Amnesty International (AI) is an organization that seems to be a protector of human rights and freedom with no ulterior motives. But is it? Imagine my dismay when I learned that AI is a member of the United Nations. At the Amnesty USA website I was assured that AI had won major battles against governments in 2007. Among their list of successes was the United States agreeing to international treaties forbidding torture, and Sudan agreeing to respect human rights. Is that only in their own country, or does it include Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and Darfur?

Does war constitute a violation of human rights? According toSourcewatch.org, in 1999, AI played along when U.S. State Department officials proposed the bombing of Serbia. Former AI employee, Prof. Francis A. Boyle from Univ. of Illinois, Champaign, stated that AI participated in the government propaganda campaign to change U.S. citizens’ attitudes about U.S. intervention in Kuwait. This included promoting the hoax presented by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, that Iraqi soldiers were “throwing babies out of incubators.”

President Bush (the elder) used the AI press release pertaining to the incubator story as proof of the incident. Does Amnesty International’s definition of human rights exclude mass extermination of civilians due to invasion by foreign countries?

The founding of AI

Amnesty International began with an article by British lawyer, Peter Benenson "The Forgotten Prisoners" published in The Observer newspaper, (London), in 1961. The article, about the imprisonment of two Portuguese students who had raised wine glasses in a toast to freedom was reprinted in other papers across the world and began Benenson’s “Appeal for Amnesty.”

That same year he held the first international meeting on human rights with delegates from Belgium, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the United States to establish "a permanent international movement in defense of freedom of opinion and religion." In London, an office and library were opened, staffed by volunteers. The first AI groups outside of the UK were then established in West Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy and Switzerland. Each AI group adopted three prisoners from contrasting geographical and political areas.

In 1962 AI groups were started in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Australia, Ireland, and the U.S. At a conference in Belgium, the groups decided to set up a permanent organization that would become known as "Amnesty International.” By 1964 there were 360 AI groups in 14 countries. In August of that year the United Nations gave Amnesty International consultative status.

By its 40th anniversary May 28, 2001, AI had more than 1,000,000 members and donors in more than 140 countries. The organization's nerve center is the International Secretariat in London, employing over 420 staff and volunteers from 50 countries. More than 7,500 Amnesty International groups are registered there, plus thousands of youth and student groups throughout the world.

Form and finance

Amnesty International is self-governed by a nine-member International Executive Committee (IEC), elected every two years by representatives of the worldwide movement, and an elected member of the International Secretariat. None of these people, nor those on the Amnesty USA board, appear inWho’s Who of the Elite, a 2006 publication of all the current members of the Bilderberg group, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Tri-Lateral Commission.

AI’s 2007 online financial statement reflects $38.9 million from unnamed individuals, $5.16 million of which was “restricted,” – likely earmarked for specific countries or causes. Of $1,107,506 from foundations, $735,760 was restricted. Approximately $1 million is generated by literature and merchandise sales, conferences, and “list rental” (probably selling members’ address information). Of approximately $35 million available, around $18 million was spent on “international” and “campaigns and actions.” The rest was spent on membership “mobilization programs,” which develop the capacity of AIUSA members and supporters and allies to bring pressure to bear on perpetrators of human rights abuse. Such programs include publications such as the quarterly Amnesty International Magazine that goes out to anyone who pays $25 per year, other forms of public outreach and fundraising. Operating expenses in 2007 totalled $1.2 million and $13 million was “invested,” resulting in a profit of almost $600,000.

The mission

Amnesty International gathers information by sending delegates to talk to victims of human rights violations, observe trials, and interview local human rights activists and officials. The facts gathered are then used to mobilize public pressure on governments and others that have influence to stop the abuse of human rights, using demonstrations, writing letters, educating and lobbying local authorities and intergovernmental organizations on behalf of single individuals, or global campaigns on specific issues.

Amnesty International’s mandate is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assemblyin 1948. Their “Amnesty International Report 2008” shows that, 60 years after creation of this mandate, people are still tortured, face unfair trials or are not allowed to speak freely in at least 77 countries.

AI’s focus is to free all prisoners of conscience—people detained anywhere for their beliefs or because of their ethnic origin, sex, color, language, etc, who have not used or advocated violence; ensure fair and prompt trials for political prisoners; abolish the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners; and end extrajudicial executions and “disappearances.”

Amnesty International opponents

On July 16, 2007, in The Weekly Standard, Ryan Anderson claimed that on the members-only section of the AI website was a (secret) announcement of a new policy that condemns as a human-rights violator any country that does not allow broad access to abortion or punishes abortion providers. Its public website states, “Women must have access to safe and legal abortion services where continuation of pregnancy poses a risk to their life or grave risk to their health.” Anderson insists that the “health exemption” is an open invitation to unlimited abortion, saying Amnesty International calls for “the removal of all criminal penalties (including imprisonment, fines, and other punishments) against those seeking, obtaining, providing information about, or carrying out abortions.”

“In fact, Amnesty International's commitment to abortion is so extreme that it explicitly opposes the federal ban on partial-birth abortion that the Supreme Court recently upheld,” he says.

Isn’t abortion a violent, cruel, inhuman or degrading act resulting in the death penalty; an extra judicial execution and “disappearance”—the very criteria that AI’s mission is opposed to? Anderson reports the Catholic Church stated, "by pushing for the decriminalization of abortion as part of their platform, Amnesty International has disqualified itself as a defender of human rights."

The pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League claims that AI's reporting is biased regarding Israel’s bombing of Palestine, but then, the ADL gives new meaning to the word “bias.”

AI is railed by Iran and Iraq war protagonist Carter Laren for asserting that people have a “right to food, clothing, housing and medical care,” and “the land upon which to grow it.” Laren believes that “Iraq has clearly been a victory for human rights,” disregarding the 4,000,000 people who have lost their homes. He apparently believes food, clothing and housing is a privelege.

Ned Rice on theNational Reviewwebsite attacked AI for stating that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamoprisons have become "the gulag of our time." Rice supports his position by stating, “the Soviet gulag consisted of hundreds, possibly thousands of forced labor camps that existed from the time of the Russian revolution right up through the Gorbachev era . . . the inmates were not foreign-born terrorists or enemy combatants, but Soviet citizens, mostly, housed in POW-style barracks and given just enough nourishment, usually, to survive. Unlike the current residents of Guantanamo, gulag residents performed slave labor in the mines, forests, and farms of the Soviet empire.”

On the Free Republic website, Chuck Morse, a Boston radio talk-show host, complained about AI championing the cause of the “al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,” and “Muslims who have experienced discrimination in the U.S. since Sept. 11,” while saying nothing about the Palestinian Authority and its terrorist offshoots.

AI and the U.S.

Amnesty International also has called the United States “The Threat of a Bad Example,” stating, “the U.S. has displayed a troubling tendency to seek unchallengeable executive power for itself in the context of its ‘war on terror,’ such as arbitrary arrests, prolonged incommunicado detention, ill-treatment, interrogations without legal council and threats of unfair trials by military bodies. All too often where the U.S. leads, others follow. With the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress has turned bad executive policy into bad law. Congress, through inaction and now legislation, has become complicit. Amnesty International will continue to campaign for the U.S. ‘war on terror’ policies and practices to be brought into full compliance with international law and for repeal of any law that fails to meet this test.”

Rights of the Child

As an affilliate of the United Nations, AI questions some of their policies while blindly following others. AI’s website notes that according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),all children are designated a “special legal status because of their vulnerability. . . safeguards are set out to protect them in almost every aspect of their life, with the noteworthy exception of their recruitment in the armed forces and participation in hostilities, and itinsists that the UK “refrain from recruiting any person below the age of 15 years into their armed forces and, in recruiting those between the ages of 15 and 18 years, to endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.”

Zimbabwe

On the other hand,AI has become involved with Zimbabwe’s food distribution policies. “As a party to the (UN) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICSECR), the Zimbabwe government has an obligation to uphold the right of all Zimbabweans to food, using all the resources at their disposal, including international assistance,” says AI. It recommended Zimbabwe allow the UN to conduct crop assessment missions.

Tasers

Amnesty International is concerned about deaths following the use of TASERs and excessive use of force involving TASERs. According to the AI Canada website, “Portable and easy to use, with the capacity to inflict severe pain at the push of a button without leaving substantial marks, electro-shock weapons are particularly open to abuse. The device has been widely deployed without the necessary independent information to establish genuine safety parameters. Amnesty International has documented numerous cases of serious abuses involving electro-shock weapons around the world.”

Free speech

In June 2007, AI and The Observer newspaper used the Internet to link activists from around the world in a discussion about the struggle against Internet repression. The meeting heard from Internet gurus, cyber dissidents and net activists, “It may not be fatal, but it’s a pretty bad disease nonetheless” according to Tim Hancock, AI’s campaigns director in the UK. “The virus of Internet repression is spreading. The ‘Chinese model’ of an Internet that allows economic growth but not free speech or privacy is growing in popularity, from a handful of countries five years ago to dozens of governments today who block sites and arrest bloggers.”

China

Amnesty International has broad human rights concerns in China. As the 2008 Olympics approaches they are monitoring the Chinese government closely. According to amnesty.org.nz, the four main areas of concern are the continued use of the death penalty (China remains the world’s top executioner), abusive forms of administrative detention, torture, harassment and imprisonment of human rights defenders, including journalists and lawyers, and the censorship of media and the Internet. It’s AI’s position that, “An Olympic Games characterized by serious human rights violations would be an affront to the core principles of the Olympic Charter. China has promised to make human rights improvements and must live up to the challenge it has set itself to aspire to the ideals of the Olympics. The founders of the Olympic Charter envisioned the Olympic Games as being centered firmly on the preservation of human dignity and respect for ethical principles . . . China, as host of the Beijing Olympics, should honor these principles.”

NGO?

The jury is still out on Amnesty International. While claiming to neither support or oppose any war, AI allows incredible human rights abuses to take place because it does not condemn unprovoked, unnecessary wars waged upon the poorest people by the richest. As well, there is a danger of placing monitoring responsibilities into the hands of a “Non-Governmental Organization” like AI, which affiliates with the United Nations, an affiliation that grants both of these self-appointed, unaccountable bureaucracies the appearance of authority and legality.

Gatekeepers

AI fits the model of a “gatekeeper.” Those who seek to control us know that 90 percent of humanity goes the direction of the prevailing paradigm and 10 percent think and act independently. In modern times, about fivepercent of free thinkers are “liberals” (leftists) and about five percent are “conservatives (rightwingers). While half the 90 percent may lean left and the other half may lean right, they can be counted on to stay inside the boxes created for them.

The five percent on either side, however, must be kept under control through more clever means. The most efficient way is for the controllers to pimp people and organizations who appear leftist as the mass media voice of liberalism and do likewise with people and organizations who appear rightwing as voices of conservatism.

These entities are called “gatekeepers.” On the left we have Noam Chomsky, Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union; on the right we have Shaun Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Focus on the Family.

The trick is to corral the largest numbers of people with politically controlled, hotbutton issues—global warming, human rights, choice and social programs on the left; education, immigration, pro-life and guns on the right—and temper their other concerns by scripting their gatekeepers to dialogue them back to center.

Amnesty International, while it does expose wrong-doing, has failed to end human rights violations in its 40 years of operations. The complacency it offers its contributors by feigning credibility keeps them in their box and not out in the streets engaged in real activism.

www.proliberty.com/observer/20080632.htm