Amnesty International & Cuba/ Remits & Ideologies- Awkward Questions & Absent Answers
I have decided to post an email from myself to Amnesty International United Kingdom (AIUK). This decision was not taken lightly since this blog is not intended to reflect negatively on AI. Despite any conclusions you may draw from what follows, I still consider AI to be a great and worthy institution and one to which I have devoted both my free time and money over the last five years. However, that said, the issues raised within are ones that have concerned me for the past eighteen months and I feel this is as good a format as any to air my view on the subjects. As ever, I welcome any comments or feedback that this receives.
Since recent figures indicate that the only people who view this website are already on my MSN buddy list, I think an analysis of the benefits of debate versus the costs of questioning AI can wait till such time when my readership is at least double figures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Context and Credentials
The following email is unlikely to mean much to the casual reader without a considerable amount of context, which I hope to offer in some depth. First though, I feel it necessary to offer both a warning and a justification.
This blog departs from my usual style in that it is not intended to be ‘funny’ per say. Any regular readers (there is at least one of you) expecting my typically irreverent take on another twenty-first century issue would do well to click away now. Though the issues are in no way sacred, I treat them with the seriousness I feel they deserve.
Regarding my credentials for making such any inquiry: As mentioned elsewhere, I have been involved with AI in a number of different capacities for the last five years. I have a good understanding of how the organisation works and realise that it continue to exist in large part to the good will and hard work of volunteers.
Needless to say, the organisation has more pressing matters to attend to then answering detailed, lengthy enquiries from the general public or even its membership. However, at the risk of ‘bigging myself up’ I would like to offer why I consider myself an exception to this and qualify for the status of ‘active member’ or ‘AI volunteer’. For simplicity sake, this is given below in the form of a CV.
Knowledge and Experience:
- Worked for a year as AI membership co-ordinator for Scotland on behalf of a third party (Push Consultancy)
- Chair of AI Leeds group for a year
- Ongoing member of the Urgent Action Campaign for past two years
- Coordinated or contributed to a number of successful AI events and campaigns, including two regional conferences, a Control Arms campaign rally, Human Rights Day events, etc.
- Availability – if this blog itself isn’t testament to the fact that I have far too much time on my hands then I’m not sure what is.
- Finance – I give what I can afford and will be able to afford more in the future (touch wood).
- Age – I’m quite young, so I have quite a few years of campaigning left in me (I’m glad this is a wooden desk).
- Contacts – have attended numerous AI meetings, from AGMs to human-right themed pub crawls. I know the game and it’s players quite well.
What I hope I have shown, besides a willingness to blow my own trumpet, is that if AI lose me they lose more than a regular monthly direct debit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuba Libre
Two years ago my brother went to work in Cuba for a few months as part of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. This undertaking was not without considerable financial and personal cost to himself, but one which he found both greatly rewarding and inspiring.
Upon his return, in one of our regular debriefing sessions in the pub, we inevitably came upon the subject of the human rights situation in Cuba. Now, whatever may exist there in terms of local governance, Cuba is not democratic in any meaningful sense and there are many restrictions on personal freedoms and rights to assembly and form political parties.
This situation was, according to my brother, deeply regrettable but (to the Cuban mind at least) somewhat inevitable given the perception in the country of ongoing hostilities from its powerful neighbour the US – both in terms of an illegal embargo and the threat of ‘regime change’. This mindset lends itself to a form of siege mentality which, not only is very apparent in many facets of Cuban life, but also gives the administration suitable cover for their more draconian practices.
This explanation was not given to me in any way as a justification of the situation there, but rather to create an understanding of the context in which ordinary Cubans see themselves as living.
Naturally, this led me to ask where human-rights organisations and in particular AI fitted in to this picture - AI is after all non-partisan and takes just as much issue with American infringements on human-rights (HR). I was told in no uncertain terms that AI were not looked upon favourably either by the Castro regime or by the general public and official AI representative has not in fact been allowed into the country since 1988.
I was curious to find out why this may be the case. There is no government on the planet that is immune from a AI commenting on their HR record, yet most choose to react by hiding their abuses or ignoring calls for change rather then attempt to silence the organisations. This position of non-cooperation has in fact been to the detriment of Cuba, especially in terms of losing much international sympathy for it’s plight and jeopardising it’s relationship with the EU.
Apparently, in Cuba AI is seen as very much as part of the ongoing problem they face from disproportionate scrutiny and ideological double standards. The remainder of this blog will test the validity of such claims.
It is my opinion that this issue presents us with two important questions, the implications of which extend far beyond Cuba and their relationship with the US but for which that country highlights emphatically the need for answers.
1. Is AI coverage of Human-Rights issues slanted in favour of some articles over others?
- How can this be demonstrated or refuted?
- If this is taken to be true, what reasons do AI give for this and what are the possible implications?
- If not, where does this perception come from and what steps can or should be taken to refute it?
- How can this be demonstrated or refuted?
- If so, how is this justified by AI and can or should it be stopped?
- If not, again, where does this perception come from and what steps can or should be taken to refute it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Amnesty International and Remit: Is AI coverage of Human-Rights issues slanted in favour of some articles over others?
What’s in a name?
It should first be noted that Amnesty International name alludes very much to the circumstances of its formation. In 1968, Peter Benson, the founder of Amnesty, wrote on behalf of two Portuguese students, incarcerated for nothing more then making a toast to liberty, a right enshrined by Article 19 – Freedom of Speech.
However, while AI’s origins and name encompass only certain certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) it’s current remit states very clearly that it serves to uphold and call governments to account for each of those thirty articles and other international HR standards.To the best of my knowledge, all of these articles are given equal ‘legal weighting.’
I have discussed the UDHR elsewhere, but let us remind ourselves that, while most of the articles of the deal with’ individual-rights’ (the realm of classic HR discussion), a significant number refer to ‘social rights’, and the later three what you may call ‘governmental responsibilities’.
Cuban-Rights: Definitions and Comparisons
Now, at the risk of (considerably) simplifying the issue, consider how Cuba and the US compare on 27 articles (the last 3 being administrative and not measurable). Obviously I don’t have the time or the expertise to make an exhaustive comparison (no doubt it has been done elsewhere) but I will attempt to give two examples which can, I believe, be easily verified.
If we look at Articles 19 & 20 – Freedom of Expression & Freedom of Assembly and Association, then the US has hands down the better record. Whatever your personal feelings about America or the limitations of that country, there is just no real contender for it’s title as the ‘land of the free’.
However, if we shift our focus to Articles 25 & 26 – Rights to Standard of Living & Right to Education then I think we can probably agree that the accolades should go to Cuba. Even despite considerable economic pressure, Cuba continues to have one of the best health care systems in the world, free at the point of entry. Similarly, while education in Cuba is free to degree level, in the US it can be extortionate.
I realise that these are both fairly flippant examples and not be taken as any final word on the matter - I’m not in a position to offer statistics, such as literacy, morbidity rates to back them up.
Further to this, I’m not going to try and guess which of these countries would come out ahead over the 27 articles. My point is, that only this had been done would I be in a position to state with any validity that one country has a ‘better human rights record’ than another. The UDHR have to be taken as a whole package, and we cannot frame the debate by selecting only certain articles.
AI: Varied Remits -Mixed Results
On the AI website, reports and actions from the organisation are catalogued by Country, Region and also, (useful for our purposes) Themes . Of the 37 Themes available, I would suggest that only two could be considered to represent social-rights: 'Inter/-Non-Governmental Organizations' and 'Economic Globalization and Human Rights'. The 'Education' section refers specifically to HR education rather than a general right to schooling, 'Medical' refers to treatments in prisons rather then a right to general health care, and so on.
It would be even more interesting, to see all actions listed by reference to the articles themselves, if nothing else this would help AI monitor and evaluate their performance
I have been asked to sign petitions or write letters on behalf of those who are in jail or at risk of oppression,, but I have never been asked to make representations for those simply living in abject poverty or suffering appalling working conditions.
I have contacted the Syrian authorities to appeal for the release of human-rights activists in that country, but not once I have written to a multinational company for refusing to give sick pay to it’s employers.
Every time the Colombian paramilitaries advance further into the heartland of their indigenous population, threatening to remove them from their land I am the first to hear about it. Yet, when literacy rates continue to fall in the inner cities of the United Kingdom, AI appears to remain silent.
Since these are all human-rights issues as defined by the UDHR, does it makes sense that activists have to be intimidated, incarcerated or even murdered before they receive our attention and support?
Obviously there is a limit to what one organisation can do but if AI, chooses to call itself a ‘Human Rights’ organisation in any meaningful, encompassing sense of the word, shouldn’t it cover all articles equally? Does it not have a responsibility to represent people’s social rights as well as their individual freedoms? If the organisation chooses to use its limited resources to focus on some articles at the expense of others – is that decision not by definition a political one and what further political implications might it have?
Bad Examples and Double Standards
From the perspective above, one could argue (as I suspect the Cubans might) that AI is very much an Individual-Rights Organisation – it’s remit focuses almost exclusively on Articles 1-13, 16 and 18-21 and saying almost nothing about the Social-Rights encompassed in the other articles.
This is, in itself, not a bad thing, We certainly need organisations to help defend our freedoms because, God knows there are enough governments willing to take them. However, it leads us to ask who actually is defending our social rights and question whether, by claiming to protect all our rights yet only doing (figuratively speaking) half a job, what dangers such institutions may present.
Consider this. There is a parallel universe in which the Soviets won the cold war and socialism, in it’s differing forms went on to be the dominant ideology in the world. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a last bastion of capitalism exists in Hawaii.
Hawaii has, despite pressure from its communist neighbour Russia, been able to provide its citizens with considerable freedoms of expression, belief and assembly the likes of which are rarely seen elsewhere and are certainly unheard of in the USSR.
After hearing unconfirmed reports of a seven day working-week, spiralling tuition fees and unaffordable housing, an organisation operating under the name of ‘Human-Rights’ but whose remit on closer inspection focuses almost entirely on the later, social-rights articles of the UDHR, is despatched to investigate. Let’s call this organisation HR-Focus.
The Hawaiian government (democratically accountable, unlike the Soviet administration), fearing that this is just another weapon of communist propaganda, refuses the HR-Focus access to their country, they do this on three grounds.
Firstly, they claim the conditions are symptomatic of economic pressures that they are facing from outside country. Pressures they claim that HR-Focus should be working to alleviate, as they are far more prescient.
Secondly, they question whether HR-Focus is a true ‘Human-Rights’ organisation and say they suspect that, with it’s clearly biased remit, it will surely attempt to compromise the country’s stability or security.
Thirdly, they point to many liberal practices in their county that constitute good examples of individual right, such as representative elections. They go on to claim that this is rarely acknowledged by HR-Focus who never scrutinised other countries on these grounds.
Now, whether you think there is any validity on these points or not is fairly immaterial. When HR-Focus returns to it’s country of origins, and the headlines in the next day’s issue of Pravda read ‘Hawaii tries to hide bad human-rights’ the Russian Administration can then use this as leverage to justify an even more hostile relations with their neighbour. Protesting isn’t going to make a difference; ‘bad human-rights’ is the shit that sticks, complaining about it just makes you smell worse.
I realise that I have stumbled into dangerous territory so let me make clear that I am not suggesting that HR is simply a liberal issue (this should go without saying, as I’m sure readers will understand).The previous analogy was offered as a way of viewing these issues outside of the political grandstanding which seems to have frozen debate on this issue.
What Wonderboy did….
I should finish this section by saying that I have got nowhere in terms of an official response from AI to this question (more on this at the end) and all opinions contained within this section are based on my own experiences.
From discussion and debates with members at all levels, I have come to the conclusion that there exists in AI (at least in the UK branch of the organisation) what you may call a ‘free market approach to human-rights’. This view point seems to suggest that if you look after individual rights the social rights will, by and large, look after themselves; that all rights are fundamental but some are more fundamental then others. However, since I do not know as yet how far this view extends throughout the organisation or it’s effect on policy, I do not intend to comment further on it here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Do there exist examples of AI’s work being used to further a political or ideological standpoint?
Since I closed the last section by conceding that I had got nowhere with regard to an official answer to that question, I shall begin this one by saying that I have got only slightly further nowhere with regard to this one.
I began my search under the assumption that, if you want to understand with influence’s Cuban opinions on AI, then a logical place to start would be to looking at the messages being sent to Cuba from AIUSA. If you suspect someone of sleeping with the enemy, you are obviously going to examine how they interact when they are together and how they speak about you when you are not there to defend yourself.
Now, into this already complex picture steps Holly Ackerman, who was/is (certainty vanishes from here on in) the ‘Country Specialist on Cuba’ for AIUSA as recently as 2004. An impressive title for sure, but no doubt meaningless unless you have some familiarity with the structure of AI.
AI: Organisation and Internationalism
As the name reveal, Amnesty is an International organisation which has branches in practically every country in the world, e.g. AIUK, AI Ecudaor, etc. Now each of these national AI’s, while ultimately governed by the Executive body of the International Secretariat, creates it’s own separate local structure in the country to facilitate its fundraising and campaigning activities. This usually involves some kind of ‘country-coordinator’, whose role is to lead on actions pertaining to a certain country, for example here in the UK, there are AIUK ‘county-coordinators’ for China, Israel & The Occupied Territories, Cuba, etc.
I don’t know how much power these individuals have, whether their role is defined at the level of international policy, or how much differences exists between the AI counties in their use of such co-ordinators. Certainly I would like answers to these questions (see below), but for the moment I shall leave them to one side. N.b. For the record, I’m not sure how appropriate I think it is for AIUSA to have a Cuba expert anyway, given the relationship between the countries. Did AIUSA have a Vietnam expert during the conflict? Does it have an Iraq expert now, who comments on the human-rights abuses of the Insurgeny? In times of conflict AI should never put itself in apposition where it could be accused of playing mandarin for on side.
I will, for the remainder of this section, work on the assumption that, if someone is allowed to use a title such as ‘AI Country Specialist on Cuba’, then whatever they say is going to have an effect on Cuba-AI relations, regardless of the validity of this title.
AIUSA & Cuba
I have no idea how libel works with regard to blogs, so instead of risking misrepresenting Ms Ackerman in any way I shall present what a Google search of her brings. This is in no way intended to imply an exhaustive account of Ms Ackerman’s views regarding this issue but, as I hope to show, it hardly needs to be.
Starting with a two-part series for Canada’s Peace Magazine, in 1997, Ms Ackerman, then Professor of Social Work & Latin American studies, gives her take on the numerous factors influencing Cuban-American relations together with a detailed examination of the recently passed Helms-Burton Act. She writes succinctly and, to my mind, convincingly about the many influences from both side of the Straight of Florida and I believe her conclusions are balanced and well argued.
However, if after reading these two pieces you came to the conclusion that the undercurrent was a little, well, ‘anti-Castro’, you wouldn’t be alone. The subsequent issues received twelve letters of response, almost all of which accused Ms Ackerman of some form of political bias and prompting a rebuttal from her in a later issue.
It’s worth quoting the summary of this rebuttal at length:
“The unspoken issue that underlies many of these letters is coming to terms with the failure of socialism. It is painful to face, particularly for those who have a rigorous ideological orientation. Widening the scope of solutions and participants in dialogue is fundamental.”
While there is no doubt a lot of truth to this claim, this is not what I am arguing here. My point is that no one could claim that in 1997 Ms Ackerman was politically neutral with regard to Cuba - so how, seven years later, did she end up representing the view of a politically neutral organisation on this same issue? How can someone who is on the record as saying that ‘socialism has failed’ be then in a position to comment on an ostensibly socialist government on behalf of a non-partizan group? What next, Richard Dawkins to be the AIUK Country-Coordinator for the Vatican City?
“Ah but”, I hear you cry “I’m sure that AIUSA would have insisted that she lay these views aside (if indeed she still had them seven years later) when representing the organisation and that she, as a professional academic well schooled in treating issues in a detached way, would have no problem doing so”.
Perhaps this is true. But look again at that 2004 article, regarding the Miami Five. “Romantic notions”, “just silly” - hardly the language of your typical AI report is it?
Granted, the piece may have quoted her out of context and it doesn’t exactly make clear where Ms Ackerman’s opinions end and Amnesty policy begins , but this is kind of my point anyway. Is AI’s position on US hostilities to Cuba that they are “questionable at best” and shouldn’t such a remark always be qualified with reference to ongoing economic hostilities?
I believe this Wikipedia summary of the Miami Five and their reference to Ms Ackerman a “Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba, who has, it should be noted, published numerous articles critical of Cuba.” is especially revealing. It is AI’s job to be critical of what government’s do, not governments themselves. It’s safe to say that some people are being left with the impression that Ms Ackerman has more of a political axe to grind.
What Wonderboy did next….
I met the AIUK Country-coordinator for Cuba, at last year’s AGM and mentioned my corcerns regarding Ms Ackerman's role in AI and the potential for political bias. I was asked to put these in an email which would be further looked into. Unfortunately, almost 12 months on and I am still yet to receive an answer to any of my questions on this issue. N.b. Again ( and I must emphasise this) this is not intended to reflect negatively on the AIUK Country Co-ordinator for Cuba (who doubtless passed the query upwards) or AIUK as a whole. All involved are tireless, dedicated and, for the most part, voluntary workers. I really am not criticising anyone for a lack of response, which reflects nothing more than the realities of working for an organisation that relies solely on public donations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary and Further Debate
So, finally, we are back to the beginning – only with more questions and less answers.
Regarding my own personal views on this issue, I am not looking for hold anyone responsible for the currently poor relationship between Cuba and AI. As I’m sure any councillor would tell us, conditions are improved by removing barriers to understanding and by re-establishing communications not placing blame on either party. I believe that until this debate is better informed things are unlikely to change.
American governments will continue to put pressure on Cuba, citing with simplistic certainty and no apparent sense of hypocrisy their ‘bad human right’s record’ and their unwillingness to open themselves up to scrutiny and to justify their often illegal stances.
Human rights organisations will continue to claim political neutrality, yet there work will inevitably be used for political ends and their unbalanced perspectives exploited. This will undoubtedly be exacerbatted if they continue to view the issues in such simplistic terms as access to the country. (I was once told by someone in AI that they were bemused by the fact they get so much mail defending Cuba but none defending Burma ‘despite the fact that AI is not allowed into either country’-this was given in all seriousness, as if there was some kind of moral equivalence between the administrations).
The Cuban government, not being able to stand-up against the US economically or militarily, will become more isolated and defensive – choosing to view HR Organisations as another ideological stick with which they are to be beaten or a possibly even a source of infiltration from a hostile world. They’ll use this to justify taking more individual rights away from their citizens who, in the end, are the only ones who really made to suffer.
What Wonderboy’s doing now….
“Didn’t you start off, all those pages ago by mentioning something about an email?”
The final impetus for writing the following email came from a series of self-reflections I've had over the past month regarding the fact that I have not done any AI campaigning for a long time (save for the Urgent Action letter-writing). I decided that this was due in large part to my continued uncertainty over the issues outlined above and that it was only once these were resolved to my satisfaction I would be able to continue my work with a clear conscience and renewed enthusiasm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further to our recent telephone conversation, I have compiled a list of questions below regarding AI policy. I would greatly appreciate that these are answered or I am referred to someone who will be able to provide further information.
1. Does Amnesty International’s work cover all aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
2. Does AI conduct any monitoring and evaluation of it’s work to ensure that it meets all aspects of it’s current remit?
3. Is the position of the ‘Country-coordinator’ unique to AIUK or is the role defined by the International Secretariat?
4. How does AIUK recruit Country-coordinators and what steps are taken to ensure that they are politically neutral with regard to the country they are to represent?
5. What measures are taken to monitor the ongoing political neutrality of Country-coordinators once in position, especially with respect to press comments, media opinions, etc?
6. How often does the position of Country-coordinator become available?
7. What measures are in place to remove a person from the position of Country-coordinator if they are believed to have compromised AI’s neutral position with regard to their country?
8. Is Holly Ackerman still the AIUSA ‘Country Specialist for Cuba’? (Please see http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content.html?oid=oid:56481)
9. Is there a constitutional equivalence between a ‘County Specialist’ and a ‘Country-coordinator’?
10. What rights do I have, as an AI member, to complain about comments made by individuals in their capacity as AI representatives both in this country and others?
For a more detailed explanation of the context of this enquiry please visit my (anonymous) website at:
http://wonderboyinmonsterland.blogspot.com
posted by wonderboy @ 2:43 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home