Amnesty postscript (by Eve Garrard)

I'm grateful to Chris Bertram for responding a second time to my arguments about Amnesty International. He's clarified certain points, and hence has given me the opportunity to do so too.

Chris is quite right to say that, in suggesting a 'human rights principles' interpretation of Irene Khan's and Amnesty International's position, he didn't endorse it. But surely the point of drawing our attention to this possibility was to suggest, at least for investigation, that AI's position might be more defensible under the new interpretation than under the old, 'human rights' simpliciter, one. This certainly seems to be the view of several commenters on the debate over at Crooked Timber; which is why I thought the position was worth examining, to see whether things look any different under Chris's suggested interpretation, or whether - as I concluded - it makes no difference at all.

A second point. Chris suggests that it's wrong to think Amnesty focuses on the liberal democracies in its claim that the biggest attack on human rights and principles in the last 50 years has come as part of the war on terror. He says (rightly) that AI mentions many governments in its criticism, such as Russia, China and Yemen - not noted for being liberal democracies. But Chris has overlooked that I already dealt with this in my first post, in which I pointed out that the other countries mentioned don't seem to be doing anything in the name of the war on terror that's so markedly different from what they usually do. But AI was talking about an unprecedented attack on human rights and principles. So it looks as if it's the West, and particularly the US, which is its target.

Chris is right, of course, in noting that it's commonplace for commas to affect the meaning of sentences. My 'delightful and charming' observation wasn't made in ignorance of this point, but rather because I thought that it would be a matter of some amusement if the varying receptions accorded to a major Amnesty report should depend on a misplaced comma. As it turns out, whether or not the comma should have been there, the issues of substance aren't affected one way or another.

Since Chris wrote, two things have strengthened my view about Amnesty's particular focus on these matters. First, into my mailbox a couple of days ago came a letter from Amnesty, in a bright yellow envelope, with equally bright red lettering on the outside, saying:

IRAQ CRISIS - HELP US CALL GEORGE BUSH TO ACCOUNT

Inside the envelope was a very long letter about events in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, which AI encouraged us to send to the letter's addressee, George Bush. It is entirely proper, and indeed very important, that those responsible for the Abu Ghraib and other relevant abuses be called to account, up to the highest level. But I've had no similar letters from Amnesty to be sent to the rulers of Russia, China or Yemen, whose jails also have dreadful things in their dark places, and maybe even in their light ones. This seems to me to support the case that it's the West, and especially the US, that is Amnesty's present target.

Second, there is this report of Irene Khan's statement:

"There were terrible abuses in the past, [in] Rwanda, Cambodia, in the Balkans… but what we are now seeing is a pervasive culture of abuse that has spread like a cancerous growth and that is what is so dangerous today."

Khan said she was heartened by millions of people who took to the streets in capitals around the world to protest the war in Iraq, Spaniards who marched following the March 11 terrorist attacks in Madrid, and the World Social Forum in Brazil. [Italics added.]

That strikes me as being fairly conclusive. It's one thing to protest against abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere; it's a different matter, and no part of Amnesty's remit, to encourage any particular position on the Iraq war. (Eve Garrard)