Simon Jenkins (Comment, 2 November) suggests the International Committee of the Red Cross has become an inadvertent tool of western powers who disguise adventurism as humanitarian action. It is not a reality we in the ICRC recognise, particularly not in places like Syria, where our independence from political sponsorship by any state or faction is key to our being able to deliver assistance in both government- and opposition-controlled areas.
Throughout the 150 years of the ICRC response to the needs of the victims of conflict, our organisation has weathered numerous attempts to cast us a lackey of interest groups, power blocs or belief systems. Every day in Syria we reassert our neutrality, in order to feed the hungry, provide water or get medicine to the sick. It is not easy to counter negative perceptions, whether they come from the misuse of the language of humanitarianism or allegations that we have a hidden ideological agenda. And notwithstanding setbacks – kidnappings and attacks on staff – we have found that constant dialogue with all sides and a demonstrably impartial response to people's needs are the most effective arguments. In Syria it works.