Amnesty International: to Expand or Not to Expand?

The Bernard P. McDonough Center for Leadership and Business at Marietta College Amnesty International: to Expand or Not to Expand? Anna Bjerstedt, Jamie Gougarty, and Grace O Dell The Task At Amnesty International s 2001 International Council Meeting, council members were faced with the decision of whether or not to approve the expansion of Amnesty s mandate to include economic, social, and cultural rights as well as maintaining their previous focus on violations of civil and political rights. Given the historical background and prior campaign efforts, along with the criticisms and ethical dilemmas confronting the organization, should Amnesty International officially expand its mandate to incorporate economic, social, and cultural rights? Questions to consider while reading: Does Amnesty International, as a leader of human rights NGOs, have an obligation to defend all human rights? Consider: o Leading by Example o Servant Leadership o Ethical Leadership o Leadership for the Greater Good o Situational Leadership and Organizations as Organisms What difficulties could Amnesty International face in its potential defense of economic, social, and cultural rights?; What are potential implications that could arise after a decision has been made? o How would membership, loyalty, obligations, abilities, credibility, etc. be affected? Does the organizational hierarchy of Amnesty International affect the council s decision-making process? o How does communication and representation between the decision-making parties affect the council s debate? o Whose choice(s) is reflected in the decision-making process? All members, or just administration? 1

Case Overview According to the United Nations, a non-governmental organization (NGO) is defined as an independent, voluntary association of people acting together on a continuous basis for some common purpose, other than achieving government office, making money, or illegal activities (United Nations). Amnesty International is considered the largest and oldest international non-governmental organization (INGO) in existence (Bell, & Carens, 2004, p. 309). Today, Amnesty International operates in over 150 countries worldwide, and consists of over 2.2 million members (Amnesty International). The organization was originally founded by Peter Benenson in 1961. Following his global campaign Appeal for Amnesty 1961, the first international meeting was held in July of that year, with participants from Belgium, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, and the United States, in response to Benenson s article The Forgotten Prisoners, which was a reaction to the imprisonment of two Portuguese students. In this meeting, these participants established a permanent international movement in defense of freedom of opinion and religion, (Amnesty International) which would later evolve into the INGO known today as Amnesty International. Amnesty International is a world-wide campaign that focuses on victims of human rights abuse by placing pressure on governments using non-violent tactics that include letter-writing, public demonstrations, and media outreach (Amnesty International, 1991, p. 5-6). The mandate of the organization is focused on four concentrations concerning civil and political violations: free prisoners of conscience ( people detained anywhere for their beliefs, or because of their ethnic origin, sex, color, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or other status 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 extrajudicial executions and disappearances. (Amnesty International) As an NGO, Amnesty International has committed itself to maintaining its independence from any influence by governments, political systems, or economic or religious interests. It is financially independent and is supported solely through donations from members and supporters. Amnesty International is considered a democratic and self-governing organization, with its own independent leadership. INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE Amnesty International provides many opportunities for involvement with varying levels of commitment. Involvement ranges from simply joining the organization online, becoming a donor, volunteering, and interning, to regular employment. Volunteers are considered the backbone of Amnesty International and work in every country in which the organization is involved. These people work with staff and all programs. Volunteers perform such tasks as monitoring the international press, translating, researching, web page design, fundraising, and human resources. Interns work under the internship program within the same volunteer spectrum, but focus more on administration and projects within the programs of Media and Audio Visual, International Law Organization, Policy and Evaluation, and Americas and International Fundraising (Amnesty International). Employment with Amnesty 2

