Misplaced Pages

Amnesty International: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:55, 25 March 2005 view sourceJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits problem fixed, right link produced← Previous edit Revision as of 00:25, 26 March 2005 view source Mustafaa (talk | contribs)14,180 edits →Criticism and rebuttal: I counted, and so can anyone else.Next edit →
Line 59: Line 59:
Criticism of Amnesty International may be classified into two major categories, accusations of ] and ideological bias. Criticism of Amnesty International may be classified into two major categories, accusations of ] and ideological bias.


Some critics have noted that in nations that have relatively open and free societies, in which political opposition and freedom of speech are comparatively protected, AI has greater opportunity to compile and report on allegations of human rights abuse. In nations where international human rights monitors are completely banned, for example, or in which the press and individual speech critical of the government are nonexistent or heavily censored, it is relatively difficult for AI to report on the same. This potential tendency to over-report allegations of human rights abuse in nations that are comparatively lessor violators of human rights has been called "Moynihan's Law," after the late American Senator and former Ambassador to the ] ], who is said to have stated that at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights. Critics who allege AI suffers from this problem point out what they describe as a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example ], when compared with ] or ]. One such example is the allegation of ], a publication of the ], which noted that between September ] until the beginning of ], when AI became active in the crisis in ], AI issued 52 reports on the human rights abuses in the ], which has claimed tens of thousands of lives through starvation and ethnic violence, as well as creating 1.2 million refugees (according to the ]), while AI concurrently issued 192 reports on the ]. AI defenders respond by asserting that all nations should aspire to absolute respect for human rights, and that the difficulties associated with monitoring 'closed' countries ahould not mean that 'open' countries should receive less scrutiny. Some critics have noted that in nations that have relatively open and free societies, in which political opposition and freedom of speech are comparatively protected, AI has greater opportunity to compile and report on allegations of human rights abuse. In nations where international human rights monitors are completely banned, for example, or in which the press and individual speech critical of the government are nonexistent or heavily censored, it is relatively difficult for AI to report on the same. This potential tendency to over-report allegations of human rights abuse in nations that are comparatively lessor violators of human rights has been called "Moynihan's Law," after the late American Senator and former Ambassador to the ] ], who is said to have stated that at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights. Critics who allege AI suffers from this problem point out what they describe as a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example ], when compared with ] or ]. One such example is the allegation of ], a publication of the ], which noted that between September ] until the beginning of ], when AI became active in the crisis in ], AI issued 52 reports on the human rights abuses in the ], which has claimed tens of thousands of lives through starvation and ethnic violence, as well as creating 1.2 million refugees (according to the ]), while AI concurrently issued 192 reports on the ]. Examination of the links it provides in support of its claim reveals that the number of '''' issued on Sudan during this period was in fact 4, and the number of (reports, press releases, and urgent actions) was 54. AI defenders respond by asserting that all nations should aspire to absolute respect for human rights, and that the difficulties associated with monitoring 'closed' countries ahould not mean that 'open' countries should receive less scrutiny.


Amnesty International have been criticised for having an ideological bias, and this criticism has been about AI being both left- and right-wing. Left-wingers usually feel that the Human Rights are based on individualistic thinking, capitalism, colonialism and liberalism (liberalism in the original sense as meant by Locke, J.S. Mill and the likes), and feel that cultural differences between parts of the world means that the Human Rights are not at all universal. Amnesty International have been criticised for having an ideological bias, and this criticism has been about AI being both left- and right-wing. Left-wingers usually feel that the Human Rights are based on individualistic thinking, capitalism, colonialism and liberalism (liberalism in the original sense as meant by Locke, J.S. Mill and the likes), and feel that cultural differences between parts of the world means that the Human Rights are not at all universal.

Revision as of 00:25, 26 March 2005

Amnesty International (or AI) is an international non-governmental organization that works to promote all the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international standards. In particular, Amnesty International campaigns to free all prisoners of conscience; ensure fair and prompt trials for political prisoners; abolish the death penalty, torture, and other cruel treatment of prisoners; end political killings and forced disappearances; and oppose all human rights abuses, whether by governments or by opposition groups.

File:Amnesty Logo.gif

History

Amnesty International was founded in 1961 by a British lawyer named Peter Benenson. Benenson was reading his newspaper and was shocked and angered to come across the story of two Portuguese students sentenced to seven years in prison – for the crime of raising their glasses in a toast to freedom. Benenson wrote to David Astor, editor of The Observer newspaper, who, on May 28, published Benenson's article entitled The Forgotten Prisoners that asked readers to write letters showing support for the students. The response was so overwhelming that within a year groups of letter writers had formed in more than a dozen countries, writing to defend victims of injustice wherever they might be. By mid-1962, Amnesty had groups working or forming in West Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, Ceylon, Greece, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Ghana, Israel, Mexico, Argentina, Jamaica, Malaya, Congo (Brazzaville), Ethiopia, Nigeria, Burma, and India. Later in that year, a member of one of these groups, Diana Redhouse, designed Amnesty's Candle and Barbed-Wire logo.

