Site Map | Internal | Public Resources | Hosted Groups

Satellite AGM Workshop

State of the Movement: Human Rights Activism in a Post-Prisoner of Conscience Amnesty

At the 2008 AGM of AIUSA in Arlington, Virginia, a group of volunteer leaders have organized a satellite workshop that will address important issues facing the Amnesty movement.

A. "Emblematic" Prisoners: Forgetting the Rest

Why are there only 160 individuals in the international "Individuals at Risk" database?

B. Human Rights Change: From Prisoner to Policy

How does the new "levels" structure affect your work on behalf of individuals at risk?

Examples of activities associated with AIUSA's prioritized campaigns

C. Where Does All the Money Go?

How do the finance of the international movement and the Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP) affect your work for individual victims of human rights abuse?

Why this Satellite AGM Workshop?

1. Why Focus on Individuals as Amnesty Evolves?

As Amnesty International faces the changing human right landscape and broadens its scope of concerns to include social, economic, and cultura issues, we must keep Prisoners of Conscience and Individuals at Risk a nucleus and center of work. Volunteers and volunteer leaders must drive the next stage of Amnesty's evolution. Relegating work on individuals to a "campaign" on individuals" signals the demise of Amnesty International as an organization where AI members are empowered to dedicate themselves to saving the lives (and freeing and ending torture) of individuals who they don't know, have no connection with, may not sympathize with or share political views with, who are located in countries across the globe that most Americans would have a hard time pointing to on a map. Instead of thousands of POCs, disappeared persons, victims of torture, death row inmates, and others, who we have worked on behalf of over the past 47 years, we now have a central database comprising around 160 cases. This is time AI members stand up to our leadership in London and tell them we don't want "campaigns" for individuals, we want our work on the "forgotten" prisoners to be the major component of everything we do. We reject the Secretary General's dismissal of this work as "passé" --

"She went to an Amnesty meeting too, and decided it was not for her. Amnesty seemed to be all about writing letters calling for the release of prisoners. 'I wanted to do things that were visible. So I joined anti-apartheid demos.'" - Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, as quoted in a Financial Times interview
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a731d7c-ee42-11dc-a5c1-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_ch

2. What's Happening to Action Files?

Here's the deal on Action Files. All Action Files have been or will be reviewed at the IS on a country-by-country basis for eligibility for transfer to the IAR (Individual-at-Risk) portfolio, or database. So, if a case has not been reviewed yet, it is still on the books for the moment at least as an Action File. After it is reviewed it will either be converted to an IAR case or, if not, an "exit strategy" will be implemented which is a fancy euphemism for either closing cases outright or, as a possible alternative, bundling several currently individual files together around a theme (e.g. press freedom) and assigning these cases as packages to the IAR portfolio under the same file number.

In other words, after the Action File review is complete, there will be no Action Files. Cases transferred to the IAR portfolio will not be called Action Files. Nor will the IS any longer assign these cases to the sections. Sections will be able to go online and access the IAR cases off the IAR intranet site directly and assign a few, or many, as they wish, to their local groups depending on how of if they wish to campaign on the individuals therein. The term "Action File" is now an archaic relic of the past though it will probably continue to be used by members out of habit.

3. Whither Volunteer Leadership?

Up until last year, AIUSA's work was organized along programmatic and regional structures. Thematic programs such as Business and Human Rights, Death Penalty, and Refugees were jointly driven by staff and volunteer-based steering committees. Volunteer leaders helped to determine the goals, budgets, and operational plans of the programs. Last year's AIUSA Strategic Plan called for the abolition of discrete programs and the organization of AIUSA staff along functional capabilities (communication, campaigning, etc.). AIUSA's work are prioritized according to a 4-level priority scheme, with Level 1 having the highest priority and Level 4 the lowest (receiving no support). Staff support high-priority work in their roles in the new Research & Policy and Activism Departments

In this re-organization, the Business and Human Rights, Death Penalty, OUTfront, Refugees, Women's Human Rights program were essentially deconstituted. Their program workplans and budgets have been eliminated. The roles of volunteers in this new structure are completely up in the air. The steering committees no longer have programs to advise and develop. The thematic networks that were part of the programs became unmoored. Some thematic areas become the focus of priority campaigns (e.g. SVAW, Death Penalty), or a shorter-term (Level 2) campaign (e.g. Private Military and Security Companies, Decriminalization of Anti-Sodomy Statutes). Exactly how volunteers should participate in these campaigns are not yet clear. While Country Specialists Steering Committee and Working Groups such as MSP and Denounce Torture still exist, their roles are similarly unclear.

AIUSA proclaims that a pillar of AIUSA's success in advancing human rights around the world is the effective partnership between volunteer leaders and staff. The Guideline for Shared Leadership (adopted by the Board in 2005) stipulates that unless specifically mandated, AIUSA seeks to make decisions through shared leadership and consultation between staff and volunteer leaders. With this re-organization of AIUSA, now is the critical time for volunteer leaders to tell AIUSA how they want to be part of the organization. Do they want to be part of the decision making and budgeting process in the areas of their concern, or consultants who provide thematic and country expertise, or implementers who carry out plans made by others? The stake for AIUSA can't be any higher.

4. Filling the Gap on International Financial Issue

The Gap is that this AGM has no ICM follow-up component to it. The One Amnesty (financial aspect of One Amnesty) is a huge change and people have a right to know about the resolutions and discussion from the ICM. For whatever reason, the AGM planning committee is not having ICM follow up as part of the conference. Having Irene talk to us is not the same as ICM follow up. If AI USA is to be an engaged participate at the international level, we need to have these international aspects to the AGM. Membership always asks, "When did that happen." Since there is no place on the AGM agenda for the One Amnesty issue, this is the next best thing.

Future candidate for AIUSA BD of Directors should know this stuff. They need to know this stuff so they can represent membership to their fullest knowledge at the AIUSA BD level and represent AIUSA to the international level. We want to have a good, solid pool of candidates to select from for BD and for ICM delegation.

We must make the time on conference agendas to provide this feedback from international meetings and share what is going on. We OWE it to membership--who pay their dues. It doesn't matter of only 15 people attend, that's 15 more knowledgeable, potential candidates. AIUSA (and the IS) spend mega bucks on the ICM, it is our section's responsibility to provide a time and place for feedback.