'I believe the Red Cross needs an alternative emblem'

As a translator in Sri Lanka during the chaos and bloodshed of the early 1990s, Studds was simply doing his best to help terrorised communities.

But despite the non-political and secular image of the Red Cross in the West, Studds suspects the organisation’s famous symbol got in the way of humanitarianism.

Studds faced delays and obstructions from suspicious soldiers and officials. His job was to visit prisons and detention camps to track down rebels who had been captured and inform their families of their fates. He also distributed aid and inspected the prisoners’ conditions.

He said: "Although the Red Cross is emphatically not a religious or national symbol, it seen by some as being associated with Christianity and the West.

"In Sri Lanka, we had the issue that a number of the Tamil people of the country are Christian, while very few of the Sinhalese community are. That can mean that the Sinhalese and the authorities may react with suspicion to the symbol.

"Problems would show up in being refused access to some areas, or in being delayed. When you were being told that you could not go to into a particular area, you never quite knew whether it was because of a real danger or hostility."

Studds, who calls London home when he is not working in world trouble spots, added: "I wouldn’t want to say whether that was linked to the emblem in those cases, but I do believe in the need for a new alternative emblem."

And that, 140 years after it was first used, is precisely what the International Committee of the Red Cross is planning to do.

After devastating attacks on Red Cross personnel in Iraq, the organisation has finally decided it is time to say goodbye to the red cross symbol in the most religiously sensitive areas of the world. Some privately predict that it will eventually be phased out altogether.

The deaths in Iraq are by no means the first time Red Cross workers have paid with their lives for trying to help others. In 1996, six Red Cross relief workers were murdered by gunmen in Chechnya, where Islamic rebels were fighting against Russian forces. Hard-line Muslims had complained at the use of the Red Cross image.

The plan is to reduce the chances of such tragedies happening again by replacing the red cross with a simple red-edged diamond, a device deliberately chosen to avoid any national, political or religious link, and to be simple to paint on a building or a vehicle in times of emergency.

The Red Cross was born out of a chance combination of horror and humanity. Henry Dunant, a Genevan businessman, was appalled by the sight of wounded troops left unaided following the battle of Solferino, northern Italy, where French and Sardinian forces clashed with the Austrians in 1859.

Dunant wrote a book about his experience which became an international best-seller and inspired others to establish a humanitarian organisation dedicated to helping wounded soldiers on the battlefield.

The original symbol was devised in Geneva 1863 by the founders of the organisation, many of whom were Swiss. They decided to reverse the colours of the Swiss flag, which was the flag of a neutral country. Backers of the current design point out that the cross was not chosen as a religious symbol, but simply because the cross happened to be on the Swiss flag.

During the First World War, the symbol of the Red Cross was seen as inviolable. However, the organisation’s symbol became a source of unintended trouble as early as the Russo-Turkish War of 1876-1878.

The Ottoman Empire decided to marks its ambulances, hospitals and medics with the Red Crescent, saying that the Red Cross "gave offence to Muslim soldiers". Ever since, Muslim countries have preferred the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to use a Red Crescent symbol.

This has not proved a particularly effective solution because some countries - such as Israel - object to both symbols, and other countries have in the past lobbied for the use of their own national symbols.

But in its attempts to appease some faiths, the Red Cross risks alienating the Christian church.

The leader of Roman Catholics in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O’ Brien, said: "It saddens me greatly that an organisation founded by a devout Christian whose symbol is synonymous with the Christian message and especially Christian charity now seeks to turn its back on its origins.

"In their unnecessary haste to divest themselves of any association with Christianity, the Red Cross risk triggering a massive backlash among thousands of volunteers, staff and supporters in this country and elsewhere. It is the goodwill and generosity of these people that allows the Red Cross to operate."

However, a Church of Scotland spokeswoman said: "If the symbol stands in the way of success for the work of the Red Cross in life-and-death situations, the last thing we would want to do would be to insist on its retention. Christ came to give life and it would be a grim irony if the symbol of the cross were to hinder the life-saving work of the Red Cross."

A spokeswoman for the British Red Cross sought to reassure critics that the traditional symbol will not be scrapped.

She said: "This is the adoption of an additional third symbol for countries and situations where we feel that it is necessary. There is no question of changing the symbol in use in Britain."

But one insider suggested if the symbol proved successful in war zones, it could eventually be adopted worldwide.

Some strife-torn countries, such as Sudan, Chechnya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Bosnia, Ethiopia and Eritrea contain both Muslim and Christian communities, meaning that relief workers face a dilemma in selecting a symbol to give them better protection.

Israel, with US support, wants to use a red six-pointed Star of David, while in the past Iran used their national symbol of a red lion and a rising sun.

Sri Lanka, seemingly oblivious to the strong feelings which the swastika evoked in the West, lobbied in 1957 for the adoption of the symbol in red. The swastika is a popular emblem of good luck in Hindu and Buddhist culture.

After Zimbabwean independence, the new government of Robert Mugabe wanted the Red Cross changed to a red star within the country. In the 1930s, Afghanistan pushed for permission to use a red mosque image and in the 1890s Thailand wanted to use a red flame.

The nightmare scenario is that countries will increasingly opt for their own symbols, meaning that the symbols will be seen as increasingly nationalised and no longer command universal respect.

When the design is finalised and agreed, the Geneva Convention will have to be amended to recognise and protect the new emblem. It will then become part of international law that any soldier who fires on a building or hospital bearing the Red Cross, Red Crescent, or the new symbol may be put on trial for war crimes.

The Red Cross has toyed with the idea of renaming itself the Red Crystal, because the word for crystal in most languages is similar and organisations would not have to change their initials and stationary. However, some have pointed out that many crystals have six sides rather than four.

The main worry with the ‘Red Crystal’ name is that it might evoke images of the notorious Nazi orgy of smashing and looting Jewish property, which took place on November 9, 1938. The outrage was known as Kristallnacht (Crystal Night). because of the smashed glass from Jewish shops which littered the streets.

However, the event is normally called ‘The Night of the Broken Glass’ in English, and the Hebrew word for the outrage is unconnected to crystal.