In its early years, Amnesty focused only on articles 18 and 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights – those dealing with political prisoners. Over time, however, the organisation has expanded its mission to work for victims of some other categories of human rights violations, not just prisoners of conscience. In 2000 alone, AI worked on behalf of 3,685 named individuals – and in over a third of those cases, an improvement in the prisoner's condition occurred. Today, there are upwards of 7,500 AI groups with around a million members operating in 162 countries and territories. Since AI was founded, it has worked to defend more than 44,600 prisoners in hundreds of countries.

In 1977 Amnesty won the Nobel Peace Prize for its work defending human rights around the world.

Goals and strategy

AI aims to maintain every human's basic rights as established under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. In accordance with this belief, Amnesty works to:

  • Free all Prisoners of Conscience (a "POC" is a person imprisoned for the peaceful exercise of their beliefs, which differs somewhat from the typical use of the term political prisoner).
  • Ensure fair and prompt trials.
  • Abolish all forms of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners, including the use of the death penalty.
  • End state-sanctioned terrorism, killings, and disappearances.
  • Assist political asylum-seekers.
  • Co-operate with organizations such as the United Nations who also seek to put an end to human rights abuses.
  • Raise awareness about human rights abuses around the world.

To fulfil these goals, Amnesty operates as a vast lobby. When word is heard of a human rights abuse, Amnesty sends a team of researchers to thoroughly and impartially investigate the claim. If the claim is found to be legitimate, Amnesty publicizes its findings and mobilizes its members to act out against the abuse — by letter-writing (to various government officials), protesting, demonstrating, organizing fund-raisers, educating the public about the offense, or sometimes all of the above.

Amnesty works to combat individual offenses (e.g. one man imprisoned for distributing banned literature in Saudi Arabia) as well as more general policies (e.g. the policy of executing juvenile offenders in certain U.S. states). Amnesty works primarily on the local level, but after more than forty years and a Nobel Peace Prize, the respect it has earned is enough to give it a powerful voice on the larger scale.

Most AI members utilize letter-writing to get their message across. When the central Amnesty organization finds and validates instances of human rights abuse, they notify each of the local groups (more than 7,000, all told) as well as all independent members (300,000 in the US alone; over a million worldwide). Groups and members then respond by writing letters of protest and concern to a government official closely involved in the case, generally without mentioning Amnesty directly.

Amnesty follows a policy that, to maintain neutrality, members should not be active in issues in their own nation. This also helps to protect them from being mistreated by their own government, if it is itself abusive. This principle, called the own country rule, is also applied to researchers and campaigners working for the International Secretariat, to prevent coverage of a country being distorted by the author's domestic political loyalties.

Finances

Amnesty International is financed largely by subscriptions and donations from its worldwide membership, and except for a small core of paid directors, all of Amnesty's members, coordinators, organizers, and workers are volunteers.

Amnesty is a non-partisan organization and does not accept money donations from governments or governmental organizations. All of Amnesty's capital comes from the pockets of its members and donations from other non-partisan organizations. Amnesty's budget for the 2000 fiscal year was as follows:

Irene Khan, Secretary General since August 2001
  • Membership Support: £2,486,700 (13%)
  • Campaigning Activities: £1,811,200 (10%)
  • Publications and Translation: £2,487,200 (13%)
  • Research and Action: £5,065,100 (26%)
  • Deconcentrated Offices: £1,246,300 (7%)
  • Research and Action Support: £2,615,900 (14%)
  • Administrative Costs: £3,247,200 (17%)
  • Relief Payments: £125,000
  • Total: £19,510,000

Organisation

The fact that Amnesty is composed of small autonomous groups loosely joined together by larger governing bodies makes explaining the structure of Amnesty's bureaucracy complex.

On a world-wide level, Amnesty is governed by the International Executive Council (IEC) – a board of eight members elected for two-year terms by the International Council Meeting, which is composed of delegates from each country's Board of Directors. The IEC then hires a Secretary General and an International Secretariat. The Secretariat is located in London.

In the United States, the membership directly elects (each group gets a vote; and each individual member gets a vote, regardless of age) prominent members to the 18-seat Board of Directors for a three-year term. The Board of Directors hires an Executive Director and a staff. However, this organization is not necessarily the same in other countries.

Amnesty members end each Annual General Meeting with a commemorative toast to freedom.

Criticism and rebuttal

Criticism of Amnesty International may be classified into two major categories, accusations of selection bias and ideological bias.

Some critics have noted that in nations that have relatively open and free societies, in which political opposition and freedom of speech are comparatively protected, AI has greater opportunity to compile and report on allegations of human rights abuse. In nations where international human rights monitors are completely banned, for example, or in which the press and individual speech critical of the government are nonexistent or heavily censored, it is relatively difficult for AI to report on the same. This potential tendency to over-report allegations of human rights abuse in nations that are comparatively lessor violators of human rights has been called "Moynihan's Law," after the late American Senator and former Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who is said to have stated that at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights. Critics who allege AI suffers from this problem point out what they describe as a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example Israel, when compared with North Korea or Cambodia. One such example is the allegation of NGO Monitor, a publication of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which noted that between September 2000 until the beginning of 2003, when AI became active in the crisis in Darfur, AI issued 52 reports on the human rights abuses in the Sudan, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives through starvation and ethnic violence, as well as creating 1.2 million refugees (according to the World Health Organization), while AI concurrently issued 192 reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Examination of the links it provides in support of its claim reveals that the number of reports issued on Sudan during this period was in fact 4, and the number of documents (reports, press releases, and urgent actions) was 54. AI defenders respond by asserting that all nations should aspire to absolute respect for human rights, and that the difficulties associated with monitoring 'closed' countries ahould not mean that 'open' countries should receive less scrutiny.

Amnesty International have been criticised for having an ideological bias, and this criticism has been about AI being both left- and right-wing. Left-wingers usually feel that the Human Rights are based on individualistic thinking, capitalism, colonialism and liberalism (liberalism in the original sense as meant by Locke, J.S. Mill and the likes), and feel that cultural differences between parts of the world means that the Human Rights are not at all universal.

On the other hand, conservative commentators in various publications have alleged that AI's reporting reflects ideological bias toward a left-wing political viewpoint in opposition to the foreign policy of the United States. To support this they point to AI's treatment of the human rights implications of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Critics of AI have suggested that AI's concern for the human rights implications of this war disproportionately criticize the effects of U.S. military action while in comparison they were less vociferous about the abuses of the Hussein regime and the human rights implications of the continued rule of this government. Examples of this criticism can be found in the links below. Supporters of AI have pointed out that AI was critical of Hussein's regime while Donald Rumsfeld was shaking the dictator by the hand, and that when the White House released reports on the human rights record of Hussein, they depended almost entirely on AI documents that the US had ignored when Iraq was a US ally in the 1980s.

Critics have also claimed that Amnesty International has failed to give proper weight to, or take a strong enough stance against:

  • Alleged Israeli abuses of Palestinian human rights.
  • Alleged abuses against human rights in Puerto Rico.
  • Apartheid South Africa.

Diana Johnstone, in her book Fool's Crusade, alleged that AI played an uncritical roled during the various Balkan wars, and discusses the case of a woman who was taken on a 25 US-city tour with a film about her ordeal as an alleged rape camp victim. According to Johnstone, the alleged rape camp victim, Jadranka Cigelj, was actually a senior propagandist in the Croatian government, and a confidante of President Franjo Tudjman.

Critics have also claimed that AI had a role propagating "disinformation" in a press release before the 1991 Gulf War, in which it charged that Iraqi soldiers were responsible for the deaths of "scores of civilians, including newborn babies, who died as a direct result of their forced removal from life-support machines." It later transpired that this claim was a propaganda hoax, and AI's press release was used in the opening salvo of this propaganda campaign. In an April 1991 statement, AI said that although its team was shown alleged mass graves of babies, it was not established how they had died and the team found no reliable evidence that Iraqi forces had caused the deaths of babies by removing them or ordering their removal from incubators. Critics have also claimed that AI censored a film about Venezuela due to appear in its film festival, and did so without explanation.

Perhaps the main critic of AI is Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at Univ. Illinois, Champaign and a former member of Amnesty International USA's board of directors – he left AI because of his disagreements about the coverage of human rights in certain countries, especially Israel/Palestine. In fact, he threatened to sue AI over its biased coverage, but at the last minute the lawsuit was settled out of court.

Other critics

  • Prof. Michael Mandel, a professor of international law at York Univ., Toronto.
  • Prof. Nabeel Abraham, professor anthropology at Henry Ford Univ., Michigan. He has written a comparative study of ten human rights organizations.
  • Prof. Clare Brandabur, professor of Comparative English Literature at Dogus Univ. Turkey.
  • Prof. Agustin Velloso, UNED, Dept. Comparative Educational Systems, Madrid Spain.
  • Paul de Rooij (three articles discussing various aspects of AI's alleged bias).

See also

External links

Articles critical of AI

Categories: