WASHINGTON – A new study conducted for Republican senators alleges that the International Committee for the Red Cross has “lost its way” by abandoning its guiding principle of impartiality and is now working in “direct opposition to the advancement of U.S. interests.”

The stinging report, issued yesterday by the Republican Policy Committee, also urges Congress to launch an investigation into the finances of the international humanitarian organization, which has been sharply critical of the treatment of prisoners at American-run detention centers in Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq. The American government is the largest donor to the International Red Cross, contributing $1.5 billion over the past 15 years, the study says.

The report attributes the international organization’s recent actions to “a conscious decision by its current leadership to move the ICRC away from its founding principles of neutrality and impartiality.” The study panel asserts that the International Red Cross is gradually becoming an advocacy group, intent on reinterpreting international law and crusading against land mines, cluster bombs, and tear gas.

“During recent years, the ICRC has undergone a significant and accelerating change whereby it has become more responsive to the preferences of the liberal and frequently anti-American international nongovernmental organization community,” the report says. “The ICRC effectively no longer serves as the guardian of obligations that have been accepted under a ratified treaty or treaties. Rather, it has become an aggressive advocate – like Amnesty International – for enforcing a broader set of obligations.”

A spokesman in the Washington office of the International Red Cross, Simon Schorno, had no immediate comment. He said the organization was still reviewing the report.

Founded in 1863, the International Committee of the Red Cross oversees compliance with the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners. The body also undertakes projects aimed at alleviating the suffering of civilian populations during times of military conflict. The American Red Cross has no formal role in the operations of the international group.

The 10-page Senate white paper does not take issue with the specifics of the International Red Cross’s complaints about Guantanamo or other American facilities. However, the report accuses Red Cross officials of being far more talkative about alleged abuses at American-run prisons than about maltreatment of prisoners held by the former regime in Iraq, and by governments in Vietnam and North Korea.

“The ICRC’s confidentiality principle appears not to be adhered to when it comes to U.S. issues,” the report says. While purporting to maintain a uniformly “discreet approach,” Red Cross officials have repeatedly commented publicly on the conditions of detention at camps and prisons run by the American military. The report notes a recent statement from the Red Cross about its role in relaying allegations about disrespectful treatment of the Koran at Guantanamo.

“The ICRC decided to breach its confidentiality clause by publicly talking about – and deliberately revealing – the contents of documents and opinions it sent to the U.S. government,” the study for the senators says. “The United States should demand that the ICRC change its behavior and adhere to its ‘impartiality’ principle.”

The report urges Congress to require that the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Justice Department conduct an annual review of the ICRC’s operations to ensure that the global body abides by its own rules. In addition, the study calls for an audit of funds spent by the ICRC to ensure that American taxpayer dollars are not being used for lobbying. However, the report does not endorse withdrawing all American aid to the international group. “It would not be in the U.S. interest to withhold funding to the ICRC’s field operations, given that the ICRC plays a critical role in delivering humanitarian relief and assistance around the world,” the study finds.

A professor of international law at Johns Hopkins and Yale universities, Ruth Wedgwood, said yesterday that insiders at the International Red Cross have also questioned whether the group should act as advocates on the world stage.

“The soul-searching within the ICRC is whether they need to mimic that role, pushing governments to change the law, or whether particularly in this universe of many organizations, they should stick to the one quite – and perhaps most – important vocation they have of gaining access to enforce the law as it is,” she said in an interview after reading the report last night.

Ms. Wedgwood warned that criticism of the International Red Cross, if taken to extremes, could actually damage American interests. “There’s no other body that has a right under the Geneva Convention to monitor the condition of American GIs who were POWs,” she said. “One should be very careful not to cripple an organization that we need.”

The report notes that the Red Cross has never granted official recognition to Israel’s Magen David Adom Society, purportedly because of concerns about confusion over the society’s use of the Star of David as a symbol. Magen David Adom has observer status at the international body and has entered into an agreement that grants it many of the benefits of formal recognition.

While calling for greater transparency in Red Cross activities, the report does not mention Congress’s role in limiting access to information about the American military’s cooperation with the international humanitarian body. A rider to an appropriations bill passed by Congress in 2000 contained language that allows the Secretary of Defense to keep secret nearly all records of the military’s dealings with the ICRC and similar organizations.

In December 2004, a federal judge cited that provision in rejecting a suit brought by a reporter for The New York Sun seeking access to records about the Pentagon’s contacts with Red Cross officials regarding Guantanamo.

The Senate Republican study also sought to change a Red Cross rule that all individuals who serve on its board must be Swiss citizens. The report argues that seats on the board should be open to nationals of various countries and that the allocation should be in proportion to the funds given by each nation.