Amnesty Travesty Part III: Should conservatives beat 'em by joining 'em?

by Charles

This will be my last word on Amnesty International, unless the leaders of this organizational throw out another rhetorical Molotov cocktail like that "gulag of our times" nonsense.  I'll be touching on several issues that struck chords, and I believe it's worthwhile to finish off with an appeal to conservatives to change this organization from within.

Openness
In Tokyo last week, Irene Khan, the head of Amnesty International, defended her use of the word "gulag": 

"We wanted to send a strong message that ... (the detention centers) are actually undermining human rights in a very dramatic way."

Not only did she fully stand by her statements, she went further:

"Our answer is very simple ... open up the detention centers, allow us and others to visit them," she told reporters. "Transparency is the best antidote to misinformation or incorrect facts."

On this I half agree.  First, the International Committee of the Red Cross already has access to detainees (or at least the non-ghost kind).  If there are other independent and impartial human rights groups out there who seek access, then let them in.  Sadly, Amnesty International has lost its claim to impartiality because of the hostile statements made by its leaders.  As for transparency, I fully agree with Ms. Khan.  There should be as much transparency as possible, but not just with the United States.  The other nations of the world should be just as transparent.  Not only that, Amnesty International could use a lot more transparency.  Sadly, too many of their disclosures are well short of the openness preached by the secretary general.

AI provides no information on who its major contributors are, therefore we don't know which people are the most influential and how those contributions affect priorities.  Guidestar recently moved most of its data behind a paid-subscriber firewall, but when I looked a few weeks ago at the IRS Form 990s for 2002 and 2003, there was no information on individual donors (the organization is London-based, and I don't know if their financial disclosures are any better on the other side of the pond).  We also don't how much of the donations are earmarked for certain countries or projects.  Where is the transparency that Ms. Khan finds so important?  Certainly not with her organization.  This is just about all AI has to say about its financing:

Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it necessarily support the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. To ensure its independence, it does not seek or accept money from governments or political parties for its work in documenting and campaigning against human rights abuses. Its funding depends on the contributions of its worldwide membership and fundraising activities.

Transparency is also lacking in its gathering and reporting.  A former chair of the Israeli section of Amnesty International wrote this:

An outsider who reads it would certainly presume that it reflects the research that the organization carried out throughout the precedent year. This assumption is inaccurate.

AI lacks staff and financial resources to research 149 countries on the same level. Therefore, AI employs a hierarchy according to which it allocates its resources. Thus, the report includes entries on countries which were intensively researched and visited by AI's staff, alongside states that were not. The second category contains two types of states: (1) those where human rights violations are grave, routine, and which usually deny access to researchers; and (2) countries in which human rights violations are rare and are properly addressed by local nongovernmental organizations and governmental agencies. However, AI does not make this distinction or share its research methodology with the public. Transparency, which AI rightfully demands from governments, is not employed in its own publications. Thus, the considerations that led AI to research one country intensively, and other superficially, are vague and open to interpretation.

Perspective
This is a group in dire need of some perspective, and the first thing they should do is institute a rating system for each of the 149 countries it covers, with significant ratings downgrades when denied access.  If they're unable to quantify (using reasonably objective measures) which countries are the biggest to smallest human rights violators, by what basis do they allocate their resources?  How can they uphold their vision of a "world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards", when they do not have objective bases to judge in the first place? 

Does Amnesty International report on how much money they spend on each of the 149 countries they cover?  No.  Again, where is the transparency that Ms. Khan so dearly covets from others?  All we really have are the words in her foreward and the organization's output.  Judging by the 2005 news releases, Amnesty International spends much more effort on the United States than Cuba, by a factor of 15 (75 articles on the USA, 5 on Cuba).  Is the United States really a fifteen-times-worse human rights violator than Cuba?  Apparently yes in Amnesty International's cocooned world, betraying a view that is plainly whacked.  Anne Applebaum finishes her latest piece with this:

Amnesty, by misusing language, by discarding its former neutrality, and by handing the administration an easy way to brush off "ridiculous" accusations, also deprives itself of what should be its best ally. The United States, as the world's largest and most powerful democracy, remains, for all its flaws, the world's best hope for the promotion of human rights. If Amnesty still believes in its stated mission, its leaders should push American democratic institutions to influence U.S. policy for the good of the world, and not attack the American government for the satisfaction of their own political faction.

Instead of anti-Americanism, they should be allies with us.  Instead of antagonism, AI should be working with us on that Bushian vision thing for worldwide freedom and democracy.  But instead of comity, we get emnity.  Using the Freedom House list as a basis, how does Amnesty International report on the eight most oppressive governments on the planet?

• Myanmar (Burma), the 2005 report plus 15 articles in 2005.
• Cuba, where Amnesty International has not been allowed since 1988.  Where is the clamor for access?  As noted, five articles were written in 2005 on the island prison.
• Libya, 5 articles in 2005 written.  AI was just allowed into Libya for the first time in fifteen years.
• North Korea, where the movements of human rights groups were "severely restricted."  No additional articles were written by AI on North Korea in 2005.
• Saudi Arabia, a country with a "dire human rights situation" and which is arguably the worst oppressor of women in the world (not to mention worst flaunter of the UN Women's Convention), AI wrote 10 articles in 2005 on this nation of unenlightenment.
• Sudan.  AI has been paying attention, 46 articles written in 2005.
• Syria, AI was denied access to the country, but 28 articles were written in 2005 on this terrorist sponsor and harborer.
• Turkmenistan, there were 7 articles in 2005 by AI in addition to their 2005 report.

Not counting genocidal Sudan, there were more articles which take to task the greatest liberator on earth than for the seven greatest deniers of human rights in the world.  Make it a double for perspective, please.  Consider the core values of Amnesty International.

Amnesty International forms a global community of human rights defenders with the principles of international solidarity, effective action for the individual victim, global coverage, the universality and indivisibility of human rights, impartiality and independence, and democracy and mutual respect.

So where's the universality?  The impartiality?  The democracy?  The mutual respect?  How are references to gulags and pinocheted US leaders impartial and mutually respectful?  It should be all too clear that their human rights train is off the rails.

Impartiality
This is a small issue but the chord has been struck.  Its mission:

AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

No one is disputing that William Schulz (AIUSA executive director) and Chips Pitts III (AIUSA board chairman) can spend their money as they choose, but when they send money that expressly favors a Kerry government over a Bush government, or when they give cash to a candidate with a certain political ideology such as Ted Kennedy, their impartiality is rightfully called into question.  Their actions violate the spirit of neutrality and it damages the credibility of this group.

Membership
If we don't who the big donors are, surely there is no inkling on who the members of this organization are.  But the big question is this:  At what point do the views of its members defeat the purpose of its vision and its core mission?  According to its FAQ:

Amnesty International is a democratic, self governing movement. It answers only to its own worldwide membership.

But what happens when groups of AI members share this view about America:

Unfortunately the Election was stolen once again. Amerikkka is not a Democracy. That is why I do not consider my self a citizen anymore. Amerikkka is a Corporate entity, ergo a facsist state. The election was stolen through electronic vote rigging, voter suppressment, Mass Media distortion and a citizenry that is full of Hate and Fear. Amerikkka needs to be shunned. Its a rogue state that does not belong among civilized Nations.

One does not need to fool all the people all the time to maintain power. A poll taken in mid-2004 had 25% of respondents believing that WMD was found in Iraq. These are the Bush usefools who will believe anything from their demi-god. The other approx. 20% who support Bush do so because of the infantile response of Hate and Fear generated by the U.S. supported 9-1-1 attack. This was the needed "Pearl Harbor Event" mentioned in "Project for a New American Century". Couple this with a few votes stolen, and vote suppress efforts and wham bam another four years of disaster.

What we can do about Bush's Culture of Death? As a person committed to only peaceful change I have decided to become a 5th columnist. To wit: anytime you meet [an] American tell them how you feel, and then walk away. Shun them. If they want lodging refuse. Do not take U.S. dollars for anything. This money was made through the most vile deeds. Petition your own government to Isolate Amerikka anyway possible, demand that the War Criminals be held accountable, boycott Amerikkkan products. Petition the UN Human Rights Commission to investigate the Amerikkkan Empire use of Torture and send them the AI report. Do anything and everything short of violence, protest outside Amerikkan Embassies, protest Bush or Cabinet officials, send letters to your local paper especially when a U.S. official is about to visit. On the positive, any time a Nation stands up to Amerikka (like Venezuela), your government official says or does something you approve of send a letter of support. Keep on bitchen and blogging, but get busy. NOW.

To further inform all how twisted Bush and his usefools are I tell you what I saw on TV a few days ago. There was the irreverant Benny Hinn on his knees w/4 others reciting a prayer from Daniel. Except get this he said for the viewers reading along to change the word Israel and insert America! He read from the Bible and changed the Word. During the runup to The Amerikkkan-Iraq War he would keep up a steady drumbeat for War. During his Sunday service he would rail against the "Whore of Babylon", "pray for the troops" and other crap. To these people Slavery is Freedom, War is Peace and Jesus is a God of Death and Destruction. They are truly sick twisted people. And reliable intell. reports that they do have WMD! Incontrovertible! Its a slam dunk!

During the many demonstrations that I have been honored to participate in we often chant "The Whole World is Watching". If so the World better damn well do something. The village you save could be yours.

your fellow Human

P.S. We here at AI plead with all to support our efforts. Many of our personel brave very hostile and violent situations to document atrocities. Print the report and disburse freely especially among your Government officials, then they cannot deny having been informed. Finally Please visit AI today to see how you can help. Somewhere, Someone is yearning for your comforting word.

Emphases and minor spelling corrections and formatting changes mine.  I don't believe "Human" is a conservative Redstater trying to sound like a DU lunatic.  After all, the writer is also a regular commenter at a place called Warblogging.  It cannot be confirmed whether "Human" is an employee or member of AI, but he talks as if he is one, and if he is...whew.  The point is this.  Have enough of Human's views permeated this organization that it is no longer impartial and is now objectively anti-American?  I don't know the answer, but that is one reason why the statements of Khan and Schulz concern me.

If Amnesty International is truly a democratic organization, then what this group needs is not shunning and derision and dismissal.  Rather, it needs more members who can steer it back to its historical mission.  This leads me to the question in the title of this post:  Should conservatives beat 'em by joining 'em?  To me, the answer is yes, and that's why I joined Amnesty International today.  That's right.  I am now a member in good standing.  The executive director of Amnesty International USA, William Schulz, sent me a nice and friendly e-mail thanking me for joining his group and for providing financial support.

I ask all conservatives to join me in joining Amnesty International.  With enough of voices, we can advocate for change and move this group away from the fringes.  We can press the International Council to revisit its priorities, to establish a fair rating system for the countries it covers, to open its finances and to more openly disclose how it reports on countries and how much they spend covering those countries.  Who's with me?

(cross-posted at Redstate)

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

Randy, to be fair, if I saw a colleague putting up a picture of themselves shaking hands with a convicted felon, I'd most likely, and politely, say nothing - and expect the same politeness from them, should I put up a picture of me shaking hands with, well, Nelson Mandela. (Not that I have. But if I had, I surely would want it up on my wall.)

If I were the colleague's employer and it was a space where people from outside the company might see the picture, I suppose I might feel I had to consider whether it was good for the reputation of the company to have a picture like that on the wall.

The only pictures I've ever objected to at work are those overtly sexual in content.

I don't doubt your colleague was rude to you. But I think Miss Manners would say the first discourtesy was yours...

Not that I disagree with your initial point: Asked and answered numerous times. I have written in response to this argument by you, Von and Sebastian Holsclaw so many times it makes me wonder, frankly, if you just refuse to acknowledge. Why yes, I think Charles does refuse to acknowledge facts when they don't suit him. His claim that AI lacks transparency when he's been told where and how to find the facts he demands is... well, ludicrous.

