The challenge of explaining complex scientific actions in disaster
response and humanitarian aid in a parochial environment: The case of the
American Red Cross
Joseph O. Prewitt
Diaz, PhD
Alexandria,
Virginia
As I was driving this morning I
heard in NPR that the GAO had completed its review of the American Red Cross[1],
and that one of the members of the House of Representatives[2],
had proposed the “American Red Cross Sunshine Act”.
The American Red Cross is one of
a movement of 189 Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies from around the world
with a Headquarters in Geneva. The existence of the American Red Cross is
guided by seven fundamental principles: humanity, impartiality, neutrality,
independence, voluntarism, unity, and universality.
I was pleasantly surprised that the query of such a prestigious
entity such, as the GAO would conduct a thorough investigation comparing apples
with apples. As I reached home I looked up both reports. Then sadness set in.
The GAO detailed their research
methodology, they indicate that they compared the American Red Cross several
entities, types of disasters, national and international response, and other
non-government agencies in the United States. I was taken aback to see that GAO
had not compared the American Red Cross and its “modus operandi” at least
“three national societies” from resource rich countries comparable to the
United States. So in essence lacking that valuable information, the report is
rendered useless. It is another report for those that have the miotic vision
and the lack of universal vision to see that this organization brings a lot of well
being to the image of the American people, especially from countries that are
resource poor and who have felt the helping hand of the American people through
the American Red Cross in their moment of need.
Secondly, to legislate the work
of the American Red Cross, as suggested in the proposed legislation “The proposed American Red
Cross Sunshine Act comes in response to a government report, also
being released today, that finds oversight of the charity lacking and
recommends Congress find a way to fill the gap” (quoted verbatim from the
NPR/Pro publica news article). To
provide oversight to a member of an international movement is in effect a
direct move to do away with the the mission of the American Red Cross, and the
fundamental principles that its work embodies.
My
take is that (1) monies
given by the U.S. government or its representative to an entity in order that they may perform
a specific task should be placed under scrutinty. I also believe the scrutiny
should be such that there is respect from the US Government toward the
integrity of said organization; (2) establishing a law with the specific purpose
to “rein-in” an organization is a an attempt to destroy the principles of
independence, neutrality, and impartiality. This may not be very important to
politician in Washington or others who unscrupulously seek to say “gotcha”
without an unbiased investigative reporting that includes “here say” and also
includes desk research, and experiential learning.
In addressing this issue I am fully aware
that I will be considered a “Vox clamantis in deserto”,
but morally and with great respect toward those that have died in the past and
present with the Red Cross vest providing humanitarian assistance, I couldn’t
really be a bystander and keep quiet.
[1] GAO. (September 2015). American Red Cross: Disaster
Assistance Would Benefit from Oversight through Regular Federal Evaluation.
Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office.
[2] Elliot, J. & Sullivan, L. (Sept 16,
2015). American Red Cross Sunshine Act’ Would Open Charity to Outside Scrutiny.
Washington, D.C.. National Public Radio & Pro Publica.