International offers competitive salaries and benefits, along with a work-driven and mission-based environment. Amnesty International s efforts are directed by the International Council Meeting (ICM), which serves as the primary governing body (refer to Exhibits A and B). Its role is to make decisions on financial, political, and organizational strategies for Amnesty International s future work and direction. The ICM s purpose is: to focus on strategy; to set Amnesty International s vision, mission and core values; to determine Amnesty International s Integrated Strategic Plan including its financial strategy; to establish systems and bodies of governance and delegation for the movement, to elect members to those bodies, and to hold those bodies and their members accountable; to evaluate the movement s performance against its agreed strategies and plans; to hold sections, structures and other bodies accountable. (Amnesty International) Members of the ICM are chosen as representatives by groups of members, who are divided by sections. Representatives with voting power are those representing sections or the international membership who have paid their annual fees in full. Each section or international membership can appoint at least one representative. In addition to the original representative, other representatives are appointed on a scale based on membership numbers. For example, a section with more than 250 members has the right to appoint one representative to the International Council Meeting, while a section with over 2,500 members has the right to appoint two representatives (refer to Exhibit C). The meeting is presided over by the Chairperson, who is elected at the previous ICM. The ICM meets once every two years, unless the Chairperson of the International Executive Committee (see below) has called for another meeting. The International Council decides upon actions using majority rule, determined after votes have been cast. In the event that there is no majority decision, the Chairperson can cast his or her vote. The ICM also elects a Treasurer, who is also a member of the International Executive Committee. The agenda for these biennial meetings is determined by the International Secretariat, which is directed by the Chairperson of the International Executive Committee. The International Executive Committee (IEC) consists of the Treasurer of the ICM and eight regular members. Only one member from a given section or international membership shall be elected as a regular IEC member. The IEC must meet at least twice a year, but usually convenes four times within a year. The IEC oversees the workings of Amnesty International (Amnesty International, 1991, p. 106), by managing finances, establishing sections, and supervised human resources development (Amnesty International). Members have terms and also elect a Chairperson from amongst themselves. The International Secretariat (IS) also determines the agenda for the IEC. The International Secretariat is headed by the Secretary General, who is appointed by the IEC, and who in turn appoints other staff to the IS and heads the Senior Leadership Team within the IS. The International Secretariat is charged with the implementation of the decisions made by the International Council Meeting. The International Council Meeting, the International Executive Committee, and the International Secretariat all share a part in any decision-making process, whether it be deliberating a topic or implementing a new policy, as previously addressed. 3

Exhibit A: International Organizational Hierarchy SUCCESS: GAINING CREDIBILITY In 1962, Amnesty International published its first annual report containing details of 210 prisoners whose cases had gained international recognition through the efforts of groups located in seven countries. Throughout the 1960s, Amnesty International and its member groups made great strides in its campaigns to release prisoners of conscience and in doing so, gained the respect of the international community (including the United Nations and UNESCO). By 1970, Amnesty International consisted of 850 groups from 27 countries and had been successful in campaigning for the release of 520 prisoners. Amnesty International was awarded the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize for having contributed to securing the ground for freedom, for justice, and thereby also for peace in the world and in the following year was the recipient of the United Nations Human Rights prize for the outstanding contributions in the field of human rights (Amnesty International). The International Council Meeting in 1985 voted to expand Amnesty s statute to address the plight of refugees. By Amnesty s 30 th anniversary, there were 700,000 members represented in 150 countries and more than 6,000 volunteer groups from 70 countries (Amnesty International). Throughout the 1990s, the organization grew to more than one million and has continued to work on campaigning for such issues as torture, political killings, and the establishment of a permanent international criminal court (refer to Exhibit D). ORIGIN OF THE DILEMMA 4

Throughout Amnesty International s period of existence (1961-present), the organization has had many achievements in its campaigns against violations of civil and political rights, as stated in their mandate. Among Amnesty International s activities to place pressure on governments and political groups are public demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns, email petitions, and awareness-raising concerts. Other activities, on a more focused level, include observations of trials, interviews with victims and local officials, and aligning with human rights activists. Given Amnesty s prior success within the realm of the civil and political rights, it may seem surprising that Amnesty has been the target of much criticism. In recent years, criticism has focused on the narrow scope of Amnesty s mandate and its complete focus on civil and political rights and the resulting neglect of economic, social, and cultural rights. Economic, social, and cultural rights (ESC rights) are a very broad and inclusive grouping of human rights and their defense seeks to ensure the guarantee of such things as: rights at work, particularly just and fair conditions of employment, protection against forced or compulsory labor and the right to form and join trade unions; the right to education, including ensuring that primary education is free and compulsory, that education is sufficiently available, accessible, acceptable and adapted to the individual; cultural rights of minorities and indigenous peoples; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including the right to healthy living conditions and available, accessible, acceptable and quality health services; the right to adequate housing, including security of tenure, protection from forced eviction and access to affordable, habitable, well located and culturally adequate housing; the right to food, including the right to freedom from hunger and access at all times to adequate nutritious food or the means to obtain it; the right to water the right to sufficient water and sanitation that is available, accessible (both physically and economically) and safe. (Amnesty International) There are four central objections to Amnesty s clearly-stated focus and neglect of ESC rights: 1. Amnesty International s involvement in developing countries, while successful in defending the rights of prisoners of conscience, has not addressed issues such as starvation and chronic hunger. In a specific case in 1994 of the Sudanese government s forceful removal of large populations and it was difficult to explain why Amnesty International treated the shooting and torture of a few victims as human rights violations and the manufactured starvation of thousands as background (Bell, & Carens, 2004, p. 310). Amnesty s inaction in a population s time of need, while action was not officially called for based upon the organization s stated mandate, was seen as a blight on Amnesty s image and credibility. 2. Amnesty s focus upon the violations of civil and political rights tends to portray a Northern focus in its objectives. Oftentimes, this focus excludes Southern needs The North-South divide is a relatively fluid dichotomy that addresses the significant gap in the economies of Northern and Southern countries. Southern countries are generally less developed and fare poorly in an overall comparison to the Northern countries. Northern countries typically include those in North America and Europe while Southern countries are those found in the south, such as Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. Aside from a gap in economic standing, Southern countries are also subject to wide-spread social problems that contribute to their status as a Southern country. These problems include poor health care, limited education, lack of safe drinking water, and inadequate nutrition (Rourke, & Boyer, 2010, p. 294-299). 5

from Amnesty s sphere of work because Southern needs are not highly concentrated in the civil and political realm. This also taints Amnesty s credibility to accurately defend its commitment to the internationalism of the defense of human rights (Bell, & Carens, 2004, p. 310). 3. Not only has Amnesty s work for civil and political rights lead to a critique of its narrow focus on Northern issues, but it has also resulted in the claim that Amnesty International shows a male bias in its agenda. Civil and political rights often concern issues that are predominately male, whereas women s rights tend to center around such things as the health, reproduction, education, and property rights (Bell, & Carens, 2004, p. 311). This is yet another situation where Amnesty s mandate and concentration on the civil and political violations resulted in the alienation of groups whose rights are not seen to fall within the civil and political spectrum. 4. Amnesty s narrow focus has resulted in the accusation that Amnesty International selectively defend[s] human rights (Rowe, 2009, p. 48). Additionally, Amnesty International s claim to be a human rights NGO has rendered skepticism among critics and even some of its members. In reality, Amnesty International focuses solely on violations of civil and political rights, which does not earn it the title of an NGO that addresses the violation of or promotion of all human rights (Rowe, 2009, p. 75). There are many arguments against Amnesty s expansion of the mandate: 1. Economic, social, and cultural rights (as defined above on page 5) are not always considered legitimate human rights; they remain controversial among governments, lawmakers, and even some human rights scholars and defenders after sixty years (Rowe, 2009, p. 20). ESC rights, as a definition, are generally too vague and too varied to be of any real significant value in terms of the defense of human rights. They are said to be indefinable and undeliverable (Rowe, 2009, p. 24) and as such, are not accepted or standardized universally. 2. The belief and fear than expansion would lead to a dilution of Amnesty s focus and the loss of effectiveness within its current field of work. Additionally, some worried that the inclusion of ESC rights in Amnesty International s mandate would blur what had been a clear organizational identity and jeopardize Amnesty International s hard won reputation for consistency, credibility, and impartiality (Bell, & Carens, 2004, p. 310). 3. Amnesty International, while having met with much success in the past, still faces many obstacles in its campaigning and would risk taking upon itself too much responsibility and straining its human and financial resources. Finite resources impair and limit the scope of an organization s activities (Rowe, 2009, p. 53). Membership, which is Amnesty s backbone, would be affected if members lose faith and confidence in the organization s mandate and ability to enact change. Given these considerations, Amnesty International has started to broaden its activities to include more campaigns to defend the economic, social, and cultural rights (ESC rights) that its mandate 6