[Randy Paul]

Charles in rereading your post I have to ask you this: do you know how many local AI groups are working on prisoner of conscience (POC) cases involving Cuba? Do you know how many are participants in the Caribbean Regional Action Network (CARRAN) and are working on issues involving Cuba? How many groups are working on POC cases in Saudi Arabia?

Do you know how manyy are working in the PIRAN Regional Action Network. How about PABRAN? Have you investigated what the groups in the town where you live are working on? Are you familiar with the fact that much of AI's work is done on a grassroots basis and your comments about issues culled from their website is an incredibly incomplete picture.

[Randy Paul]

Jesusgirlac,

Well he did call the picture to my attention and played Rush Limbaugh every day on his desktop radio. He loved to bait people.

[Jesurgislac]

Randy: Well he did call the picture to my attention

Oh, well, in that case, no - you were within your rights to comment! Sorry, I didn't realise that: I somehow got the impression that you'd seen the picture and commented on it out of the blue, which would (IMO) be against the rules of workplace politeness.

and played Rush Limbaugh every day on his desktop radio.

Urk. Deserved everything he got, from what I've heard of Rush Limbaugh...

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"If you think that they are failing their mission by not ranking and "making discrete moral distinctions between the countries," I have to humbly disagree."

I won't speak for Charles, but I think AI is failing their mission by ranking and making discrete moral distinctions between countries which are the inverse of the distinctions they ought to make. Calling for the arrest of US officials for their alleged part in the torture of a small number of people while not calling for the same in the case of Mugabe (who is killing tens of thousands) or Castro (who has allowed hundreds of political prisoners to die every year in his hell-holes since before I was born) is not failing to make a distinction.

It is making a distinction and deciding that the US is worse.

[Gary Farber]

"Castro (who has allowed hundreds of political prisoners to die every year in his hell-holes since before I was born)...."

Without, of course, defending Castro or his political repression: hundreds every year? Are you sure? Do you have a cite for such a figure? (I assume you do, or you wouldn't have said it.)

[ral]

Sebastian, Pinochet's arrest in the UK was based on an alleged crime against Spanish citizens and an extradition request from Spain.

Has Mugabe run afoul of anyone but his own citizens? I do not mean to belittle his possible crimes against humanity, but that does not seem to be a legal basis for any other country to act.

Perhaps we might envision a world where all such leaders are held to account, but we are far from that.

[Katherine]

They have not called for an arrest. They have called for an investigation. You have moved from impugning their motives to simply refusing to correct false statements of fact. Amnesty, for all its impugning of the political leaders you are fond of, and for its refusal to grade on a curve including Mugabe so the U.S. can pass as Charles wishes them too*--and they do go over the top, though the ratio is not as ridiculous as that of many of the conservatives on this site--does not make false statements of fact about them, and in your voluminous posts complaining about them and justifying yourself for ignoring them, I'm not sure you've ever pointed to one. When they do make factual errors they promptly correct them and they certainly don't go repeating them.

Amnesty USA called for an investigation, and an arrest only if that investigation gave sufficient proof that crimes have been committed. I agree that it was a mistake, and that while their substantive position on what should happen to people like Mugabe is in fact not all that different, their tone is different and that difference in tone is a mistake. But you know about Mugabe's crimes to some depart because members of Amnesty have risked their lives reporting them, and your descent into being outraged primarily by the outrage is really disheartening.

*hilzoy's post is the best I've seen recently on the Amnesty flap, but the best one liner is this, from slacktivist:

"But, good God, is this what America is now reduced to? Do we really have to go all the way over to Stalin or Saddam to find an example of someone whose behavior is reassuringly worse than our own? How are we supposed to maintain a shred of pride in our nation or in ourselves as a people when the best we can say for ourselves is that we're Not As Bad As the worst people we can think of? Do we really need Stalin in the class to blow the curve so we can pass this course?"

Charles' call for a rating system seem to me to be a desire to be graded on a curve with if not Stalin himself, his closest modern equivalents--Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Karimov, Castro, etc.--so that we can pass the course. I cannot think what other useful purpose it would serve.

