zlacker

Seems to be a reference to geopolitical instability. In modern times (post WW II) the Red Cross is seen as responders to natural disasters. But it seems they feel they’re increasingly responding to man-made disasters (e.g. armed conflicts). That’s at least my interpretation.

(Edited to clarify timeframe)

>>jdavis+(OP)
Hiatorically, the Red Cross was foundes in response to the suffering caused by the Crimean War in the 1860s and their mission is to help people who get caught in armed comflicts. The symbol is protected by international law as a sign of medical facilities and medical personal who may not be attacked. Using the red cross for any other purspose is considered abusive and is formally a war crime. It may sound absurd, but keeping the narrow and important meaning of the symbol intact saves lives.

>>jdavis+(OP)
This is entirely backwards. The International Committee of the Red Cross's roots are firmly fixed in a need to respond to armed conflict in 19th century Europe, and early national-level Red Cross groups focused on the same for quite some time. Disaster relief and public health came along much later.

>>sithad+32
Yeah, and if you believe police officers, nurses, and other first responders are public servants--as I do--then you should see the pay ranges of Red Cross "employees." They are definitely public servants (nearly unpaid compared to other first responders). Easily the best organization I have ever known or worked for.