Blog author: jballor
Monday, September 26, 2005
By

The Remedy, the Claremont Institute’s blog, links to an article in the Los Angeles Times by Richard M. Walden, head of Operation USA, that raises concerns about how the Red Cross spends the money it receives for specific disasters.

Walden levels some important and serious charges against the Red Cross, and may or may not be convincing depending on if you approve of the Red Cross’ fund-raising precedents and other activities. But Walden is undeniably right is when he raises the question of accountability and donor awareness. “Asking where all the privately collected money will go and how much Red Cross is billing FEMA and the affected states is a legitimate question — even if posed by the president of a small relief agency,” he writes.

In other Red Cross news, the group is planning to add a new symbol to the established Red Cross/Red Crescent pairing. Reuters reports, “Planned changes to Geneva Conventions governing the rules of war will allow use of the crystal – a diamond-shaped red frame on a white background – as a new protective emblem stripped of any religious or political significance.”

The final phrase is the operative one, as the intent is to make clear that the bearer of the symbol is “a neutral humanitarian player,” not one engaged in relief work because of any specifically religious convictions.


  • http://www.redcross.org Maura Kennedy

    Readers of Richard Walden’s column should be aware that the Red Cross believes it to be inaccurate and misleading has gone so far as to post a point-by-point refutation of the facts on its Web site:
    http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_314_4664,00.html
    We would appreciate it if your readers would look at our side of the story.

    [i]Editorial Note:
    The point-by-point refutation is [url=http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/refutation.html]located here[/url].[/i]