Nuances of Neutrality

When I read today's Washington Post article about a leaked ICRC report ... I was struck by this statement:

"At least five copies of the report were shared with the CIA and top White House officials in 2007 but barred from public release by ICRC guidelines intended to preserve the humanitarian group's strict policy of neutrality in conflicts."

My first reaction was, "Come again? How is helping the CIA conceal their misdeeds neutral?" But I realized I'm somewhat ignorant on the workings of the ICRC, so I did some reading. I found this thoughtful discussion of the matter the ICRC website.

I can see valid points on both sides--their ability to provide humanitarian aid and to document violations of the Geneva Convention depends on their perceived neutrality. Breaching confidentiality after being allowed access to a conflicted area would be like a journalist giving up a source. But in cases like the Holocaust, silence turns into complicity. I like the idea that they will break their silence if a government repeatedly ignores their findings or continues their abuses. I don't think this is a question with easy answers, and I don't feel qualified to add much to the discussion. Just food for thought.