Why neutrality matters for humanity

In Derna, Libya, people now associate rain with death. The double-dam collapse just above their city last September came after days of downpours. The inland tsunami it unleashed washed away thousands of lives.

Shortly afterwards, Ali Gharor, the Libyan Red Crescent’s mental health and support officer, described the desperate psychosocial needs of survivors. Children were screaming during their sleep, many started sleepwalking. Gharor worried particularly for his volunteer colleagues:

Our customs and traditions are preventing some of them from showing weakness, but it is necessary to let grief take its time.

What Ali Gharor did not describe, nor try to, was who was to blame. Nor, in interviews, did he mention Libya’s conflict. Gharor described what he saw, what people needed and how he and his colleagues could help. Post-mortems and analysis were for others.

Why? Because of a fierce adherence to neutrality. It’s not a glib slogan or a badge to be worn and then forgotten. It’s fundamental to those in our International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) network.

But neutrality can also be controversial. I want to address that head-on by laying out what neutrality is and what it is not.

What neutrality is…

For those in the Red Cross and Red Crescent network, neutrality means dealing with consequences, not assigning blame.

That’s true for the impacts of climate change. It’s true for epidemics. It’s true for dangerous migration journeys.

It’s true, especially, for conflict and war.

When events happen, others can point fingers.

That’s not for us.

For those in our network, what matters most is what we can do. It’s ‘Where can we have the most impact and help people?’ – now. Our driving principle is to keep our collective humanity alive. Regardless of events, regardless of blame, regardless of chances of potential – or ephemeral – solutions, our staff and volunteers help based on need – now.

Neutrality means we have hundreds of members working as Magen David Adom volunteers and staff in Israel, as well as hundreds of others with the Palestine Red Crescent in the West Bank and Gaza. It means there’s no contradiction in having different member National Societies helping those injured and traumatised in Ukraine and those injured and traumatised in Russia. It means we can have active and strong Red Cross Societies in both Koreas. Our members work to deal with the consequences of climate change in countries least responsible for it, as well as with those whose carbon footprints are the heaviest. Our members aboard the Ocean Viking ship rescue and care for migrants they encounter on the Mediterranean Sea, but do not involve themselves in the politics that puts them there.

Of course, a lot of our work – particularly the more high-profile – is at collision points between rival politics and political ideologies. That means we constantly walk a tightrope. Neutrality isn’t easy and people who are explicitly non-neutral will often interpret a position different to their own as, by definition, opposed to theirs or ‘on the other side’.

…and what neutrality is not

But let’s be clearer still about what neutrality is not. It is not, in our context, the creation of thought-free, unopinionated clones. Through our network of 191 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, we have more than 16 million staff members and volunteers. They have different nationalities, different religions, different perspectives, different views. They do not all think the same, nor act the same. Nor do we expect them to. What we do expect is that individual positions are private, not public, and are set aside in the context of each individual’s humanitarian work.

Over the last year, I’ve met hundreds of Red Cross and Red Crescent Society staff and volunteers across more than 20 countries. From Vietnam to Vanuatu, Ireland to Italy, the Gambia to Zambia, I’ve talked with volunteers who don’t hesitate in the face of need. Of course, all have opinions, all have lives that sit apart from their work or volunteer duties. But those I’ve met know that when they wear the red vest those opinions are put to one side. Instead, one question is paramount: ‘How can I best help on the sole basis of need?’

Likewise, members of our National Societies necessarily work within the contexts of where they live. We recognise this. People don’t live in vacuums. Frequently, Red Cross and Red Crescent members have formal auxiliary roles and work alongside people in national governments or agencies who are not neutral.

Association does not mean complicity, but practicality matters. Sometimes, explicitly to break relationships would be the far more political act. Such acts could lead to thousands getting less aid. Returning to the tightrope analogy, when a tightrope walker starts to lose their balance, they often sway slightly to one side before overcompensating and falling completely off the other. That’s something we constantly strive to avoid.

The side of humanity

When the torrent of water pummelled Derna last September, our colleagues in the Libyan Red Crescent didn’t hesitate. In the face of overwhelming need, they did what was necessary. Like them, collectively within the Red Cross and Red Crescent network, we take no side but the side of humanity.

Neutrality is how we achieve that. That is why I’m turning the focus to neutrality on this World Red Cross and Red Crescent Day.

It is, as it must be, our guiding star.

Jagan Chapagain is the Secretary-General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies