The Guo Meimei incident has been making quite a stir for a while now, and I should probably write one or two pieces about it. But as for Guo Meimei herself and the whole affair, I actually don’t have all that much to say. The significance of Guo Meimei lies in the fact that she brought this issue to light and got people to pay attention to the Red Cross Society and other public-interest organizations. But the problems of China’s public-interest organizations are deeply rooted; they have nothing to do with whether or not someone was keeping a Guo Meimei as a mistress, and they even have nothing to do with whether or not there has been embezzlement or corruption.
Is the problem with the Red Cross Society embezzling donations, abusing authority, or engaging in graft and corruption? No. In fact, even if our Red Cross Society were utterly clean and beyond reproach, that still would not be a good thing. Its very existence is mistaken. Although it does not quite reach the level of sheer absurdity of the Project Hope, it is at least, to a large extent, an absurd existence.
Why do I say that the very existence of the Red Cross Society is absurd? Could it be that the Chinese Red Cross Society is not an “important member” of the International Red Cross? Could it be that the existence of the great International Red Cross is itself absurd? Of course not. The key is that this Red Cross is not that Red Cross; they are completely different beings, and their purposes are fundamentally not the same.
What does the International Red Cross do? Let us look at its official explanation: “The International Committee of the Red Cross is an independent, neutral organization whose mission is to provide humanitarian protection and assistance to victims of war and other violent situations. International humanitarian law gives the ICRC the permanent mandate to take impartial action in response to the needs of prisoners, the wounded and sick, and civilians affected by conflict.” Its creed is “fraternity in war.”
The Red Cross movement’s main purpose is very clear. In the movement’s Statutes, the first principle reads: “Humanity: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavors, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found.” And the first requirement for a national Red Cross Society to be recognized by the International Red Cross movement is: “…the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field must be in force in the country concerned.”
That is to say, from the very beginning, the International Red Cross’s basic duty has been to aid the wounded in armed conflict, regardless of the wounded parties’ stance, and regardless of whether they are enemies of the state; the Red Cross is to carry out relief work in a neutral capacity. This is the Red Cross’s foundation. For example, if, say, the masses rise up in rebellion here and are wounded by tanks or by urban management officers, the Red Cross can come to provide assistance, regardless of whether those wounded people thank the state or not.
Today we can see the International Red Cross active in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and many other war-torn places; it remains a great organization. But what about the Red Cross Society in China? What does it do?
We can also look at the official introduction. The duties of the Chinese Red Cross are quite numerous, mainly “disaster preparedness and disaster relief,” as well as first aid and health education and publicity, assisting the government in improving basic medical conditions, and so on. Of course, it also includes publicity and fundraising. Only under the item “publicity and fundraising” is there a vague mention of “the Geneva Conventions and the basic principles of the Red Cross movement,” but even there, there is still no mention of anything like “war and violence.”
Of course, China is not in the midst of internal strife, is not involved in war, and persistent violent conflict is not very common. At most, this means that China’s Red Cross does not need to be so huge; it does not mean that the Chinese Red Cross must fundamentally change its duties and positioning to the point where it not only no longer centers on its original purpose, but doesn’t even mention it.
So then, even if its purpose and nature have changed, could the Chinese Red Cross still be a reasonable existence? Isn’t disaster preparedness and relief important? Aren’t medical and public health efforts important? Of course, these things are important too. The question is, should these undertakings be the proper business of a public-interest non-governmental organization? Just as the responsibilities undertaken by the “Project Hope” are similar—namely, enabling children to have the most basic conditions for schooling—should that sort of thing be the proper business of a non-governmental organization? Should disaster prevention be the proper business of a non-governmental organization? Should establishing basic medical and public health conditions be the proper business of a non-governmental organization? Then what, exactly, is the government supposed to do? If these most basic social welfare funds need to be raised through donations, then what is taxation for?
The reason foreign public-interest organizations have a reason to exist is that they are independent of the government and take care of things that are outside the government’s proper remit. For example, rescuing the government’s enemies in war is not something the government itself ought to do; it requires a neutral institution to assist. Or, to take another example, people may wish to donate to specific fields—for instance, I may want to support research that will conquer AIDS, or I may especially want to help leukemia patients, or I may especially want to care for the blind. Sometimes, besides handing resources over to the government through taxes for allocation, people also have certain personal ideas and concerns; at such times, they can donate through particular public-interest organizations, letting organizations that better match their own wishes, rather than the government, dispose of the money on their behalf. At such times, all sorts of non-governmental public-interest organizations are needed. Yet what we see is that China’s Red Cross, Project Hope, and the like do not have these characteristics—they can do what the government can do, and the way they allocate resources is not all that different from the government’s way of doing so. They are almost one body with the government. Their only significance in existing independently as so-called non-governmental public-interest organizations lies in the different ways they obtain resources: one is taxation, the other is donation. Thus we understand why, only under the heading of “publicity and fundraising,” the Red Cross would mention its original background.
So the problem with the Red Cross is not how much charitable money it has embezzled, but rather how it can possibly be independent of the government. For example, if the Red Cross receives a donation for Yushu (suppose) amounting to one billion yuan, then the real issue is not whether one hundred million or five hundred million of that billion was embezzled or misused, but rather: what is the difference between that one billion and the government’s proper investment? If the Red Cross had raised not a single cent, and a disaster of this sort occurred in a city, would the state government simply turn a blind eye? Of course not. Taxpayers’ money should by rights be used for mutual aid and mutual security. But how much money should the government originally have mobilized for disaster relief and reconstruction? If, say, the government was originally supposed to allocate two billion, but after the Red Cross donations it only allocates one billion, then what is the significance of the Red Cross? Is it just to help the government save fiscal expenditure? And if, after the Red Cross donations, the government not only does not allocate funds, but instead wants to take a cut from the donations, then wouldn’t it be the case that the more we donate, the worse it is for disaster victims? The key is that this is a muddle-headed account; I of course cannot prove that the more we donate, the less the government will contribute what it ought to contribute. But it is equally hard to prove that the more we donate, the more beneficial it is for disaster victims. In essence, we are not donating to disaster victims, but donating to the government. The only thing we can be sure of is that our donations can lighten the government’s burden. Of course, the government will say: you should trust the government; the government is certainly serving the people. Very good, I am willing to believe that. But then, if the government is so trustworthy, what is the Red Cross for? Why not just donate directly to the government? What, after all, is the point of public-interest organizations like the Red Cross?
The primary problem with China’s public-interest organizations is not whether they are transparent or not, or corrupt or not, but the fundamental vagueness of their positioning. Without genuine non-governmental organizations (NGOs), there can be no genuine public welfare or charitable activity.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply