating relations between individuals. It does not seriously harm anyone and although it does not attain the highest level of justice, it does nevertheless provide a certain degree of justice. It is certainly not without value because, as one thinker has expressed it, This has made it possible for the world of masters and the world of servants to come together and constitute a single and undivided humanity [3].

2. PROPORTIONALITY

Commentary

The principle of proportionality, which we might also speak of as the principle of equity, is expressed in the second sentence, under this heading in the Proclamation: It endeavours only to relieve suffering, giving priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

This phrasing is not perfect. It would have been clearer if it read, It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals in proportion to the degree of their suffering and to give priority according to the degree of urgency. This principle was formulated in a more technical and precise manner in 1955: The help available shall be apportioned according to the relative importance of individual needs and in their order of urgency [4].

This idea also found its place in the Geneva Conventions. The 1949 version forbids any “adverse” distinction. Thus, women are to be treated with the particular respect due to them. In like manner, it is normal to give special attention to children and old people. It is also understood that better conditions with regard to quarters or to clothing should be provided for captives accustomed to a tropical climate.

Along with quantitative inequality in treatment, the Conventions also provide for inequality in terms of time. We find, for example, that only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered. Accordingly, when medical personnel have to deal with a massive influx of wounded, they will begin by treating those for whom a delay would be fatal, or at least injurious, dealing afterwards with those whose condition does not require immediate intervention. In the same way, Red Cross representatives responsible for distribution of food or medicine will meet the most urgent needs first.

At this point, let us revert to the anecdote referred to earlier under “non-discrimination”, in which the nurse refused to accept her wounded countrymen because her hospital was filled with enemy wounded. The condition of all the men in the hospital was no doubt serious because, otherwise, a more flexible solution could have been found, giving priority to the most seriously wounded of both sides – those for whom immediate hospitalization or a surgical operation was necessary – and sending those with slight wounds of both nationalities, and who could be transported without risk, to the next town.

The principles of humanity and non-discrimination call for giving complete and immediate relief to all men. In real life, unfortunately, resources are generally insufficient to relieve all suffering at once. Accordingly, there must be some standard to apply in distribution. There is such a standard: for equal suffering, equal assistance; for unequal suffering, assistance in proportion to the extent of suffering, taking into account the urgency of the various cases. For the Red Cross, there are proper and even obligatory distinctions that may be made – specifically, those which are based upon degrees of need.

Proportionality is one of the essential principles of Red Cross action, even though it took a long time to arrive at it. One of the leaders of a National Society had however already understood the point when he wrote, in 1946, “There is only one rule for the Red Cross: the greatest help to the greatest need” [5].

It would be unjust to offer the same assistance to those with differing degrees of need. This after all is just common sense. Let us take a simple example. After a picnic, you have two pieces of bread left. You meet two travellers, one of whom has just eaten and is not hungry, while the other has had nothing to eat all day long. What do you do – give one piece of bread to each of them? Of course not, you obviously give both pieces of bread to the one whose stomach is empty, to the one who is suffering.

Red Cross practice

The principle of proportionality, though it would seem self-evident, is nevertheless difficult to apply fully in real life, where it encounters numerous obstacles.

Let us take some real examples from the Red Cross world. During the Second World War, the ICRC transported and distributed in prisoner-of-war camps of certain countries vast quantities of relief packages it received from the countries of origin of the prisoners. It accepted this task since it was a good thing for at least part of the victims to receive assistance. There were also however many prisoners who received nothing at all, because their countries were powerless to act. The ICRC then tried to arrange for some of the packages addressed to the more fortunate prisoners to be delivered to those in greatest need. The donors sometimes agreed to this, but doing so was nevertheless exceptional and affected only a small proportion of the total shipments.

We should also note that the National Red Cross Societies, during the same conflict, sent packages almost exclusively to their own countrymen detained by the enemy. They seldom thought of providing relief to prisoners of enemy nationality interned on their own territory, even though this would have been easier to do in material terms. It would indeed have conformed very well with the spirit of the Red Cross to have given help to captives of enemy nationality.

The National Societies know very well how difficult it is to collect money for the benefit of victims outside their own frontiers. They commonly encounter the objection, “Take care of our own people first, and the foreigners later,” for this form of national egoism is very widespread. Furthermore, when the National Society is able to purchase relief commodities, they are told they must favour local merchants, on the argument that money coming from the country should be spent in the country even if the products cost twice as much as they would elsewhere.

