amnesty international

“It's one thing to keep an eye on the human rights situation in North Korea, China, or Uzbekistan. But monitoring human rights in Britain or Germany would be laughable.”

Ludmilla Alexeyeva, doyenne of the Russian human rights movement

Amnesty International has a principle known as WOOC, which stands for Work On Own Country. The principle says (roughly) that members of Amnesty International are not permitted, as members, to do campaigning work on cases in their own country². The lobbying and campaigning that members do has to be directed (primarily) at governments other than one's own. Thus, if you are a member of the UK Section of Amnesty, you are likely to be fighting for the rights of individuals living in Sudan, in Burma, in France or Bulgaria, rather than for victims of the British government located in the UK.

The European Court of Human Rights condemned the so-called “five techniques” used by UK military and security forces during that period. It ruled that the techniques - hooding, wall-standing, noise, deprivation of food and drink, and sleep deprivation - were cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, banned under the European Convention on Human Rights. The British government gave “a solemn undertaking” to the court that the techniques would never again be used on British soil."

Human Rights Watch - Dangerous Ambivalence: UK Policy on Torture since 9/11

Never again on British soil, but we can solemnly undertake that you can ship it overseas and we shall turn a blind eye - especially if there are others who will do the actual dirty business...

I've been looking again at Amnesty's statements in the run-up to the Iraq war. It was their attitude to that - or rather, their refusal to condemn the war plans outright - that led to my cancelling my membership, after many years. That, coupled with the appalling squandering of resources on international staff, expensive London offices, glossy publications and gas-guzzling flights (while cutting back on measly salaries for local workers).

In retrospect, their attempts to be 'neutral' in the run-up to the war seem even more pathetic and inexcusable than they did at the time. Irene Khan's 'special' message to the Security Council is a good example:

'As the Security Council debates a new resolution on Iraq I am writing to urge you to put the protection of human rights and humanitarian concerns for the life and safety of the Iraqi population at the forefront of your deliberations.'

Then tell me, Irene Khan - can war allow you to do that?

(On she goes...)

'Among the measures some Council members are discussing is resort to armed force. Chapter VII of the UN Charter ... includes provision for resort to armed force as a last resort after all measures to resolve the situation through peaceful means have been explored and found to be inadequate.'

But consider: what was the situation that needed 'resolving'? A desire for a war of aggression, nothing more - based on a desire for control of the oilfields. How could war be an appropriate resolution - let alone a legal one - to such a case? And if it's not appropriate - Why Not Say So?

'Resort to military force is likely to lead to further devastating consequences for large numbers of the Iraqi population already crippled by severe violations by their government and the effect of economic sanctions [by...!?]. I urge the Security Council to carefully consider such consequences in its deliberations on any resort to force to ensure that every effort is made to resolve the situation through peaceful means'

Why do you allow them to 'deliberate', if the consequences are so devastating from the point of view of human rights - as indeed they must be? How can there be deliberations concerning war, if there is no threat, no aggression from the other side?

Consider: would you allow Iran to 'carefully consider' the consequences of bombing the Uzbeks or the Turkmen population? So why allow it for the 'coalition' and Iraq? It was obvious to everyone, and should have been so to Amnesty, that Saddam was not a threat. It was obvious to the broad mass of international lawyers that a war could not have legal justification unless (at least) he was a threat. So why was that not obvious to Amnesty?

The authoritative tone continues...

'Furthermore, in Amnesty International's experience, violations of human rights and international humanitarian law invariably accompany resort to military force.'

If they invariably accompany resort to force - as they do - then why don't you condemn resort to force?

Perhaps a clue can be found in Amnesty's press release during the illegal bombing of Iraq in 1998 (during the campaign to impeach Bill Clinton):

Amnesty international today expressed its fear that military action against Iraq may [!!??!!] result in the loss of civilian lives. Life, safety and security of civilians must be the paramount consideration in any action taken to resolve the current crisis. Amnesty international takes no position on the use of force to resolve international disputes. (my emphasis)

But WHY does the world's 'foremost' human rights organisation 'take no position' on the use of force? Why does it take no position on 'the supreme international crime' - launching an unprovoked war of aggression? And why does Amnesty hide behind pompous and self-righteous weasley words, just to cover its back, and just when the world needs proper condemnation.

Well anyway - they did say this:

'Amnesty International is demanding immediate assurances from the USA and UK governments that they will fully respect international law and the human rights of the Iraqi people... President Bush and Prime Minister Blair must ensure that Iraqi civilians are not targeted.

Oh yes. They will definitely be doing that.