/sarcasm off
Fool me once, shame on you--
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Third time's a fool?
Truth can indeed be stranger than fiction.....
From their website:The emblems go back a long way. The red cross on a white background was formally adopted in the first Geneva Convention of 1864. The red crescent was adopted by the Ottoman empire in 1876 during the war with Russia. It was recognized in the 1929 Geneva Convention along with the red lion and sun of Persia.
For National Societies, the emblem serves two purposes; it is "indicative" (it is their logo or identification when undertaking their normal work) and it is "protective" (a protective device when they, and the medical services of their country's armed forces, are involved in conflict.) The rules on the use of these emblems are defined in international law under the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Under the conventions, states can only use one of the two emblems for the protection of the medical services of their armed forces. National Societies, too, can only use one emblem, that adopted by their government. Adopting one of these two recognized emblems is one of 10 conditions a National Society must fulfil in order to be officially recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and become a member of the International Federation.
The International Federation can use both emblems indicatively because it is neither a state nor a National Society.
Current problems
The emblems worked well for a long time, but in recent decades two problems have arisen. Firstly, in some conflicts the cross or the crescent have been interpreted as having a religious significance. They do not, but this fact has occasionally compromised the neutral nature of the emblems, putting lives at risk.
Secondly, some countries and their National Societies have not felt comfortable using either the red cross or red crescent. This is the case for the Israeli society which uses a red star of David, and the Kazakh society which uses both a red crescent and a red cross.
The proposed solution
The international Red Cross and Red Crescent has proposed an additional emblem to resolve these problems. This approach was agreed by a joint working group of governments and the Red Cross in April 2000. The additional emblem could be used in conflicts for protection, and, with the inclusion of a local sign, as the indicative emblem of a National Society.
This solution is not simple because it involves changing both international law and the statutes of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
The first stage is to adopt a third additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions creating an additional emblem to stand alongside the cross and crescent. This requires a diplomatic conference, convened by the Swiss government, of all 188 states which have signed the Geneva Conventions. The second stage is for a full International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (comprising the 188 governments and the 176 National Societies) to change the statutes.
When the time is right, the diplomatic conference will take place and the international conference will follow as soon as possible. These meeting will define both the use and form of the new emblem.
Once the protocol comes into force it will be possible to use the additional emblem in conflicts. And once adopted by the Israeli and Kazakh societies, they can formally be recognized by the ICRC, and then welcomed into the International Federation as full members.
Further information about the emblem issue is available on the web site of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dang! That ol' cross sure seems to be a "problem", eh?
I wonder what their proposed "additional emblem" is.