neglects to address. In 1999, the International Council Meeting officially declared its support of the promotion of all human rights such as those laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Declaration has come to embody the common thread of respect for human life that runs through all cultures and nations and binds them together. It is an expression of what humanity has in common and not what separates it (Rowe, 2009, p. 77). Amnesty International has confirmed the importance of promoting all human rights including economic and social rights and will begin work on defending human rights within the economic sector, such as establishing and/or strengthening business codes of conduct (Amnesty International). Amnesty s focus now differentiates between oppositional and promotional work. This division itself has caused some confusion among Amnesty s members in terms of why violations of one group of human rights were being opposed but respect for another group simply being promoted (Rowe, 2009, p. 52). Although Amnesty has slightly broadened its activities by identifying that ESC rights are important, this recognition does not guarantee that Amnesty will respond to all, or any, violations of ESC rights. On the other hand, by stating its adherence to the defense of civil and political rights in its mandate, Amnesty acknowledges and accepts its obligation to defend those rights. If the mandate of Amnesty International does not specifically state the organization s dedication to civil and political rights and to economic, social, and cultural rights, then Amnesty is under no obligation to take action in defense of ESC rights. Any inaction, therefore, cannot be seen as a failure of Amnesty International to adhere to its mandate. By 2001, the International Council Meeting was given with the opportunity to reassess its current mandate. Internal debate addressed the previously stated criticisms of Amnesty International s work and the practicality of expanding its mandate to officially incorporate violations of economic, social, and cultural rights along with its prior focus on civil and political rights. Debates now centered on obstacles that Amnesty International would face if the mandate were expanded to incorporate ESC rights. Such challenges include: 1. How to promote ESC rights when they are not universally defined? 2. What are ESC rights violations? For example, according to Rowe; Even with the acceptance of ESC rights by the world s governments (the rights guarantors), there would also have to be some measure of applicability to these rights in relation to the differing economic conditions of each state. To accuse the governments of desperately impoverished countries of being human rights violators for not providing full employment and housing to their citizenry would make a human rights NGO seem both patriarchal as well as disconnected. (Rowe, 2009, p. 59-60) 3. Because ESC rights are so broad and varied, and whose violations occur with a much greater frequency than do violations of civil and political rights, Amnesty s leadership would be strained as a result of the potentially overwhelming number of cases concerning ESC rights violations. Decisions would have to be made regarding which battles to fight and how to fight them (Rowe, 2009, p. 63). 4. Amnesty International currently has a policy referred to as the [No] Work On Own Country rule, which prohibits members from taking up efforts on individual prisoner appeal cases in their own countries and prohibits AI national sections from undertaking 7

specific kinds of research on their own governments human rights practices (Bell, & Carens, 2004, p. 307). This was established in order to prevent bias towards domestic governments but if ESC rights are to be officially incorporated, a greater local knowledge and experience would be necessary to successfully address those rights within a region (Rowe, 2009, p. 72). 8

Exhibits Exhibit A: International Organizational Hierarchy Exhibit B: Sectional Organizational Hierarchy 9

Exhibit C: Membership/Representative Scale Based Upon: (A.) Member Numbers and (B.) Section Membership A. Member Numbers More than 250 members More than 2,500 members More than 15,000 members More than 40,000 members More than 80,000 members 1 representative 2 representatives 3 representatives 4 representatives 5 representatives B. Section Membership 10 49 groups 1 representative 50 99 groups 2 representatives 100 199 groups 3 representatives 200 399 groups 4 representatives 400 groups and over 5 representatives (Amnesty International) 10

Exhibit D: Amnesty International Timeline (Amnesty International) 11

Works Referenced Amnesty International. (2010). Retrieved from <http://www-secure.amnesty.org/en>. Amnesty International USA. (2010). Retrieved from <http://www.amnestyusa.org>. Amnesty International. Amnesty International handbook. (1991). Claremont, CA: Hunter House, Inc.. Bell, D, & Carens, J. (2004). The Ethical dilemmas of international human rights and humanitarian ngos: reflections on a dialogue between practitioners and theorists. Human Rights Quarterly, 26, 300-329. Demenet, P. (2001). Economic rights: the big comeback. Retrieved from <http://www.unesco.org>. Rourke, J, & Boyer, M. (2010). International politics on the world stage: brief. Boston: McGraw Hill. Rowe, P. (2009). Full spectrum: Amnesty International and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. University of Saskatchewan, 1-97. United Nations. (2010). Retrieved from <http://www.un.org>. 12