tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24528000.post2138337936190957776..comments2023-10-28T12:01:47.929+00:00Comments on Edward Lucas: Amnesty International, wrongs and rightsEdward Lucashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369936559712607693noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24528000.post-84045977538862707852007-03-26T23:38:00.000+00:002007-03-26T23:38:00.000+00:00Dear Edward, I read the article and leader that yo...Dear Edward, <BR/><BR/>I read the article and leader that you authored about Amnesty International in this week’s The Economist with interest. Some of what you say is valid criticism of the choices that the organization has made in recent years. However, other points that you raise are at least as ill-focussed and off target as you claim that the organization’s mission has become. <BR/><BR/>Firstly, it needs to be pointed out that Amnesty is being no less “fastidious” legally than Human Rights Watch in deciding to work on economic, social and cultural rights. Nor is it spontaneously attempting to expand the notion of rights to incorporate “the woollier cause of social reform”. Such rights are there in the foundational document of the international human rights system – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, many states have, by signing up to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, committed themselves towards the realization of these. One may engage in philosophical discussion as to whether such rights constitute ‘real’ human rights. However, in terms of international law, there can be no such discussion – that ship has sailed long ago.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, Amnesty has been somewhat conservative in adapting to the huge expansion in international human rights law. It might be considered more surprising that it has taken this long for the organization to begin to work on economic, social and cultural rights. However, your article seems to ignore the fact that Amnesty began to expand its mandate to address new issues from very early on in its history. Initially, it was established to work solely on those ‘prisoners of conscience’ who had been deprived of their liberty because they peacefully expressed non-violent opinion. However, it soon began to work for the victims of torture as well as those who had been detained by security forces and “disappeared”. Such a process of change is therefore not new but has occurred throughout the organization’s history to recognize new challenges to human rights and take advantage of the new opportunities offered by the development of international human rights law. <BR/><BR/>The more important point that you raise is whether or not Amnesty should work on such rights. There are many good reasons that one might think that it should not – it may be forced to spread its resources or divert attention from civil and political rights. However, I disagree with your suggestion that Amnesty should not do so because it will no longer appeal to “people of all political persuasions and none”. You fail to give examples in your article of campaigns that you describe as “disconcerting” such as that against violence against women. If one goes to the website, one sees that the main case raised in this campaign at the moment is that of two Mexican women allegedly raped by soldiers and whose complaints have not been adequately investigated (http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/mex-080307-action-eng). Is it really the case that traditional Amnesty supporters would find such a case to be “woolly” or else too political? <BR/><BR/>Looking at the materials on “Economic Globalization and Human Rights”, I find it hard to find anything that could be considered remotely controversial or political (http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-398/index). What exactly are your objections to? The responsibility of companies to respect human rights? Denial of food in North Korea? Or the responsibility of the Rwandese government and donor agencies to try to provide medical care to women raped and infected with HIV in the genocide? <BR/><BR/>In relation to another criticism that you make, I can't see what is problematic with the notion that "Working on individuals is important, but if we don't work on systemic change we just exchange one group of sufferers for another". This statement by Irene Khan is not sourced and I’m not aware of the context. However, I understand it to mean that one should try and change the cause of human rights violation as well as work to improve the situation of the victim. In terms of "prisoners of conscience" that might mean that one should reform a law that is being used to threaten the right to freedom of expression rather than merely focus on securing the release on one person who has been imprisoned under it. In the case of torture, such an approach might mean that one might work for changes to detention regulations in a country that facilitate the torture of suspects rather than work for prosecution of the perpetrators after the violation has occurred. Such an approach makes good sense and is a better use of resources than a focus exclusively on the individual.<BR/><BR/>I wonder to what extent your vision of a prelapsarian Amnesty is sincere? I have read your previous article Amnesty and Estonia and its anger that the organization has previously dared to address a “country usually seen as the best example of good government in the region”. Your response seems to have been to do a hatchet-job on the organization and depict it in the articles in this week’s Economist as “just another left-wing pressure group, banging on about globalisation, the arms trade, Israel and domestic violence” while ignoring human rights elsewhere. It seems that you have been prepared to misrepresen the organization in order to do so.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06464925532125784836noreply@blogger.com