The International Red Cross has defended giving first aid training to the Taliban in Afghanistan, saying it's part of its strict neutrality to train both sides in a conflict. The Afghan government has strongly criticised the organisation's position.
Listen to a Newsline interview with Dr Leo van Bergen here:
Dozens of Taliban fighters received basic Red Cross training and a first aid kit in April. The same training was also given to around 100 Afghan government soldiers.
Anger
Afghan government officials expressed their anger towards the International Red Cross (ICRC). “The Taliban don’t need this help," one official was quoted as saying by reporters.
But the ICRC’s spokesman Christian Cardon said: "We have always come to the aid of combatants on battlefields since our creation 150 years ago."
Tricky principle
Dr Leo van Bergen, a lecturer at Amsterdam’s VU University, is specialised in medical aid during warfare and says staying "strictly neutral" can be a tricky principle to put into practice.
“The Red Cross simply says: ‘We help one side, so we should also help the others’”, he says. “This is neutrality at its best, but the consequences of such a point of view may not always be regarded as neutral by other parties in a conflict”, he told Radio Netherlands Worldwide.
Disappointed
Although there has been no official response from the US - which has 150,000 troops in Afghanistan - Dr Van Bergen expects the Americans will be disappointed by the Red Cross training. “The Americans feel the Red Cross is not only there for medical aid, it’s also there to promote humanity in the world. Aiding the Taliban is not."
He feels the Americans have a point there: “The political views of the Taliban are largely inhumane, just think of their views on the role of women in society."
Access to medical care
But saying one party in an armed conflict should be denied medical help or training may contravene the age-old belief that everyone has the right to access to medical care. That is also the official Red Cross standpoint.
“If you train the Taliban to attend wounded soldiers, they will probably provide this care to their own people only," Dr Van Bergen says. “That is in contrast with the Red Cross philosophy, which says you should give aid to all people regardless of their background. So yes, there’s a conflict of opinions there."
Human rights vs. medical aid
Dr Van Bergen is a member of the Dutch Johannes Wier Foundation, a human rights organisation for health professionals worldwide. Like the Red Cross, it promotes the idea that every individual should have access to medical aid. But Dr Van Bergen admits this case proves that it is sometimes difficult to adhere to this principle.
"There are great dilemmas. War is about destruction and other people getting wounded. Medical aid is about the opposite. But an answer to these dilemmas is difficult. One can hardly say: ‘There’s a war, so we won’t give any medical aid.' Providing aid in war situations leads to all kinds of questions like this. Not many people recognise that."
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
I agree with the Red Cross. Every person has the right to medical aid. This reminds me of a story about a compassionate Sikh- Bhai Ghaniya(1648-1718),. Bhai Ghaniya was in the Sikh army of Guru Gobind Singh. They were fighting against Mughals in India. It was Bhai Ghaniya's duty to give water to the soldiers. One evening after the war was suspended for the day, one Sikh soldier found Bhai Ghaniya providing water to the badly injured Mughal soldiers. The Sikh soldier was furious and reported the matter to the Guru. The Guru summoned Bhai Ghaniya and repimanded him. Bhai Ghaniya was unfazed and said that for me the injured soldier is not a Mughal or a Sikh but simply a human being in need. He further added that, he found the spirit of God and Guru in each person lying injured in the battle field, and that he cannot let that person die of thirst. Guru Gobind Singh was deeply touched by the compassion and sense of universal brotherhood of Bhai Ghaniya. Tears flowed down his eyes as he hugged Bhai Ghaniya and asked him to continue his service to the injured irrespective of their affinity to either side. Guru Gobind Singh brought a jar of balm and handed over to Bhai Ghaniya, saying that attend to their wounds too besides quenching their thirst. This episode is much before the Red Cross came into existence. Bhai Ghaniya is a very revered figure in Punjab and Sikh community.
For more details please do, do visit:http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Bhai_Kanhaiya
This is the mandate of the ICRC, however, for the Taliban to receive this training and these supplies, they must first be recognized as legitimate combatants. The only near precedent to this comes from World War II, in which units such as the Waffen SS would be recognized as having medical units identified under the international ICRC symbol of the Red Cross, On a more pragmatic note, it takes more manpower to provide for a wounded combatant then one who is killed outright. The Taliban may reap short term rewards from this policy at first, but the longer term aspects will cost it more persoonel and resources later. Also, the pyschology will have to be ammended should members of the Taliban wonder why the life of a wounded commrade is worth saving at the risk and cost of other members' lives, when the primary ideology in these circumstances is to die as a martyr and accept one's fate.
Your parallel with Waffen SS in WW2 is totally flawed. Waffen SS were part of Wehrmacht - a regular army of internationally recognized entity in a declared war.
Taliban is neither of this.
“Tricky principle” – which a tricky principle?
The Red Cross was to be established as the organization neutrally and impartially providing a medical assistance to war victims ON a BATTLE FIELD.
All the rest is bureaucrats’ additions aiming fundraising from any source potential.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.