[ral]

I suggest you try this search of AI's news for Zimbabwe if you feel they are giving insufficient attention to it.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Amnesty USA called for an investigation, and an arrest only if that investigation gave sufficient proof that crimes have been committed. I agree that it was a mistake, and that while their substantive position on what should happen to people like Mugabe is in fact not all that different, their tone is different and that difference in tone is a mistake."

The call for investigation is a dodge. You could make the exact same call for investigation and arrest about Castro, or Mugabe, or Kim. Choosing to do so ONLY in the case of US officials is not something that was forced on anyone. It reflects a prioritization choice.

The tone is different, but the difference in tone was almost certainly not a mistake in the sense of the word which means unfortunate accidental happenstance. It is probably more a mistake in the sense of a gaffe.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Ral, I presume you are aware that I linked to this far more comprehensive AI listing of reports on Zimbabwe in my post on the subject? Or were you talking to someone else?

[ral]

Sebastian, it will take me some time to formulate a response and I have to leave for now. I have too much to say for a quick answer (sorry I started without being able to finish).

[Randy Paul]

It is making a distinction and deciding that the US is worse.

No, it is including the US and you are making the decision that you feel that they are saying that the US is worse.

There is a difference.

[Charles Bird]

Charles' call for a rating system seem to me to be a desire to be graded on a curve with if not Stalin himself, his closest modern equivalents--Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Karimov, Castro, etc.--so that we can pass the course. I cannot think what other useful purpose it would serve.

Katherine, apparently my reference to "reasonably objective measures" did not sink in. The purpose is not to compare one country to another but to compare each country to universal standards set forth by AI, in keeping with its own vision statement, those "enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards."

[Jesurgislac]

Charles claims: The purpose is not to compare one country to another but to compare each country to universal standards set forth by AI

Yet in your initial post, you said (of AI): "

So, clearly, your purpose in suggesting a ratings system is to compare one country to another. What else is a ratings system for? Why try to claim that's not what you want?

[Jesurgislac]

Charles claims: The purpose is not to compare one country to another but to compare each country to universal standards set forth by AI

Yet in your initial post, you said (of AI): "This is a group in dire need of some perspective, and the first thing they should do is institute a rating system for each of the 149 countries it covers, with significant ratings downgrades when denied access. If they're unable to quantify (using reasonably objective measures) which countries are the biggest to smallest human rights violators, by what basis do they allocate their resources?"

So, clearly, your purpose in suggesting a ratings system is to compare one country to another. What else is a ratings system for? Why try to claim that's not what you want? (And if you're genuinely interested in how AI allocates its resources, why not follow up the links you have been given in this thread, find out, and then - if you see fit - you can criticize from a informed position, rather than from a position of willed ignorance.)

(Sorry for the glitch in the previous comment: undeleted angles bracket.)

[Phil]

You can't answer these questions because either they won't tell you or they do not objective measures in place. Without a ranking system, their reports are a cataloguing of shortcomings, but without any discrete moral distinctions made between the countries.

Um. When we're talking about something as abhorrent as systemic violations of fundamental human rights, it seems to me that "discrete moral distinctions made between the countries" is a road we hardly need to travel down.

Look at it this way: Aside from, say, the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sins, and the Bible's mention of The Big One as "blaspheming the Holy Spirit," there is no ranked system of sin. Sin is sin, and all sins are equal in the eyes of god, no? The only reason for you, as an example, to suppose that Charles Starkweather, for example, is a "bigger sinner" than you is to feel better about yourself, not to say anything real about how serious your sins are.

Sebastian, in re: The call for investigation is a dodge. You could make the exact same call for investigation and arrest about Castro, or Mugabe, or Kim. Choosing to do so ONLY in the case of US officials is not something that was forced on anyone. It reflects a prioritization choice.

Does it make a difference at all that, in the case of the U.S., we are accused of violating the rights of citizens of other countries, whereas for all their horrors the crimes of Castro et al. are, as it were, self-directed? I think that's the distinction AI is making, and whether you agree with their conclusions or not, it's not a trivial difference.