Criticism of Amnesty International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of Amnesty International may be classified into two major categories: selection bias and ideological bias. As part of the latter, many governments, including those of, Israel, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,^[1] the People's Republic of China,^[2] Vietnam,^[3] Russia^[4] and the United States,^[5] have attacked Amnesty International for what they assert is one-sided reporting or a failure to treat threats to security as a mitigating factor. The actions of these governments — and of other governments critical of Amnesty International — have been the subject of human rights concerns voiced by Amnesty. The Catholic Church has also criticized Amnesty for its stance on abortion. ^[6]

Contents 1 Selection bias 2 Israel and Sudan 3 Freedom of expression vs. hate speech 3.1 Ethiopia 4 Guantánamo Bay comments 5 AI's new abortion policies and the Roman Catholic Church 6 Cricket ball campaign against Sri Lanka at the Cricket World Cup 2007 7 1991 Gulf War Press Release 8 Other critics 9 Further reading 10 References

[edit] Selection bias

AI admits to reporting disproportionately on relatively more democratic and open countries. AI’s intention is not to produce a range of reports which statistically represents the world’s human rights abuses. Instead, its aim is (a) to document what it can, in order to (b) produce pressure for improvement. These two factors skew the number of reports towards more open and democratic countries, because information is more easily obtainable, these countries have usually made strong claims and commitments to uphold human rights, and because their governments are more susceptible to public pressure. AI also focuses more heavily on states than other groups. This is due in part to the responsibility states have to the citizens they claim to represent.

According to "Moynihan's Law", after the late U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan, first stated during a speech at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation’s violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights.

Critics charge that since openness causes violation incident reports, AI policy pushes countries to be less open while undermining the moral authority of those countries working hardest to spread human rights.

[edit] Israel and Sudan

In 2004, Don Habibi, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, condemned Amnesty International, among others, for their alleged obsession with Israel, to the exclusion of other, supposedly worse violators. He writes:^[7]

This obsession would make sense if Israel was among the worst human rights offenders in the world. But by any objective measure this is not the case. Even with the harshest interpretation of Israel’s policies, which takes no account of cause and effect, and Israel’s predicament of facing existential war, there can be no comparison to the civil wars in Sudan, Algeria, or Congo. Like the UN, the policies of AI and HRW have more to do with politics than human rights.

– Human Rights NGOs and the Neglect of Sudan, Don Habibi

AI defenders respond by asserting that all nations should aspire to absolute respect for human rights, that they do focus on Sudan, and that the difficulties associated with monitoring 'closed' countries should not mean that 'open' countries should receive less scrutiny.

Between 2003 and 2006, a period of time corresponding with the beginning of the Darfur conflict, AI issued only 110 reports per year on Sudanese issues during a time of genocide in Sudan^[8], compared with slightly less than 50 articles per year for Israel and the Palestinian Authority combined^[9]. However, it should be noted that currently one of the main campaigns of Amnesty is helping the situation in Darfur, evident in events such as the April 13th, 2008 protest Amnesty held to raise awareness of Darfur on the mall in Washington, D.C.

In 2007, NGO Monitor, an Israeli non-governmental organization with the stated aim of monitoring other non-governmental organizations operating in and around Israel, released a report^[10] which asserted that "Amnesty International focused disproportionately on condemnations of Israel, far beyond any reasonable distribution of resources in a region marked by fundamental human rights abuses by many repressive regimes and sources of violence." After the report filtered out "urgent actions", the report argued that "the number of documents (excluding urgent actions related to Israel) (48) is even higher than the number of significant publications by Amnesty on Sudan (37)". The report defined an "urgent action" to be "some short articles dealing with individuals at risk and calling for appeal campaigns were classified as Urgent Actions, although they may appear in the Reports section of Amnesty International’s online library." The report argued that Amnesty accused "Israel of targeting residential areas without mentioning Hizbullah’s systematic practice of operating from within civilian areas". The report further argued: "Many of Amnesty’s claims regarding the Lebanon War were false or severely lacking in credibility." In addition, the report stated that "no statements or documents of any type were issued condemning Hizbullah for abducting two Israeli soldiers, despite Amnesty’s core mission of promoting freedom for political prisoners." ^[10]

NGO Monitor also commented on Amnesty’s work during the Second Lebanon War, asserting that the human rights organization was guilty of double standards in its treatment of Hizbullah and Israel ^[11].

Responding to NGO Monitor’s report, Amnon Vidan, director-general of Amnesty International’s Israel branch, said the organization expected Israel and other democratic states to abide by a higher standard of respect for human rights than non-democratic regimes. "You can't take samples of Amnesty’s reports based on word counts", Vidan said. "Factually, the picture given in the NGO Monitor report is incorrect. Sudan does not receive less attention than Israel. In principle, Amnesty’s treatment of different crises is based on different parameters, such as our ability to influence, and need to present issues to media", he added.

He added that "Amnesty condemned both Hizbullah and the IDF for their attacks on residential areas and killing of civilians. Amnesty also noted that in some opportunities, civilians were used (by Hizbullah). But in some situations, the attacking power still has a responsibility not to harm civilians. Amnesty is aware of complexities, but there are many instances when (Israel) attacked civilian areas without there necessarily being a Hizbullah presence in the area, and with exaggerated use of force and no differentiation of civilian and military."

Addressing the charge that Amnesty counted Lebanese and Israeli civilians differently, Vidan said: "In Israel, one can differentiate between civilians and soldiers. In Lebanon, you can't always make that differentiation."^[12]

Leonard Fein, a former Professor of Politics and Klutznick Professor of Contemporary Jewish Studies at Brandeis University^[13], wrote an op-ed in The Jewish Daily Forward arguing that Amnesty International's "reports are carefully researched and, often to the embarrassment of governments, widely reported." Fein argued it was no surprise that NGO Monitor criticizes Amnesty, since its stated purpose is “to end the practice used by certain self-declared ‘humanitarian NGOs’ of exploiting the label ‘universal human rights values’ to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas.”^[14]

[edit] Freedom of expression vs. hate speech

Amnesty International has endorsed restrictions on speech which incites hatred towards any group of people, whether racial, religious, or otherwise. In reference to the Muhammad cartoon controversy, the organization stated:

The right to freedom of opinion and expression should be one of the cornerstones of any society. …However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute — neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such "hate speech" should be prohibited by law. …While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable.^[15]

The proponents of AI argue that this position is consistent with international human rights law. Article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ("The Genocide Convention"), for example, lists "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" as an act which should be punished alongside the actual commission of genocidal acts. This very clause has allowed for the prosecution of a number of top-level génocidaires who organized the Rwandan Genocide via public radio broadcasts, which provided the names and locations of prominent Tutsis and encouraged ordinary civilians to take part in the mass killing. Critics, on the other hand, point out that the convention only refers to incitement of actual crime, and is therefore, much less broad than the hate speech restrictions AI endorses.

Amnesty International does not consider Ernst Zundel imprisoned for Holocaust Denial a prisoner of conscience, and stated they are not calling for his release.^[16] Amnesty International has requested the Canadian Government to amend their criminal code and establish Holocaust Denial as a hate crime.^[17] While Holocaust Denial is rejected by historians, Noam Chomsky and others have signed a petition in 1979 asserting that efforts to stop Robert Faurisson's holocaust denial were "shameful".^[18]

[edit] Ethiopia

Amnesty International is against hate speech in general. But the Ethiopian government criticizes it for being unable to distinguish such problems in regards to Ethiopian politics. Ethiopia is believed to have one of the most polarized politics in the world, and the government usually settles its problem with the opposition using brute force.^[19]. That has made Amnesty react critically towards the Ethiopian government, and the Ethiopian government in turn accuses the organization of supporting hate speech. In general, while the recent Ethiopian government made few reforms to the press law which severely curtails free speech, it continues to criticize Amnesty when the organization sides with those whose speech was stifled.

[edit] Guantánamo Bay comments

In the foreword^[20] to AI’s Report 2005^[21], the Secretary General, Irene Khan, referred to the Guantánamo Bay prison as "the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process." In the subsequent press conference, she added, "If Guantanamo evokes images of Soviet repression, "ghost detainees" – or the incommunicado detention of unregistered detainees — bring back the practice of "disappearances" so popular with Latin American dictators in the past. According to US official sources there could be over 100 ghost detainees held by the US. In 2004, thousands of people were held by the US in Iraq, hundreds in Afghanistan and undisclosed numbers in undisclosed locations. AI is calling on the US Administration to "close Guantanamo and disclose the rest".^[22] The human rights organization Human Rights Watch also criticized the Bush administration over the camp in its 2003 world report, stating: "Washington has ignored human rights standards in its own treatment of terrorism suspects".^[23]

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called the comments "reprehensible", Vice President Dick Cheney said he was "offended", and President Bush called the report "absurd". The Washington Post editorialized that "lately the organization has tended to save its most vitriolic condemnations not for the world’s dictators but for the United States."^[24]

However, Edmund McWilliams, a retired senior US Foreign Service Officer who monitored Soviet and Vietnamese abuse of prisoners in their "gulags", defended Amnesty International’s comparison. "I note that abuses that I reported on in those inhumane systems parallel abuses reported in Guantanamo, at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan and at the Abu Ghraib prison: prisoners suspended from the ceiling and beaten to death; widespread "waterboarding"; prisoners "disappeared" to preclude monitoring by the International Committee of the Red Cross — and all with almost no senior-level accountability."^[25]

William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, defended the statement, saying, "What is 'absurd' is President Bush's attempt to deny the deliberate policies of his administration." and "What is 'absurd' and indeed outrageous is the Bush administration's failure to undertake a full independent investigation". Secretary General Irene Khan also responded saying, "The administration's response has been that our report is absurd, that our allegations have no basis, and our answer is very simple: if that is so, open up these detention centres, allow us and others to visit them."

Since the U.S. administration originally claimed that these prisoners were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against this interpretation (on June 29, 2006).^[26] Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners will in the future be entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.^[27][28][29]

[edit] AI's new abortion policies and the Roman Catholic Church

A series of articles on
Main topics
Abortion History of abortion Methods of abortion Abortion debate Pro-choice Pro-life Abortion by country Abortion law
This box: view • talk • edit

In April 2007, Amnesty International changed its stance on abortion from one which was neutral to one supporting access to abortion in cases of rape and incest, and when the life or the health of the mother might be threatened.^[30] Amnesty's official policy is that they "do not promote abortion as a universal right" but "support the decriminalisation of abortion".^[31] According to deputy secretary general Kate Gilmore, the debate over the change was difficult, but eventually the overwhelming majority of national Amnesty chapters supported the change.The change was opposed by several organizations, notably by senior figures in the Catholic Church, traditionally a strong supporter of Amnesty International,^[32] and a group of US legislators. She admitted a small number of members had quit over the issue.^[33]

The Roman Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in June 2007 issued a statement urging Catholics not to donate to Amnesty because of their abortion stance.^[34] Cardinal Renato Martino said that abortion was "murder" and "to justify it selectively, in the event of rape, that is to define an innocent child in the belly of its mother as an enemy, as 'something one can destroy'".In an interview to the National Catholic Register, the Cardinal outlined that it was his belief that "if in fact Amnesty International persists in this course of action, individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support, because, in deciding to promote abortion rights, AI has betrayed its mission".^[35]

At a meeting in Mexico 11-17 August 2007, the International Council decided to retain the stance laid down in April. Within days, this was decried by prominent leaders of the Catholic Church, including the highest-ranking Vatican cardinal Secretaty of State Tarcisio Bertone and the U.S. Bishops' Conference USCCB president Bishop William S. Skylstad. Cardinal Bertone said to Vatican Radio that "we cannot ever destroy life. We must always save life even if it is the fruit of violence"^[36], and underlined that "all forms of violence against women must be opposed and that the inhuman violence of rape be stopped and society be mobilized to defend the dignity of women". The USCCB statement of 23 August called the change in the organization’s longstanding position divisive and an affront to "people in many nations, cultures and religions who share a consistent commitment to all human rights"^[37]. An English Roman Catholic Bishop, Michael Evans of East Anglia, who had been an officer in AI in the 1980s, revoked his 31 years membership, saying that the "decision makes it very difficult for Catholics to remain members of Amnesty or to give it any financial support" while reiterating that he remained "deeply committed to Amnesty’s original mandate: to work for freedom for prisoners of conscience, an end to torture and the death penalty, and fair trials for all."^[38]In Australia, several Catholic schools and institutions withdrew from Amnesty International^[39][40], and in its place set up the Benenson Society, which pursues a similar human rights advocacy agenda to Amnesty's, but without being pro-choice on abortion^[41]. The Australian Catholic bishops urged Catholics 'to seek other avenues of defending human rights', adopting a position that 'membership of Amnesty International is no longer compatible with Catholic teaching and belief' ^[42]. There were also strong reactions from the Catholic church in Denmark^[43], Northern Ireland^[44] and Scotland^[45] and several other countries.
As of 10th December 2007, International Human Rights Day, an Amnesty-member led pressure group called 'Roll Back Amnesty' was established to co-ordinate membership opposition to the abortion policy initiative. The members of Roll Back Amnesty are of all faiths and denominations, and fall either side of the pro-choice/pro-life divide. Their website can be found at www.rollbackamnesty.com [2].
As of 20th December 2007, the Roll Back Amnesty Group was advised by the International Secretariat, via the Group's website provider, that the Group could not use the Amnesty logo on its website, nor use the word 'amnesty' in its domain name, and that the website provider should take all necessary steps to resolve the situation. Amnesty International went further, asserting that they would take legal action if both issues were not addressed within 14 days.

