"There are rights beyond the right not to be imprisoned
for no harm, tortured, killed; there is the right not to have to live
out life in physical misery, the right not to have to see what one holds
dear ruined; beyond negatives are positives; beneath symptoms there
are causes. First, however, we must stop the screaming." Guy Ottewell,
Think Like a Mother
"Thank you for your support! Your generosity furthers our
worldwide work to help free prisoners of conscience, ensure fair and
prompt trials for all political prisoners and end torture, "disappearances"
and executions." AIUSA 2005 Membership card.
RESOLUTION G-2 ON AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S RESEARCH and ACTION PRIORITIES
- WHEREAS Peter Benenson founded Amnesty International
with an article about "The Forgotten Prisoners" and the AIUSA Strategic
Plan mandates that AIUSA "support and strengthen work on behalf of
individuals, including prisoners of conscience";
- WHEREAS protection of human rights activists and other
prisoners of conscience promotes the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and Amnesty International holds a unique place among human
rights organizations in focusing on these cases;
- WHEREAS, under the 2004-2010 International Secretariat
Operational Plan (OP), AI has decided to focus on human rights violations
that fall within at least one Global Impact Goal, one of which is
"Protect the rights of human rights defenders," which appears to diminish
AI's traditional focus on freeing prisoners of conscience (POCs) who
are not human rights defenders;
- WHEREAS AI has developed Country Action Programs for
19 countries, but not for many countries whose citizens suffer serious
human rights abuses -- including Belarus, Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti,
Myanmar, Pakistan, Peru, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Uzbekistan,
and Vietnam -- possibly signaling to their governments and non-state
actors a reduced Amnesty International focus on violations there;
- WHEREAS one of the Global Impact Goals in the Operational
Plan addresses AI's concerns on human rights defenders, and recognizing
that not all prisoners of conscience (POCs) are human rights defenders;
- THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 2005 AIUSA International
Council Meeting (ICM) delegation, wherever possible and appropriate,
call for AI to reaffirm its commitment to campaigning for POCs;
- Therefore be it further resolved that the AIUSA delegation to the
2005 ICM shall support resolutions and/or propose amendments to proposed
resolutions to advance the following AIUSA policy positions:
- Amend the current Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP) Global
Impact Goal (GIG) respecting human rights defenders to read "Campaign
for the immediate and unconditional release of Prisoners of Conscience
and protection of the rights of human rights defenders";
- Amend the Integrated Strategic Plan to provide that the
International Secretariat should maintain enough research capacity
on any country without a Country Action Program (CAP) to (a) prepare
an annual report entry and (b) investigate claims, and take action
on behalf of, Prisoners of Conscience and victims of torture and extra-judicial
executions;
- Request that the International Secretariat produce the number of
action files that the sections/structures request before each operational
plan cycle.
Resolution G-4: Amnesty International's Work on Prisoners of Conscience
and Human Rights Defenders
The International Council decides:
(1) To amend AI's "Global Impact Goal 3: Protect the Rights of
Activists" in the IS Operational Plan 1 for 2004-2006 (known as
ISOP1) and all subsequent Operational Plans, to assert AI's commitment
to working both for the release of prisoners of conscience and for the
protection of human rights defenders, as called for in the Integrated
Strategic Plan's (ISP's) Strategic Objective 3.2; and
(2) To amend the ISP to ensure that the IS maintains enough research
capacity on all non-CAP countries in order to prepare summary reports
for as many countries as possible in the annual AI report.
WHY THESE RESOLUTIONS
Until 2001, AI defined its work as its "mandate," which focused
on freeing prisoners of conscience, working for fair trials for political
prisoners, and ending torture and executions. AI broadened the mandate
in 2001 to its current "mission," which is to work against
grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom
of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination. In 2001,
AI also agreed to consider in 2005 whether to change its mission to
address all violations of the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which is called "full spectrum."
The 2005 AGM (April 8-10 in Austin) considered two major mission related
issues: (1) should we call for adjustments to the way the International
Secretariat (IS) implements the current mission (resolution G2)and (2)
should we change the mission to "full spectrum" immediately
(resolution G1). The AGM passed resolutions essentially saying yes to
both questions.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CURRENT MISSION
The AGM passed resolution G2 which calls for three changes in AI's
work:
Clause G1: The international Integrated Strategic
Plan (ISP) determines what work AI does. The ISP contains a Gloabal
Impact Goal (GIG) regarding freedom of human rights defenders, i.e.,
activists on behalf of human rights. The resolution calls for this GIG
to include all prisoners of conscience, regardless of whether they are
human rights defenders.
Clause G2: AI has prepared Country Action Programs
(CAPs) for 17 countries and 2 regions, indicating a sustained focus
on them. This clause calls for certain work on all countries, even those
without CAPs. This clause calls for retention of an annual report entry
on each country and for the capacity to do certain work, including on
prisoners of conscience, torture, and extra-judicial executions.
Clause G3: An "action file" is a program
of long-term sustained work on behalf of one or more individual victims
of human rights abuses. Examples include "prisoners of conscience,"
victims of unfair trials, and the "disappeared." Shortly before
the AGM, we learned that production of action files had dropped to a
very low number, both in absolute terms and relative to past years.
The resolution envisions that the IS would survey AI Sections throughout
the world to determine the number of action files on which each wants
to work and create enough action files to satisfy that demand.
The AGM also passed resolution G4, which ratified
the AIUSA Board's submission of a resolution regarding implementation
of the current mission. The Board had to act by January to meet international
deadlines for submission of resolutions to the 2005 International Council
Meeting (ICM), AI's highest decision-making body. There are differences
between just-passed resolution G2 and what the Board submitted in January;
we expect the AIUSA delegation to work with other sections to pass all
of G2 at the ICM.
DEFINITION OF "GRAVE ABUSES"
The AGM rejected one proposed change: a call for a definition of grave
abuses. Both the current mission and proposed full spectrum mission
call work on "grave abuses." AI has no definition of the term.
We called for a study and debate on possible definitions of "grave
abuses," with a decision at the 2007 ICM. We believe that regardless
of the mission, this term needs to be defined to be meaningful. One
reason we seek to elect more Reform candidates is to continue to push
for a definition of "grave abuses."
THE "FULL SPECTRUM" DEBATE
Each regional conference considered resolutions calling for an immediate
move to full spectrum mission and a delay of at least two years in making
the decision. As an aid to discussion at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference,
the two sides of the "full spectrum" debate prepared jointly
the following talking points regarding the wisdom of an immediate move
to full spectrum.
The following points are areas of agreement:
- Agreement that human rights work on economic, social, and cultural
rights is already being done on the ground by Amnesty International
activists, this will continue regardless of the outcome of these resolutions.
- Agreement that the mission does not determine the actual workload
of sections. This speaks to the fact that although a Full Spectrum
approach would mean taking on the full range of human rights issues
outlined in the UDHR, it does not determine the workload of AI sections.
- Agreement that regardless of the approach regarding full spectrum,
AI's individual level work forcing on prisoners of conscious, human
rights defenders, or persons on death row is an essential part of
Amnesty International's mission that advances human rights work in
general.
The following are issues on which the sides disagree:
- A major issue of disagreement involves resources:
- Pro Full Spectrum: Argues that we can we cannot assume Amnesty
International has a fixed amount of resources. Additionally, it
is likely that new constituencies will be drawn into Amnesty International
by the work on economic, social, and cultural rights. Finally,
full spectrum is not about doing everything everywhere, we will
have criteria for selecting cases such as resource availability
and potential for impact.
- Delayed Full Spectrum: Argue that AI does not have enough resources
to fully integrate full spectrum and continue to do its tradition
human rights work. Additionally, a shift to full spectrum might
alienate current donors as well as the activist base.
- The impact of the full spectrum approach on AI's place in the international
human rights movement and more specifically with other human rights
organizations.
- Pro Full Spectrum: Argues that as a leading voice in the field
of human rights it is important for AI to be in line with the
international human rights movement, which has demonstrated that
a "Full Spectrum"
approach that integrates all human rights is the most effective
form of advocacy.
- Delayed Full Spectrum: Argues that this argument is misplaces
and irrelevant and misplaced. There is no reason to change our
mission to satisfy other human rights organizations. The world
benefits from many human rights organizations with a wide range
of missions, competencies, and resources.
- There is a general disagreement about what will happen to the focus
of AI's human rights work:
- Pro Full Spectrum: This position maintains that full spectrum
is not necessarily about doing everything, everywhere, it's about
having a full rather than partially full advocacy toolbox.
- Delayed Full Spectrum: Argues that we cannot address all the
human rights abuses in the world and given our capacity it does
not make sense to expand our work now. There is also concern about
losing AI's focus on individual case work, a strength of the organization.
- Finally, there is a dispute about the urgency of fully integrating
a full spectrum approach into AI's mission:
- Pro Full Spectrum: The resolution cites a number of examples
that argue for an urgency in fully incorporating economic, social
and cultural rights into the AI mission.
- Delayed Full Spectrum: The ISP, which is based on our current
mission, is in place till 2010, so there is change will have little,
if any, effect on our work. The IS's implementation of the current
mission concerns many AIUSA activists, and thus it makes sense
to gauge that implementation before making further changes. Finally,
delay may result in a broader consensus in favor of Full Spectrum.
This resolution fulfills the first plank of our platform:
"The Board should ensure that AI continues its priority on individual
prisoners of conscience (POCs), "disappearances," and on abolition
of torture and the death penalty."