Another problem results from the fact that when neutrals help the people of a country at war they want to do so on the basis of this or that feeling of personal affinity, whether of a sentimental or practical nature. So it is that people of a given profession are ready to help others of the same profession; young people to help other young people; a political party those who sympathize with it; the followers of a religion, people of the same faith. This is only human. As in the case of assistance within a family, each one takes care of those who depend upon him, or those for whom he feels responsibilities, leaving it to others to act in the same way with regard to other groups.

In like manner, help is given more readily and more generously to inhabitants of nearby regions if, for example, they are victims of a disaster. This results from the fact that man is naturally inclined to be moved only by the kind of suffering he can see and touch, for this is what arouses his pity and his sense of solidarity. Without the magnifying glass of imagination, charity tends to be short-sighted. This is like a law in physics: aid given by the public is in inverse proportion to the square of the distance. Consequently, in a poor continent, there are only the poor to help those who are still more poor; in a rich region, there are only the rich to help those who are less rich [6].

As an example let us consider the magnificent display of solidarity which followed the catastrophe in Frejus, a little town in the south of France virtually destroyed by the collapse of a dam. The sum received was enormous, some millions of francs, for the two or three thousand victims for whom new homes were built. Very good, but at the same time an ICRC delegate returned from the Far East with a report on the misery suffered by hundreds of thousands of displaced persons. An appeal was launched on their behalf at the same time as the appeal for the Frejus victims – but only a ridiculously small amount was collected.

Even if everyone were to concern himself with helping his neighbour, there are unhappily people who have no true neighbours, people with whom no one is concerned. That is one of the things the Red Cross exists for! It acts to restore the balance, seeking donations for those who otherwise receive nothing. It is the Red Cross which says to those in misery: we love you because no one loves you, we love you because there are those who hate you.

It is therefore important for the public to give its confidence to the Red Cross and support it regularly, without specifying a particular allocation of its donations, allowing it to make distributions based upon needs alone, which it is in a position to know and compare. Unfortunately, however, the public gives only “when the iron is hot” and it is impelled to act by the power of its emotion.

We must therefore provide more and better information, as indicated in the very early days of the Red Cross by Madame de Gasparin, a great humanitarian figure, who wrote: In the past, news moved at a very deliberate rate; what happened at the other end of the world reached us only a year later. If blood had been spilled, the earth had long since absorbed it; if tears had been shed, the sun had had time to dry them. Pain which did not cry out within earshot left our hearts unmoved. Gustave Moynier, one of the founders of the Red Cross, had this to say, In our time, we find out every day what is happening everywhere in the world... time no longer intervenes to dull our impression... The description, provided by the daily newspapers... in a sense places before the very eyes of the reader the men dying on the battlefields, and he can hear with his own ears, along with cheering over a victory, the groans of the poor mutilated victims in the ambulances.

These striking comments are even more true today, a century later, when the world has “shrunk” so much through the rapidity of transport, telecommunications and information by radio and television. The result is that our “neighbours” may now be “far away”; multitudes of people, suffering, everywhere in the world.

We have to regard this as a great improvement for the distressed, first of all because it means that we shall all know more quickly and better about the suffering of people – and secondly because help can reach them more quickly. Above all, it means that the more fortunate people, those who are well off and have full stomachs, can no longer avoid knowing about those in distress – for these will haunt them and bring such shame upon them that it will be unendurable, to such a point that they will finally have to open their wallets in order to be able to sleep in peace.

Better information is also attended by a certain degree of danger however, the danger of saturating the public’s mind and dulling its sensitivity – in a sense “vaccinating” it against appeals to its generosity.

Other circumstances may lead to establish some nuances in the principle of proportionality. Let us take an example from everyday life. Let us suppose you come out of your apartment and find two beggars outside the door. If you are in a hurry, you give each of them the same amount. But, if you have time to stop and look at the two men you can see that one of them is old, and you decide that he should have more. But, even though the other one is young, he has only one arm. Isn’t he more deserving of your pity? If you have more time, time enough to listen to them, you discover that the older man is a refugee, that he is all alone in the world – but that the younger one has children to care for. We could multiply to infinity the number of reasons for favouring one or the other. To give equally to each of them is a good deed, though falling short of a more attentive, more appropriate assistance. Making distinctions in relieving suffering is a hard thing to do, calling for a great deal of effort, time and, let us say it, a great deal of love.

While an individual making an effort to be fair will enter into the details of individual cases – so long as there are not too many of them – it is impossible for an institution to do this in rendering collective assistance, especially when it is an international operation, for it simply does not have the time nor the personnel that would be needed to do so.

If we have only a single dose of serum for two sick people, we do not divide it between them, for neither would be cured. However painful, we would have to make a choice, to give to one or the other. In the same way, speaking more generally, it is not always either possible or desirable to divide relief supplies endlessly. To be effective, relief must often be given completely, and over a period of time. It is better then to carry out a charitable action fully, for a limited group of people, than to spread limited resources over a great number of places, none of which will receive enough.

Here we touch upon a truth referred to in the introduction, the fact that the principles have a theoretical character. In practice, we cannot always take them literally. But, although their value may be relative, it is nevertheless very great, for it shows the ideal that we must continue to approach.

Philosophical considerations

Under the previous heading, we raised the philosophical problem of equality and inequality among men by discussing their equality. We shall now take up the other aspect, that of inequality.

Ever since the end of the 18th century, it has been recognized that the wealth of the world should not serve to benefit only a handful of privileged people. It came to be recognized as well that suffering, poverty, disease and ignorance need not be the inevitable lot of the great mass of individuals. This gave rise to the demand for everyone to have a share in the common heritage, a place in the sun, his share of happiness.

It was also understood that an effort to create complete equality among men would be nonsensical, in view of the multitude of differences between them; that it would be absurd to think that everyone could have everything and live in an earthly paradise. The quest was therefore undertaken for a reasonable compromise, one which would offer everyone a minimum of benefits, to the extent that what each one demanded for himself he would be prepared to recognize as the right of others. It is in these terms that we refer to equality of treatment or the vital minimum of human requirements.

Yet men have fundamentally different needs, either because of their own individual natures or because the events of their lives have broken up the equality among them. Equity will tend to restore the balance. To bring men back to the level of equality means to attend with the utmost efficacy and at the outset to the needs of those who are most deprived, that is, to allocate assistance in proportion to the distress. Thus, we can only remedy an inequality in the situation by means of an inequality in the providing of benefits.

Let us take an example completely outside the Red Cross world, that of public taxation. There was a time when only the poor paid taxes. This crying injustice was indeed a major source of the revolutionary movements at the end of the 18th century. Does equity require then that everyone should pay the same amount in taxes? Certainly not, for there has been universal acceptance of the principle of proportionality. Thus, everyone pays taxes in proportion to what he earns and to what he owns. Going even beyond this, a system of progression is now applied, whereby the rich contribute more than a proportional share to the revenue of the State, on the ground that the more a person’s resources exceed the vital minimum, the more surplus he has and the more heavily he can be taxed. In this instance we have taken into account a just reason based on economic considerations.

The principle of non-discrimination previously discussed cannot be considered in an absolute sense, for corrective factors must be applied to it. There are distinctions which it is legitimate and even necessary to make. In the field which now concerns us, these distinctions are founded upon varying degrees of suffering, on needs and natural weaknesses – and on these alone. Accordingly, distinctions will be made in favour of some individuals in order to prevent or overcome inequalities resulting from these factors. This is why the Red Cross, not contenting itself with being equalitarian, works actively towards equalization.

3. IMPARTIALITY

Commentary

While it was not particularly appropriate to have classified the principles of non-discrimination and of proportionality under the same heading, it was incorrect to have given this heading the designation of Impartiality, for this is a personal quality of an individual called upon to make a judgment or choice, or for “the man from the Red Cross” to distribute relief or give care. Impartiality, correctly construed, manifests itself in applying established rules, recognized as valid, without taking sides, either for reasons of interest or sympathy. For the Red Cross, these rules are, specifically, the three principles we have already considered – humanity, non-discrimination and proportionality – constituting the substantive principles.

With impartiality, we enter into another series of three principles, in which we shall also find neutrality and independence, which we have designated as derivative principles, whose purpose is to assure the Red Cross of the confidence of all parties, which is indispensible to it. Here we are no longer in the field of objectives but rather in that of was and means.

The Proclamation repeated the error which the Red Cross had made even in its early days of confusing impartiality with non-discrimination among men. In doing so, it took for the principle itself the manner of applying it. Non-discrimination is the outcome of the idea of equality among men, which in turn results from philosophical considerations on the nature of the human species. It is concerned with the very object of the action, men who are suffering. Impartiality, in contrast, is a quality required of the agents whose responsibility it is to act for the benefit of those who are suffering. If they do not observe this impartiality, they violate the trust accorded to them.