[edit] Cricket ball campaign against Sri Lanka at the Cricket World Cup 2007

This section may contain information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information. (talk)

AI launched its "Play by the Rules" campaign, timed to coincide with the Cricket World Cup 2007 held in the Caribbean islands, to focus on Sri Lanka's alleged human rights violations. The Sri Lankan government protested to the International Cricket Council (ICC) and AI, saying the timing might undermine the morale of the Sri Lanka cricket team which was playing in round Super 8 of the tournament. The Sri Lankan government also accused AI of indirectly supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The Foreign Ministry of Sri Lanka said they got an assurance from the ICC that all steps would be taken to prevent AI from carrying out any campaign within the grounds targeting Sri Lanka or its players ^[46]; however, the ICC later said it is determined to focus on the World Cup and nothing else.

AI stressed that the campaign was not aimed at the Sri Lanka cricket team. According to an AI spokesman, "The campaign called on both parties as well as other militant groups in Sri Lanka to take steps to prevent civilians caught between as violence intensifies." "The signed balls will be delivered to the government of Sri Lanka as well as the LTTE", AI said in a statement.^[47]

[edit] 1991 Gulf War Press Release

Critics have also claimed that AI had a role propagating disinformation in a press release before the 1991 Gulf War, in which it charged that Iraqi soldiers were responsible for the deaths of "scores of civilians, including newborn babies, who died as a direct result of their forced removal from life-support machines."^[48] It later transpired that this claim was a propaganda hoax, and AI's press release was used in the opening salvo of this propaganda campaign – U.S. President George H. W. Bush showed AI's press release on a prime time interview. Prof. Francis Boyle, an AI director at the time, gives a detailed insider account of the way the AI press release was handled^[49]. The normal process of double-checking and consultation was short-circuited in a rush to issue the press release. In an April 1991 statement, AI said that although its team was shown alleged mass graves of babies, it was not established how they had died and the team found no reliable evidence that Iraqi forces had caused the deaths of babies by removing them or ordering their removal from incubators.^[50] Supporters of AI point out that such mistakes by AI are rare; and that in any case such propaganda claims are common in war, and AI was merely an unfortunate conduit for them in this instance.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Other critics

• Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and a former member of Amnesty International USA's board of directors, left AI because he was excluded from the ballot for the board of directors by pro-Israel members of the board because of his disagreement with AI's lack of criticism of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon in which over 20,000 Lebanese civilians were "exterminated", and other pro-Israel omissions over the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, he threatened to sue AI over the move, but at the last minute the lawsuit was settled out of court.^[51]

• Diana Johnstone, in her book Fool's Crusade, alleged that AI played an uncritical role during the various Balkan wars, and discusses the case of a woman who was taken on a 25 US-city tour with a film about her ordeal as an alleged rape camp victim. According to Johnstone, the alleged rape camp victim, Jadranka Cigelj, was actually a senior propagandist in the Croatian government, and a close confidante of President Franjo Tudjman.^[52]

• Michael Mandel, a professor of international law at York University, criticizes AI's stance pertaining the wars in the Balkans and Iraq.^[53]
• Paul de Rooij has published three articles discussing various aspects of AI's coverage of the Israeli abuse of Palestinian human rights.^[54]

[edit] Further reading

• Jonathan V. Last, Calling It Like They See It, FrontPageMagazine, April 3, 2003. Alleges AI has anti-American/Israel bias.
• Nabeel Abraham, Torture, Anyone?, Lies of Our Times, May 1992, pp. 2 – 4. Claims AI and other groups are reticent in describing alleged torture on the part of Israel.
• Michael Mandel, How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity, Pluto Press 2004. Alleges AI is selective in defending "human rights", in particular, regarding the US-Iraq war 2003, and the War in the Balkans.
• Paul de Rooij, AI: A false beacon?, CounterPunch, October 13, 2004. Contains a reading list. Alleges AI has anti-Palestinian bias.
• American Gulag at National Review Online.[3]

[edit] References

The references in this article would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking.