Today, Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen steps off the cliff into Idiotarianland.
The spiraling human rights crisis in suspended member Zimbabwe will grab most of the attention of Commonwealth leaders at the heads of government meeting in Nigeria this weekend. This is to be expected when there were more than a thousand reports of torture at the hands of the police and security services last year. President Mugabe must be sent a clear message that arbitrary detention, torture and systematic repression are at odds with the Commonwealth’s vision of democracy, the rule of law and good governance.
However, leaders must also look at how other members have trampled on basic freedoms in their rush to join the so-called “war on terror”, have attacked the right to seek asylum, and still permit cruel punishments and executions. Is it any wonder that Mugabe has got the message that human rights violations will not be challenged?
…
Our own government made the UK the only country in Europe to derogate from the European convention on human rights in order to rush through the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. It has used it to imprison 14 foreign nationals for up to two years without charging them or bringing them to trial. They face the prospect of remaining in detention indefinitely on the basis of secret evidence that they have not been allowed to see and therefore cannot challenge. These “security measures” are undermining the credibility and viability of basic legal safeguards.
The clampdown on the right to asylum has seen the Australian government’s “Pacific solution” set of policies enable it to hold for months scores of people, who have been recognised as refugees, in detention centres – a policy branded by a UN delegation as “offensive to human dignity”. Similarly, the new asylum bill in the UK threatens to criminalise those seeking asylum.
See, it appears to be like this. Unless we are perfect, anyone else has every right to do exactly what they will – and we of course can’t be critical. This is a consequence of that particular blindness that we seem to have nowadays in which everything bad becomes equivalently bad; it’s a kind of binary morality.
Sadly, I live in an analog world, as do the rest of the real people I know.
Ms. Allen, may I introduce you to your US counterpart, William Schulz?
Certainly I have argued within Amnesty that in the face of genocide, such as in Rwanda, the organization is utterly remiss not to take a position in favor of military intervention.
At some point we can spend our energy worrying about relabelling audio jacks labelled ‘master/slave’, or about liberals who criticize team names using racial epithets – or we can look at countries that are being looted by kleptocrats, and where the people are starving as a result.
It seems like an easy decision to me.
I cancelled my membership in Amnesty International almost 20 years ago. Who needs an organization that can’t make the destinction between an unnecessary inquiry into library records and outright torture? AI has ‘idiotarianized’ themselves into NOW territory. And it’s a shame because Amnesty was doing good & important work through the cold war.
BTW the real crime is not the _energy_ being expended on relabelling jacks but on the the _money_ i.e. salaries of people who should be doing better things being spent on this makework task. The money would be better spent on counseling for anyone truly injured by the labelling on a hard drive/jack/etc.
Amnesty could use a good strategic prioritization process.
Praktike,
Does that process incolve a shinai to the side of the head, sharply administered?
Regarding an analog world, I like the Alfred Korzybski quote:
There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking.
Who was it who said ‘Judge, lest ye not be judged’? We have a duty to be critical, and to answer the criticisms of our decisions. As for prioritization, the money Amnesty International spends is dwarfed by the danger of our being looted by corporate kleptocrats.
Out of curiosity, how many Anonymous Coward’s are there? And, are you all individually numbered?
slashdot has thousands of them. I picked #8 because I didn’t want to go all the way to eleven.
I would interpret the Amnesty quote as someone trying to redress a hypocritical blind spot rather than someone who has lost their ‘moral compass’.
Yes. Torture and murder is worse than imprisoning refugees and suspension of habeas corpus but isn’t this supposed to be a libertarian site?
I know people who have been imprisoned and although metaphorical, applying the adjective ‘torture’ to their situation is far from fanciful.
Should we not be holding our own governments to higher standards than this? Do you mind if I reserve the right to criticize Both the Zimbabwe government and the UK government. If it makes you happier we can have a repression score out of 10 just so no-one can accuse us of losing our sense of perspective.
Heh. Gratuitous Spinal Tap reference?
Yup. Have a pan-galactic-gargle-blaster on me, Slarti!
The problem is not a human rights organzization focusing on mistreatment. We expect that. The problem is a “human rights” organization minimizing or excusing mistreatment in places like Zimbabwe. Amnesty isn’t redressing a hypocritical blind spot, it’s creating one.
“Yes. Torture and murder is worse than imprisoning refugees and suspension of habeas corpus but isn’t this supposed to be a libertarian site?”
Which means what? That all sense of proportion should therefore be suspended? This is itself a classic dishonest “yes but…” argument.
We are owed 2 things from groups like Amnesty: [1] a commitment to human rights as a primary mission and value; [2] honest disclosure and credibility, which requires both a sense of proportion, and also persistent investigation even in places that are less convenient.
Re: #1 – At the end of the day, a group like Amnesty is either about human rights, or it’s not. “Yes, but…” should not be part of their lexicon. Once you start apologising or minimizing, it’s clear that human rights are subordinate to other considerations. Which may be fine (even required) for a nation state, but not for a “human rights” NGO.
Claiming to be a dedicated human rights organization while showing a readiness to excuse and/or distract others from violations committed by the “right” people borders on false advertising. Amnesty is failing this test.
RE: #2 – First AndyB repudiates the lack of proportion, then he turns right around and justifies it again. Not good. Credibility for an international organization requires first that the organization be seen to have a sense of proportion, and second it requires at least the avoidance of attempts to shift the discussion away from countries like Zimbabwe (and make no mistake, that’s exactly what this was) by creating a linkage to complaints in the UK that does not exist in any logical sense. The tactic is both dishonest and logically flawed.
Had Amnesty discussed them seperately, there would be no issue (provided that they actually made a concerted, serious effort to find out and report on abuses in Zimbabwe). But they didn’t do that. The distraction ploy and moral dishonesty at work here are clear and palpable.
Amnesty is failing these tests – and it isn’t the first time. Human Rights Watch seems to understand this problem much better than Amnesty does, and to act on that understanding. Clearly, it’s possible to do better.
NGOs, too, need to be held to standards of honesty, transparency, and conduct. Which explains why I, too, am no longer a member of Amnesty International.
Joe,
Amnesty International is a prisoner of its fundraisers who are catering to the same fruit loops supporting Dean in the States and the merger of the European Left with Islamo-fascism.
Face facts, even leaving aside the capture of these organizations by their fund raisers, international NGOs are parasites on world disorder, while America is now in the business of removing these NGOs gravy trains.
International NGOs are going to be opposed to America because it is in their vital interests to be, what ever their avowed mission statement.
I agree that AL and JK have a point to make here, but:
AL:
How do you get from this:
President Mugabe must be sent a clear message that arbitrary detention, torture and systematic repression are at odds with the Commonwealth’s vision of democracy, the rule of law and good governance.
to this?
Unless we are perfect, anyone else has every right to do exactly what they will – and we of course can’t be critical.
JK:
Once you start apologising or minimizing, it’s clear that human rights are subordinate to other considerations.
Then you should be pleased that AI doesn’t apologize or minimise.
a readiness to excuse and/or distract others from violations
AI spends plenty of time attacking violations in third world countries. The idea that the motive for this article is to distract attention from Zimbabwe is just bizarre.
Credibility for an international organization requires first that the organization be seen to have a sense of proportion
You might note that the Indian and Ugandan violations are pretty severe.
avoidance of attempts to shift the discussion away from countries like Zimbabwe
AI (certainly an imperfect organization) does include among its strengths, the ability and inclination to fight on many fronts at once. This article is consistent with that.
International NGOs are going to be opposed to America because it is in their vital interests to be, what ever their avowed mission statement
This is the perfect statement of the problem, also perfectly summarized by Joe’s post above. The kind of people who run AI are the kind of people whose worldview requires that they regularly go through the ritual of condemning Amerika as the evil imperialist oppressor state, relying on whatever scant evidence they can pick up and regardless of whether the facts as a whole contradict entirely this worldview. It’s the same people (exhibiting the same reflex) as those, like Kate Allen, who put sarcastic scare-quotes around so-called “war on terror”.
I was particularly annoyed with AI’s siding against the US and Britain (and the Iraqi people) during the war by giving short shrift to the appalling tactics of the Hussein regime and complaining widely of the lack of television service in Baghdad.
It’s disgusting. On the other hand, I find it hard to condemn totally an organization that has fulfilled the useful function of documenting human rights abuses for so many years.
I agree with Andy B that we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard: Amnesty no longer has credibility on this issue and maybe institutionally can’t. Leave that task to the ACLU and others.
Abu,
I think that AI is definitely minimizing when it suggests that the UK and Australia (and by implication at least, the U.S.) have little standing to criticize regime’s (such as Mugabe’s) engaged in torture and deprivation of the most basic human rights because of detainees in the war on terror or the holding of asylum seekers in detention camps. While these latter practices should be subject to criticism and democratic principles, it is more than a stretch to juxtapose them with condemnation of the most fundamental human rights, as Kate Allen does. Her attitude in the pre-war, main war, and post-war situation in Iraq has been equally one-sided: Where is the criticism of the terrorists, the Bathists or the regimes and groups supporting them? Where is Amnesty’s outrage and concern about this?
It is not only what AI calls attention to. It is the way it does so. Comparing the inadequacies of UK procedures for dealing with terror suspects (or Australia’s procedures for refugees) in an article mocking the war on terror in a manner that implies that actions taken pursuant thereto are pretextual and comparing UK/Australia deficiencies with atrocities committed by repressive regimes undermines AI’s mission and credibility.
This creates two main problems:
1. To paraphrase Allen: Is it any wonder that Mugabe has got the message that human rights violations will not be challenged when AI equates them to the less than adequate lodgings for asylum seekers in Australia?
2. Amnesty seems to forget that it is only a watchdog agency with no enforcement powers. It’s admonitions are only useful if democratic states respectful of human and political rights act on them by applying diplomatic or economic pressure. Who does AI imagine is going to act upon the information it provides? China? France? The European Social Forum? Criticism of the type shown by Kate Allen marks AI as an unserious organization less likely to be heard or respected in the countries that actually do comply with and support human rights, even if imperfectly.
The politicization of AI may be a result of its need to cater to its political “base”, but then I, and many others I suspect, don’t want to be part of that base.
“Is it any wonder that Mugabe has got the message that human rights violations will not be challenged?”
I presume they mean when he found out in 2000, 2001, and 2002 that the EU would do nothing but mouth off when he killed farmers and slaughtered workers? Oh, he was talking about the US?
GG:
(1) . . . [AI] suggests that the UK and Australia . . . have little standing to criticize regime’s (such as Mugabe’s) engaged in torture and deprivation of the most basic human rights . . .
No, that’s not their argument. The AI claim (which, I would agree, is questionable) is those countries (and other Commonwealth members) are sending Zimbabwe the wrong signals: “When the government of Zimbabwe sees the flagrant disregard for basic human rights protection in other countries, the message it gets is that the Commonwealth is not serious about these commitments – and there will be no consequences if you disregard them.”
(2) It’s admonitions are only useful if democratic states respectful of human and political rights act on them by applying diplomatic or economic pressure.
I’d have thought it well known that AI relies heavily on direct action, that is, communications by its members to direct to perpetrating governments; and that they claim some success for this tactic.
(3) sarcastic scare-quotes around so-called “war on terror”
The phrase “war on terror” deserves to be scare-quoted, even by honest members of the pro-war party; first because “war on terrorism” != “war on terror” (despite the rise of AQ, terrorist organizations are the not the main source of political violence or terror, militias and lay genocidaires in civil conflicts are still a much greater source); second because it’s used regularly by its originator (the government of the United States) to assert a connection between the campaign against international terrorism and Gulf War II that is (to say the least) controversial.
That said, I would agree that dragging in the “war on terror” by name is one of the worst things about the article, and one of the many ways in which AI alienates decent right-wingers, from whom it should be seeking support for its human rights work.
In the above, after “decent right-wingers”, add “and liberal hawks”.
A simple way to state all of the above: Not only no moral compass but no map, no logical thought processes, no clue.