Amnesty International: Reform 2004

Candidates' Forum - Questions and Answers, page 3

This page last updated: April 23, 2004

Question:
What has happened in the past few years that make AI cloudy in the media? Is AI so wealthy with donations that current board and Executive Director take themselves too seriously, and behave like corporate officers (meals/lodgings/junkets)?

Answer: As far as we know, the media have not been critical of AIUSA's Board and/or executive director for behaving like corporate officers and misusing AIUSA funds. What happened in the past few years was that the Board took on a function that it was not qualified to handle, and the Board mishandled this function, causing damage to AIUSA's reputation in the media and abroad. The function in this case was making an international campaigning decision relative to an AIUSA volunteer who had been attacked in Guatemala and in the USA. The Board has since authorized an independent Lessons Learned Task Force to examine this matter, and the LLTF has determined that the AIUSA Board should have followed the Amnesty International Statute and never involved itself in making an international campaigning decision.

Question:
I am totally in the dark as any change in mission....can you clarify this for us less knowledgeable members?

Answer: Our new mission allows us to work on all human rights, as outlined best in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (please visit for more information: http://www.amnestyusa.org/activist_toolkit/introtoai/udhr.html ). This includes many rights that Amnesty has heretofore not worked on. With the current North Korea campaign, we are focusing on the Right to Food. In North Korea's instance, the government's use of food as a weapon against its population has led to human rights violations against its populace that Amnesty has worked on for a long time - namely, torture and executions as starving North Koreans stole food and food implements. Not all human rights violations in the Economic, Social, and Cultural sphere tie so neatly into the violations we used to combat. We have a lot of work to make sure we focus our resources on the areas where we can best make a difference.

Question:
What is your position on the involvement of AIUSA on internal (domestic) matters, such as human rights abuse in US?

Phyllis answers:
The Reform candidates do support our domestic efforts. At one time, several years ago, it was necessary to seek an exemption from (WOOC) Work on Own Country work, because originally AI was of the belief that in order to seem credible, and not be politically motivated, letters should come from outside one's own country. It also was to serve the purpose of protecting human rights activists from adverse actions by one's own government. Eventually, the organization came to realize that on certain issues, at least in the U.S., the government entities were likely to respond only constituents, ie: on death penalty and refugee work, and we support this.

Paul answers:
Since a larger international USA campaign in the late 1990's, Amnesty has focused more on human rights abuses in the USA. For AIUSA, this has meant more than just working on the death penalty. For example, I worked on the issue of criminalizing Custodial Sexual Misconduct (CSM) between guards and prisoners and lobbied the Minnesota Legislature in 2001. Our Legislature unanimously passed the bill to correct this deficiency in our state's laws. In fact, our Minnesota statute actually references that "consent is not a defense." That makes it on of the best laws in the country.

I strongly support the work that Amnesty International does on this "War on Terror" and our long standing efforts to get the USA to ratify all the international human rights treaties. However, I also support working on all the other countries whose governments have also used the "War on Terror" as an excuse to commit human rights violations. These countries include India, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, and North Korea. (Even though the human rights violations in North Korea really predate any current war and have been remarkably consistent for over 50 years.)

Steve answers:
One of Amnesty's greatest strengths, and one that helped the organization won the Nobel Peace Prize, is our work on all countries that violate human rights, not just the USA.

Govind answers:
The reform candidates would also like to make sure that *International* part of Amnesty International does not go away. Our organization was founded on the concept of international solidarity with the victims of human rights violations. We take on the elite, not with a sword, but with a pen. These pens have done more to change the mindset of what you call the corporate class than any other institution. It was why we won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977.

