Rather good article by Nick Cohen:
Keep fighting for human rights
Is Amnesty International forsaking its time-honoured role as champion of the oppressed?
Nick Cohen
Sunday June 5, 2005
The Observer
"To Khan[*], the human-rights agenda is passe and maybe an example of cultural imperialism. 'Amnesty has a middle-class, Western, complacent, white image in many parts of the world,' she told the Financial Times magazine. The stereotype would be rectified by expanding the remit and campaigning against poverty. 'More children die of lack of food or water than [are] killed by torture and the death penalty,' explained a supporter."
*Irene Khan, the new secretary general of Amnesty International
(By the way I was alerted to this article by a post in the always interesting Harry's Place.)
4 comments:
What a fantastic article, go read it, boys. Agree 100% with the gulag comments especially.
Related link:
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v3n10/Amnesty2004ReportTooMuchPoliticsNotEnoughCredibility.htm
Amnesty's 2004 Annual Report - Too much politics, not enough credibility
Am currently reading this, which I recommend:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141018666/qid=1118149011/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/202-5497568-2755823
The End of Poverty: How We Can Make It Happen in Our Lifetime
Jeffrey Sachs
Sachs - no neo-con he - is at pains to point out, as in Cohen's article, that it is incumbent on both the rich world *and* the poor to work together to solve poverty, and that giving money without any conditions as to how it is spent is clearly a waste of time.
Particularly interesting given that the author is former chair of the Israeli section of Amnesty International.
Be warned, the page took a while to come up in my browser.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1117594048704&p=1006953079865
Amnesty International – do your homework
Michael Ehrlich
Jerusalem Post
Jun. 2, 2005
Amnesty chief suspended after attacking group's links to 'Britain's most famous Taliban supporter'
Daily Mail
9th February 2010
A senior Amnesty International official has been suspended after attacking the human rights charity for allying itself with 'Britain's most famous supporter of the Taliban'.
Gita Sahgal, head of the organisation's gender unit, branded Amnesty's links to former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg a 'gross error of judgment'. She was removed from her post within a few hours of her criticism emerging, and now a bitter war of words is raging between the activist and her employer. ...
Miss Sahgal insists Amnesty, which is the world's biggest human rights organisation, should not be closely associated with Mr Begg because of his role as a figurehead for a campaign group called Cageprisoners.
This group highlights the plight of Guantanamo inmates and other suspects held as part of the war on terror. It has championed the rights of jailed al-Qaeda members and hate preachers, including Anwar al-Awklaki who allegedly was spiritual adviser to two of the 9/11 attackers. Al-Awlaki, who was subsequently banned from the UK and is now said to be a commander of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, is also thought to have met Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of 9/11, Abu Hamza, the hook-handed cleric facing extradition to the U.S. on terror charges and hate-preacher Abu Qatada are also all mentioned on the Cageprisoners website.
Miss Sahgal, 53, an expert on religious fundamentalism who has a 30-year history in human rights campaigning, claims the group 'actively promotes Islamic Right ideas and individuals'. By associating itself with Begg and Cageprisoners, Amnesty is risking its reputation on human rights, she argues.
In an e-mail to her bosses at the end of January, she said: 'To be appearing on platforms with Britain's most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment.' She claims her warning was ignored. Shortly after it was revealed by the Sunday Times last weekend, Amnesty suspended her and launched an internal inquiry.
Miss Sahgal immediately released an angry statement online, claiming: 'Amnesty International has sanitised the history and politics of ex-Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, and completely failed to recognise the nature of his organisation Cageprisoners. The issue is a fundamental one about the importance of the human rights movement maintaining an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed to systematic discrimination and fundamentally undermine the universality of human rights. I have raised this issue because of my firm belief in human rights for all.'
She said there was a history of warnings within Amnesty about Mr Begg that had all been ignored.
'Amnesty has created the impression that Begg is not only a victim of human rights violations but a defender of human rights. Many of my highly respected colleagues, each well-regarded in their area of expertise has said so. Each has been set aside,' she said.
'I have been a human rights campaigner for over three decades, defending the rights of women and ethnic minorities, defending religious freedom and the rights of victims of torture, and campaigning against illegal detention and state repression. I have raised the issue of the association of Amnesty International with groups such as Begg’s consistently within the organisation. I have now been suspended for trying to do my job and staying faithful to Amnesty’s mission to protect and defend human rights universally and impartially.'
Her situation has sparked fury among Amnesty's own members, some of whom are now threatening to quit the organisation and cease donations.
Why Is Amnesty International Attacking Canada?
Hudson NY
by Adam Daifallah
August 17, 2011
...
Earlier this month, the secretaries general of Amnesty International's Canadian branches, Alex Neve and Béatrice Vaugrante, wrote an open letter to Canadian government ministers Vic Toews and Jason Kenney to express outrage over Canada's recent outing of 30 men residing in Canada – all of whom who are accused of war crimes.
...
Cutting through the preachy jargon, the point Amnesty is making in its letter is that if Canada deports these immigrants, they probably will not face any further investigation or criminal charges;and that by deporting them, Canada may be violating its "international human rights obligations if they face the possibility of serious human rights violations." Read: If Canada sends them home, they may be persecuted in their native countries.
Kenney's response was fierce, taking the group to task on a number of fronts and rightly calling into question Amnesty's decision to single out the Canadians for scorn.
"Our primary duty as a government is to protect Canada and Canadians," wrote Kenney. "Deporting these men discharges this duty and ensures Canada will not become a sanctuary for international war criminals and serious human rights abusers."
Amnesty's preferred course of action – to prosecute these men in Canada – would cost taxpayers millions to try these men for crimes committed in other countries, often eons ago. Such a move would clog criminal courts even further than they are now. And it would give war criminals an extra incentive to try immigrating to Canada in the hopes of having a trial there, thus being able to stay longer while they wait and launch appeals.
Kenney's larger point is the key: Why is Amnesty attacking Canada? Amnesty's attack has the effect of lumping Canada in with some of the most repulsive countries Amnesty attacks, even though Canada has one of the most generous immigration systems in the world. Why focus such a disproportionate amount of energy on Canada and other free countries when there are so many unspeakable human rights violations taking place on a daily basis in unfree countries?
A quick check of the group's website shows that in the past year, Amnesty had 151 mentions of human rights issues in the United States, and yet only 140 for Iran, 20 for Cuba -- and a whopping 6 for North Korea. Perhaps Canada should aspire to be more like North Korea?
The Western democracies are paying a price for being transparent. Amnesty does not focus its energy on the biggest human rights abusers, but rather on documenting what it can to produce improvements and heighten public awareness. This is not conjecture: Amnesty confirmed in February 2007 that it reports disproportionately on more democratic and open countries with access to information rather than on worthier targets.
It must be strange to be an Amnesty donor and to see money being used to fund operations used principally to criticize one's own governments, while the organization remains relatively quiet on blood-curdling human rights abusers.
Amnesty is also lining its wallets. Earlier this year, the British newspapers revealed the salaries and bonuses given to senior Amnesty staff. Secretary General Irene Khan was paid £132,490 (USD $217,284) and received a severance package of four times that. As British parliamentarian Philip Davies noted, "I am sure people making donations to Amnesty, in the belief they are alleviating poverty, never dreamed they were subsidizing a fat cat payout. This will disillusion many benefactors."
Given this, plus its false outrage over Canada's recent move, plus Amnesty's long-standing hypocrisy in turning a blind eye to some of the most horrific human rights violators, it seems almost impossible to take Amnesty International seriously anymore.
Post a Comment