Originally Posted by Andy H
Fancy wording 'ability to protect and dilute its neutrality' Do they really forsee this being an actual issue in the real world? If they do I would like to see some evidence to back up this absurd claim
The argument is that people who might see the Red Cross as a belligerent force if they see the symbol associated with combat medics or a similar armed force, which might make Red Cross aid workers targets in a war (something similar has happened in Afghanistan where aid given out by US soldiers has made it harder for groups like MSF to operate).
An ICRC article on it here
The Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations do this a fair bit; Half-Life 2
had a complaint made against it, as did the James Bond film The Living Daylights
(which had a disclaimer to some of the video releases) where the Red Cross is used to hide opium shipments.
It's their trademarked symbol, they're legally entitled to do this. May not seem fair, but there's a reason for it.