A new International Committee of the Red Cross?

Abstract

The International Committee of the Red Cross has instituted a number of changes that seem to transform this old and widely respected organization. These changes involve an expanded role, a fuller relationship with for-profit corporations, a search for new partners beyond the business world, a willingness to use standards in addition to international humanitarian law, and new management practices for a larger agency with different personnel. This article reviews the nature of the changes and evaluates whether they are well considered. The conclusion argues: there is indeed much change at the ICRC, complete evaluation will take time, and particular attention should be paid to two issues: the ICRC’s president being on the governing board of the World Economic Forum, and whether a humanitarian organization should urge others to make money in responding to disasters.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to several persons who gave comments on early drafts but who insist on remaining anonymous, as well as to reviewers for the journal. This analysis is based on two rounds of confidential interviews as off-the-record background information in Geneva during December 2017 and 2015, in addition to the listed reference sources.

Notes

1 I use the abbreviation RC so as not to prioritize Red Cross over Red Crescent and so as to avoid writing out each time “Red Cross and Red Crescent.”

2 On the eve of Davos 2018, the founder of the highly successful investment firm Blackrock circulated a letter to major CEOs urging them to take account not just of the need for a business strategy but also of the need to evaluate the social impact of their business (Turner 2018). At Davos there was much talk about social capitalism or socially responsible capitalism. Clearly the ICRC is trying to link to this discourse.

3 The author possesses a copy of the survey and a summary of the responses.

4 In 1968, a review of ICRC operations was organized and led by staff, such as delegates and their immediate superiors in the field. This initiative was supported but not controlled by the leadership at headquarters, those leaders lacking the requisite specific knowledge of activities. Today, given modern communications and other changes, the president and the director-general and his Directorate have a much better understanding of distant fieldwork, leading to more management decisions by headquarters (Modoux 2018).

5 In any language, the use of the world “politics” or “political” is imprecise, used in different ways with different meanings. Indeed, the struggle of trying to create humanitarian space and elevate the notion of humanitarian protection in the calculations of states, corporations, and armed militias can be said to be a type of humanitarian politics (Forsythe 1977). In its own way the ICRC lobbies at diplomatic conferences, at RC meetings, and at Davos. Lobbying is a type of politics.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David P. Forsythe

David P. Forsythe is Emeritus University Professor, and Charles J. Mach Distinguished Professor in Political Science, at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. He originated there the Forsythe Family Program in Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs.