Amnesty International USA
Reform2005 logo
Resolutions  

home page link
simon link
angie link
tram link
jason link

q&a link
platform link
link to resolutions
link to reform 04
forms link


"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.

The following resolutions passed overwhelmingly at the AIUSA Annual General Meeting in Austin, TX, April 10, 2005, and are supported by Internal Reform Now! and the Reform2005 candidates.

Glossary of AI terms

RESOLUTION G-2 ON AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S RESEARCH and ACTION PRIORITIES

  1. 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";

  2. 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;

  3. 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;

  4. 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;

  5. 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;

  6. 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;
  7. 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:
  1. 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";

  2. 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;
  3. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

  1. A major issue of disagreement involves resources:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
  2. 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
  3. There is a general disagreement about what will happen to the focus of AI's human rights work:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
  4. Finally, there is a dispute about the urgency of fully integrating a full spectrum approach into AI's mission:
    1. 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.
    2. 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."