- Croce Rossa Italiana, Comitato di Parma. Il dibattito sulla bandiera. 18/08/2017
- Griffin K, Taylor T. The ambivalence of wearing the Red Cross. Med Confl Surviv. 2024 Sep;40(3):256-267. doi: 10.1080/13623699.2024.2353180. Epub 2024 May 27. PMID: 38803019.
Red Cross emblems: light and shadow
From a red cross to a red crystal: how history, politics and faith shaped the world’s most iconic humanitarian emblems.
Red Cross in a white field
In the history of armed conflicts, few symbols have carried as much hope and paradox as the red cross on a white field. Conceived as a sign of neutrality and protection, it was meant to distinguish those who cared for the wounded from those who inflicted wounds. However, over the course of more than 150 years, this emblem has not always fulfilled its promise. In some cases, it has even been perceived as a burden.
In the past, in Europe, before the Red Cross emblem was adopted, each medical service of the armed forces had its own distinctive sign. Austria, for example, used a white flag, France a red banner and Spain a yellow banner. Other states used to mark their medical services by displaying a black flag, a colour that represents a sign of mourning for western countries. Furthermore, the wagons used to transport the wounded had no special markings to distinguish them from other vehicles of the armed forces, and it was not possible to identify the members of the medical services from a distance.
It is easy to imagine what tragic consequences could occur as a result of this confusion. If soldiers were barely able to recognise their own military ambulances, they were certainly not able to distinguish those of the enemy. Doctors and nurses were just as exposed to attack as the combatants themselves. As a consequence of this, not only did these symbols not confer protection from a legal and regulatory point of view, but they often served as targets for soldiers who did not know their meaning.
The idea that led to the adoption of the Red Cross emblem stemmed from the need to confer a neutral status on those who helped the wounded, thus ensuring their protection on the battlefields. But neutrality implied the choice of a single emblem. In 1863, the delegates of the International Committee for Relief to Wounded Soldiers - the future International Committee of the Red Cross - chose, as a tribute to Switzerland, the homeland of Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross, a red cross on a white background, obtained by inverting the colours of the flag of the Swiss Confederation. A simple, universal symbol, easily recognisable from a distance and known to all.
Religious interpretation of Red Cross emblems
Symbols live not only in law; they live in perception, culture, and memory. The Red cross, though born from a humanitarian impulse, was not immune to cultural misinterpretation.
In 1876, when the Balkans were bloodied by the Russo-Turkish war, numerous rescuers captured by Ottoman troops were killed simply because they wore an armband bearing the red cross. The Turkish authorities, illustrating the particular sensitivity of Muslim soldiers to the cross, unilaterally adopted the red crescent on a white background to mark their medical services. This decision was accepted, but only for the duration of the Russo-Turkish conflict. In the following years, numerous requests were made for the revision of Article 7 of the Geneva Convention of 1864, also supported by Persia, which aimed to obtain recognition of a third protective symbol: the red lion and sun on a white background.
Turkey was soon joined by Egypt, and all the many pressures exerted in the meantime led to the recognition of these two further emblems by the Diplomatic Conference convened by Switzerland in 1929. While reaffirming the general role of unity played by the Red Cross emblem, the use of the two new emblems was authorised.
Religious sensitivities and national politics continued to complicate the emblem's universality. During the 1949 Diplomatic Conference, proposals to return to a single emblem or to include the Red Star of David were discussed but ultimately rejected. The Convention maintained the red cross as the primary symbol while permitting continued use of the red crescent and red lion and sun in specific cases. Israel ratified the treaty with a reservation, stating it would use the Star of David for its military medical services. Iran later replaced the red lion and sun with the red crescent.
The importance of a distinctive and protective emblem
The fact that only one emblem is not used has caused serious problems: the protective value of the emblem is diminished; there are difficulties in getting one of the two emblems accepted in regions where the population belongs to different and diverse religious faiths; the risk remains that new emblems and symbols may proliferate; there is a risk that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement will be identified with the two major religions, the Catholic and the Islamic.
Studies indicate that the symbols of the Red Cross and Red Crescent are among the best known symbols in the world. They are unique and universal means of communication; without adding words, but as clearly as possible, they communicate to people that the men and women of the Movement are there, at work, to help. Even those who can neither read nor write can easily recognise the symbols and relate their possibility of finding help and protection to them. Increasing visibility through pronounced and appropriate use of the Red Cross symbol is a step towards identifying the Red Cross and Red Crescent organisation and services in the eyes of as many people as possible.
Red Cross, Red Crescente and Red Crystal (credit: Wikipedia)
In response to the refusal of some nations to accept the Red Cross or Red Crescent as emblems, it was proposed to create a new emblem that would be acceptable to all nations regardless of their culture or religion. The Red Cross movement has therefore developed a new symbol, the red crystal, into which local symbols or even no symbol at all can be inserted. The Red Crystal has been the official symbol of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent since 8 December 2005. Israel, too, subsequently adopted the Red Crystal in June 2006, renouncing the use of the Star of David, but keeping it for internal use and using the new symbol in missions abroad.
The ambivalence of wearing the Red Cross
Despite a history of more than 150 years, the protective and distinctive emblems of the Red Cross are unfortunately still unable to safeguard the lives of doctors, health workers and the injured.
In a 2024 article published in Medicine, Conflict and Survival, researchers Kristina Griffin and Therese Taylor explore the personal experiences of Australian Army medics who wore the Red Cross brassard during World War I (1914-1918) and the war in Afghanistan (2001-2021). Although the emblem is intended to signal neutrality and ensure protection under the Geneva Conventions, many medics report feeling more vulnerable when wearing it.
Through letters, diaries, and interviews, the authors show that both historical and contemporary military medics often perceived the symbol as a liability rather than a shield. In World War I, stretcher-bearers were sometimes ordered to remove the brassard to avoid being targeted. In Afghanistan, medics describe deliberately avoiding the symbol for fear of being identified and attacked as a key resource by enemy forces such as the Taliban.
Moreover, the Red Cross emblem attracted civilians seeking medical care, creating additional moral and operational pressures on medics, who were unable to meet those needs in active combat zones. This added another layer of emotional strain, especially when humanitarian expectations clashed with military priorities.
The article reveals a profound tension at the heart of military medical service: the dual role of healer and soldier, and the uneasy symbolism of the Red Cross itself. Rather than being a guarantee of protection, the emblem can become a source of risk and psychological conflict, especially in modern asymmetric warfare.