Read last week's questions ->

Acronyms explained:

IEC = International Executive Committee [in essence, the "International Board"]
UDHR = Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1948 [forms the basis of our work]
CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
FSA = Full Spectrum Approach [to our human rights work]
ICM = International Council Meeting [held every 2 years to make decisions for our movement]
ISP = Integrated Strategic Plan
NGO = Non-Governmental Organization [not just an AI acronym]


		Candidate Question Time
	Candidates' Forum - Questions and Answers, page 3 This page last updated: April 23, 2004 Question: What has happened in the past few years that make AI cloudy in the media? Is AI so wealthy with donations that current board and Executive Director take themselves too seriously, and behave like corporate officers (meals/lodgings/junkets)? Answer: As far as we know, the media have not been critical of AIUSA's Board and/or executive director for behaving like corporate officers and misusing AIUSA funds. What happened in the past few years was that the Board took on a function that it was not qualified to handle, and the Board mishandled this function, causing damage to AIUSA's reputation in the media and abroad. The function in this case was making an international campaigning decision relative to an AIUSA volunteer who had been attacked in Guatemala and in the USA. The Board has since authorized an independent Lessons Learned Task Force to examine this matter, and the LLTF has determined that the AIUSA Board should have followed the Amnesty International Statute and never involved itself in making an international campaigning decision. Question: I am totally in the dark as any change in mission....can you clarify this for us less knowledgeable members? Answer: Our new mission allows us to work on all human rights, as outlined best in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (please visit for more information: http://www.amnestyusa.org/activist_toolkit/introtoai/udhr.html ). This includes many rights that Amnesty has heretofore not worked on. With the current North Korea campaign, we are focusing on the Right to Food. In North Korea's instance, the government's use of food as a weapon against its population has led to human rights violations against its populace that Amnesty has worked on for a long time - namely, torture and executions as starving North Koreans stole food and food implements. Not all human rights violations in the Economic, Social, and Cultural sphere tie so neatly into the violations we used to combat. We have a lot of work to make sure we focus our resources on the areas where we can best make a difference. Question: What is your position on the involvement of AIUSA on internal (domestic) matters, such as human rights abuse in US? Phyllis answers: The Reform candidates do support our domestic efforts. At one time, several years ago, it was necessary to seek an exemption from (WOOC) Work on Own Country work, because originally AI was of the belief that in order to seem credible, and not be politically motivated, letters should come from outside one's own country. It also was to serve the purpose of protecting human rights activists from adverse actions by one's own government. Eventually, the organization came to realize that on certain issues, at least in the U.S., the government entities were likely to respond only constituents, ie: on death penalty and refugee work, and we support this. Paul answers: Since a larger international USA campaign in the late 1990's, Amnesty has focused more on human rights abuses in the USA. For AIUSA, this has meant more than just working on the death penalty. For example, I worked on the issue of criminalizing Custodial Sexual Misconduct (CSM) between guards and prisoners and lobbied the Minnesota Legislature in 2001. Our Legislature unanimously passed the bill to correct this deficiency in our state's laws. In fact, our Minnesota statute actually references that "consent is not a defense." That makes it on of the best laws in the country. I strongly support the work that Amnesty International does on this "War on Terror" and our long standing efforts to get the USA to ratify all the international human rights treaties. However, I also support working on all the other countries whose governments have also used the "War on Terror" as an excuse to commit human rights violations. These countries include India, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, and North Korea. (Even though the human rights violations in North Korea really predate any current war and have been remarkably consistent for over 50 years.) Steve answers: One of Amnesty's greatest strengths, and one that helped the organization won the Nobel Peace Prize, is our work on all countries that violate human rights, not just the USA. Govind answers: The reform candidates would also like to make sure that International part of Amnesty International does not go away. Our organization was founded on the concept of international solidarity with the victims of human rights violations. We take on the elite, not with a sword, but with a pen. These pens have done more to change the mindset of what you call the corporate class than any other institution. It was why we won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. Read last week's questions -> Acronyms explained: IEC = International Executive Committee [in essence, the "International Board"] UDHR = Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1948 [forms the basis of our work] CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women FSA = Full Spectrum Approach [to our human rights work] ICM = International Council Meeting [held every 2 years to make decisions for our movement] ISP = Integrated Strategic Plan NGO = Non-Governmental Organization [not just an AI acronym]