Debating the Red Cross.

• Author: Loane, Geoffrey Peter Hugh
• Position: International Committee of the Red Cross

In "Double-Red-Crossed" (Spring 2005), Lee A. Casey and David B. Rivkin, Jr. challenge the effectiveness of the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), particularly in relation to the United States.

First, in relation to the applicability of international humanitarian law, the United States and the ICRC enjoy a healthy debate and open dialogue. Both the United States and the ICRC are inevitably bound by and have the deepest respect for the rule of law. The ICRC has been mandated by the community of nations to monitor the application of international humanitarian law and, indeed, will do its utmost to honor its responsibility in the interests of the persons the law is designed to protect.

"Double-Red-Crossed" fails to do justice to the ICRC's public and confidential efforts in favor of U.S. POWs captured after World War II. Even a cursory glance at its publicly accessible archives reveals that the ICRC actively sought access to American POWs throughout, among others, the Korean, Vietnamese and Iraqi conflicts. That these efforts, as in other contexts, did not result in full access to persons deprived of their liberty reflects the overall authority of states to comply with their understanding of the rules of law and their political will. The ICRC's efforts undoubtedly pale when compared to the suffering endured by American POWs and their families. But they were not negligible.

Over 12,000 ICRC staff strive to provide protection and assistance to vulnerable populations affected by armed conflict around the world. As President Bush stressed when he met with ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger in February, the humanitarian values the ICRC stands for have long been consistent with the objectives of U.S. national and foreign policy.

GEOFFREY PETER HUGH LOANE

International Committee of the Red Cross, Washington, DC

CASEY & RIVKIN respond: In its response to our essay, the ICRC asserts that we failed "to do justice to the ICRC's public and confidential efforts in favour of U.S. prisoners of war captured after World War II." The ICRC further suggests that "even a cursory glance at its publicly accessible archives reveals that the...