Neutrality of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The global humanitarian crisis in recent years has not only increased in scale but also regressed in meaning. Armed conflicts, geopolitical rivalries, and humanitarian disasters continue to claim civilian victims, while exposing the fragility of protection for medical personnel and humanitarian workers. The world is no longer merely witnessing tragedies but becoming accustomed to them.

The tragedy of the shooting of medical personnel in Gaza—even acknowledged by the Israeli military as a “professional failure”—serves as a marker that humanitarian symbols no longer fully guarantee safety in conflict zones. The Red Cross and Red Crescent emblem, regarded for decades as a safe zone, is increasingly losing its protective power.

This phenomenon is not an isolated case. What occurred in Gaza reflects a broader global pattern: the rising violence against volunteers, health workers, and civilian facilities in modern armed conflicts. Hospitals are attacked, aid convoys are fired upon, and access to electricity, oxygen, and fuel is cut off. In such situations, medical personnel are not only victims but also witnesses to the collapse of the international humanitarian protection system.

Thus, today’s humanitarian crisis is not merely a crisis of conflict but a crisis of legitimacy for the fundamental principles of humanitarianism itself.

The observance of World Red Cross and Red Crescent Day every 8 May should serve as a global space for reflection to reassess the future of neutrality and the sustainability of humanitarian principles amid increasingly brutal world conflicts.

Crisis of Trust

Since the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the international community has had a clear legal framework to protect civilians and humanitarian workers. The principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants, including protection for health facilities, forms the cornerstone of international humanitarian law.

However, in the practice of modern conflicts, these principles continue to be eroded by military interests and strategic political calculations. Humanitarian law often loses its coercive power when confronted with the logic of war that prioritises victory over humanitarian protection.

This situation is intertwined with another equally serious issue: the declining trust in the principle of neutrality. The Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, including the Indonesian Red Cross (PMI), is built on the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence—principles that enable humanitarian organisations to reach all victims, regardless of affiliation.

In this global context, PMI also demonstrates a concrete role as part of international humanitarian solidarity. PMI’s involvement in mobilising international aid to Iran in March 2026 affirms that Indonesia is not merely a spectator but an active part of the coordinated and neutral global humanitarian ecosystem.

However, amid the increasing complexity of conflicts, humanitarian actors are increasingly suspected of lacking neutrality. Accusations that civilian facilities are used for military purposes—often without independent verification—create conflicting narratives that undermine trust in humanitarian organisations.

When neutrality is no longer trusted, humanitarian symbols lose their protective function. At that point, humanitarian workers face not only physical threats but also moral delegitimisation in the eyes of the conflicting parties.