Recently, I read an article suggesting the adoption of a universal logo for humanitarian workers, similar to the emblem of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal movement. While the intention to enhance the safety of aid workers in conflict zones is commendable, this solution overlooks several critical issues.

 

Distinction and Risk

Introducing a universal logo may inadvertently create a distinction between organizations that adopt the logo and those that do not. Organizations that, for various reasons, choose not to or forget to use the new logo might become even more vulnerable, as they could be perceived as less legitimate or identifiable.

 

International Humanitarian Law

IHL is clear: Civilians, including humanitarian workers, should not be targeted. This protection does not hinge on the presence of a logo. Highlighting a certain logo might detract from the fundamental legal protections already in place and shift the focus away from the accountability of warring parties. Additionally, those who choose not to use this universal logo might become extra vulnerable.

 

Ineffective Use of Logos

There is a troubling trend of humanitarian logos not being used appropriately or effectively. The real issue lies in ensuring that organizations understand when and how to display their logos. Misuse or inconsistent use of logos can lead to confusion and reduce their protective value.

 

Recognition Challenges in Modern Warfare

The dynamics of modern warfare, including the use of drones, AI systems, and rapid decision-making, complicate the recognition of logos. The assumption that a single, universally recognized logo can mitigate these challenges is overly simplistic. Combatants or AI systems might not recognize or correctly identify even a standardized logo due to the complexities of the battlefield.

​

Practical Implementation Issues

The logistics of implementing a universal logo system are laden with challenges. Questions about who would manage the system, who would be entitled to use the logo, and whether it would be respected by all parties are significant hurdles. Without clear governance and widespread acceptance, the effectiveness of a universal logo is doubtful.

 

The Role of Existing Emblems

The emblems of the Red Cross movement (Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal) are indeed protected by law, but this is not the sole reason for their success. Their effectiveness comes with a strict mindset and strong principles, including neutrality and impartiality. Furthermore, these emblems are used only after organizations are recognized by the ICRC, after which they become members of the IFRC. Each country has only one Red Cross, Red Crescent, or Red Crystal organization, which strengthens the emblem’s significance. Achieving this level of uniformity and recognition across the hundreds of humanitarian organizations worldwide, each with different mandates and principles, is not feasible.

 

Conclusion

While the idea of a universal humanitarian logo is well-intentioned, it does not address the root causes of the increased risks faced by humanitarian workers. The focus should instead be on ensuring that existing logos are used consistently and appropriately and on holding warring parties accountable for adhering to international laws protecting civilians. Enhancing education and understanding of when and how to use organizational logos is a more practical and legally sound approach to improving the safety of humanitarian workers. This includes using the logo for its intended purpose of protection and distinction, not branding.

For more on the issue of branding, refer to the article “Why it’s time to stop the aid logo ‘arms race’” by Irwin Loy in The New Humanitarian, dated August 17, 2023. Loy addresses the overuse of logos by NGOs and how it diminishes their effectiveness. Read more here.