| If the "red crystal" is adopted, it will be used, at most, by the Israeli and, perhaps, Kazakh national societies. The others will continue to use the cross or crescent, both of which are enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross will, of course, continue to use the cross, as it has since the 1860s.
The whole thing has come about because of the Israelis using the red star of David and the absurd political pressure exerted by the US in their support. And by bloody-minded Arab intransigence to finding a practical solution.
My view is that the crescent never should have been enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, but that was done in 1929, so it's way too late now.
The whole idea originally was to have one emblem, easily recognized at a distance and easy to paint in a hurry to protect field hospitals and hospital ships in wartime. Since the Red Cross was founded in Switzerland and backed diplomatically by the Swiss government, the red cross -- an inversion of the Swiss flag -- became the emblem.
Then, already in 1871, the Turks made a pain in the ass of themselves by refusing to use the red cross.
If the crystal can allow a return to a semblance of neutrality -- a principle on which the entire Red Cross / Red Crescent movement is founded -- then it's high time.
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything."
-- Viscount Melbourne |