One might also say that the principle of non-discrimination discounts the objective distinctions between individuals. The principle of impartiality sets aside the subjective distinctions. To provide examples: if a charitable organization withholds its assistance from a specific category of individuals (let us say for reasons of race for instance), it is violating the principle of non-discrimination. On the other hand, if one of its representatives discriminates in favour of one of his friends against other persons, or discriminates against someone whom he dislikes, he is violating the principle of impartiality.

It is indeed a certainty that once the principle of non-discrimination has been postulated and accepted, the principle of impartiality, in itself, no longer has the same importance. This does not imply however that we should renounce giving specific expression to it, for partiality is not above-board, but underhand. Impartiality does in fact correspond to the very ideal of the Red Cross, which bars it from excluding anyone from its humanitarian concern.

The authors of the Proclamation did not preserve the idea of impartiality as a principle in its own right, or at least they considered that it was already provided for. In 1955, it had read as follows, The Red Cross will act without favour or prejudice towards or against anyone [7]. One might say, perhaps with greater exactitude, “Agents of the Red Cross will act...”.

In defining impartiality, it is essential to revert to the word “partial” from which it originates. Partial means taking sides for or against something on the basis either of prejudice or of personal preference. We encounter both of these elements in the contrary word “impartial”, but the negation applies only to the motivation. Thus we cannot say someone who does not act is impartial – for this would be confusing impartiality with neutrality – but we can say that he is impartial who, in taking action, does so without prejudice.

Impartiality presupposes that a man called upon to take action has sufficient freedom. This freedom has a double nature, on the one hand it is freedom vis-à-vis himself and on the other, freedom vis-à-vis the outside world. In the latter sense, freedom refers to independence, which we shall discuss in another chapter. Interior freedom is perhaps even more difficult to achieve than freedom from external influences, since passion, psychic complexes and preconceived ideas influence human behaviour and, what is especially serious, do so mostly when we are unaware of the fact. Emphasizing the difficulty of impartiality, Goethe wrote in his Aphorisms, I can promise to be sincere, but not to be impartial.

Impartiality requires a precise, complete and objective examination of the problems facing us and an exact assessment of the values entailed. It calls for a sustained effort to “depersonalize” the charitable action – and will sometimes be the fruit of victory in a hard-fought struggle within oneself.

The risk of partiality is present above all in cases of civil war, internal disorders or political tensions. In such conflicts, one knows one’s adversaries only too well and one has personal reasons for detesting them. This is so true that as late as 1912 an International Red Cross Conference refused to discuss the problem of assistance to the victims of civil wars, after one of the delegates had remarked that “The Red Cross can certainly have no duties to perform with respect to insurgents, who cannot be regarded as anything but criminals”. Since then, fortunately, the International Red Cross Conferences have arrived at a healthier and wiser conception of the institution’s principles.

Within the borders of its country, a National Red Cross Society gives its assistance to all who suffer. Guilty persons themselves are not excluded from this assistance if they have need of it, a fact which has sometimes not been well understood. The Red Cross does not however interfere in any way with the administration of justice; its action does not run counter to the essential right of a state to suppress violations of its laws. What the Red Cross does demand is that each person shall be humanely treated; if the individual is guilty, he will be sentenced by the courts, but he must have the benefit of decent treatment and receive the care required to maintain his health.

To conclude this section, we shall relate one of a thousand possible real-life anecdotes which dramatically illustrates that the Red Cross ideal, even in the most complex and contradictory situations, can prevail against all odds. In a country ravaged by civil war, the chief prosecutor had arrested one of the leaders of the revolution. In reprisal, the revolutionary movement set a price on the head of the chief prosecutor. The Red Cross Society in this country received an appeal for help – to go and pick up a seriously wounded person in the fighting zone. The Society did not hesitate, but immediately despatched an ambulance to the spot and saved the life of the wounded man. Who was the wounded man? He was the son of the revolutionary leader who had been arrested. Who was driving the ambulance? It was the wife of the chief prosecutor, who had ordered the arrest of the young man’s father. Omnia vincit amor [8].

Notes

1. J. Pictet: Red Cross Principles.

2. The activities of National Societies are of course mainly carried out within the borders of their own countries. No one would expect to have these Societies disperse their resources throughout the world, as we shall see under the subject of universality.

3. Jean-G. Lossier: Les civilisations et le service du prochain, Paris, 1958, p. 224.

4. J. Pictet: Red Cross Principles.

5. Sir John Kennedy, Executive Vice-President of the British Red Cross.

6. As we shall see, the development of modern means of information has had the effect of making of geographical distance a less important factor than it used to be.

7. J. Pictet: Red Cross Principles.

8. Love conquers all (Virgil).