Updated: AI’s jaundiced claims of political neutrality

Amnesty International has hurriedly sent out an email justifying AI Thailand’s terrified incantations to AI’s head office to stop AI Malaysia discussing the political crisis in Thailand. This was sent out, with a few comments by PPT:

Dear AI Thailand Members and All:

The cancellation of Mr. Amsterdam’s talk in Malaysia due to

1. Amnesty International globally has avoided partisan entanglement in the Thai political crisis. Despite allegations from both sides that the organization supports the Yellow or Red positions and groups, Amnesty has limited itself to the human rights issues and has avoided politics. Amnesty has been in touch with Mr. Amsterdam over the past year and is aware of the substance of his claims, as well as his political strategy, for which he is compensated. In this context, Mr. Amsterdam is a paid advocate of former Thai PM Thaksin, and is thus very clearly a partisan of one side of the political crisis. This is not a value judgment on Mr. Amsterdam’s position, it is simply a factual observation that implicates a rule that Amnesty applies in its work everywhere: remain neutral, objective, and impartial. Sharing a platform with Mr. Amsterdam would place Amnesty in breach of that rule.

In fact, a quick scan of AI’s main website shows that “Amnesty applies in its work everywhere: remain neutral, objective, and impartial” is not an accurate statement. This is what AI says of itself:

Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights.

Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion….

That last sentence does not amount to avoiding politics. Indeed, by ignoring lese majeste repression and the gross infringement of human rights, AI in Thailand has aligned itself with the regime.

2. Moreover, the substance of Mr. Amsterdam’s talk would have been particularly ill-advised for an Amnesty platform. Amnesty International understands that Mr. Amsterdam has presented a petition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the alleged commission of crimes against humanity by Thai authorities in April and May 2010. Thailand, however, has not acceded to the Rome Statute establising the ICC, meaning that the only possible way a case based on events involving Thai citizens in Thailand could reach the ICC would be through a referral by the UN Security Council. It is true that following the referral of Libya’s Colonel Qaddafi by the UN Security Council to the ICC, this avenue of seeking accountability has new life. That the international community struggles, however, to get the Security Council to respond to the massacres in the Sri Lankan civil war–in which 20,000 to 40,000 civilians were killed over a few months–is a sobering counterpoint. Thus, while Amnesty would not totally rule out the possibility of international accountability for various events in Thailand, the organization would clearly refrain from publicly taking a position that suggests that referral to the ICC is a feasible, or even desirable, method of seeking accountability in Thailand.

The involvement of Amsterdam, paid or otherwise, or the role of the ICC, should not prevent AI defending human rights in Thailand. AI continues to push for human rights in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. It ignores human rights that it dangerously defines as “political.” PPT always thought that prisoners of consciousness were political prisoners. In Thailand, it seems they are no longer in this category.

3. Finally, in addressing any situation that involves accountability in Thailand, Amnesty again must maintain its neutrality and avoid political partisanship. Thus, alongside discussion of the allegations raised by Mr. Amsterdam, considerable reference would also need to be made, among other events, to the thousands of extrajudicial executions as part of Mr. Taksin’s “war on drugs” and during counter-insurgency operations in southern Thailand. Mr. Thaksin strenuously combated Amnesty’s efforts to seek accountability for these serious violations. While these infractions of international human rights law do not in any way justify the present Thai government’s unlawful use of lethal force against demonstrators who may be generally labelled pro-Thaksin, they are crucial elements of any discussion of the Yellow-Red dynamic in Thailand, and in particular, of any discussion of justice and accountability in the country. Amnesty was not confident that a talk by Mr. Amsterdam, on an Amnesty platform, would refer to this context adequately.

This is simply a justification for silencing others.

Yes, look at the war on drugs too. Anti-Thaksin governments have had several years to work on this issue. Why haven’t they? What has AI done to push these administrations? What has AI done to promote investigations into the murders of April and May 2010? Are these “too political” for this organization that has, single-handedly (we refer to Benjamin Zawacki who signed the email) destroyed its reputation as a human rights organization in Thailand. It is a partisan organization by its partisan failures and silences.

These are the signatories:

Benjamin Zawacki

Asia Researcher (Thailand, Myanmar, and Emergencies)

Amnesty International, International Secretariat

777 UN Plaza, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017

Tel: 1 212 867 8878

Mobile (Thai): 66 (0)81 138 1912

/End

****************************************

สินีนาฏ เมืองหนู

ผู้ประสานงานฝ่ายพัฒนาสมาชิกและเครือข่าย

Sineenart Muangnoo (Gam)

Growth Mobilization Coordinator

Amnesty International Thailand

90/24, Soi Duangporn, Ladprao Soi 1,

Jomphol, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900

โทร/Tel. 02 513-8745, 02 513-8754

แฟกซ์/Fax. 02 939-2534

e-mail : membership@amnesty.or.th

http://www.amnesty.or.th

Update: PPT highly recommends the post at Asia Provocateur where serious allegations of collusion between Zawacki, AI and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bangkok. These questions are raised:

Of course, for Amnesty to be engaged in such a collusion with a Thai government department whose Minister, Kasit Piromya, is so closely associated with the PAD, an organisation deemed “fascist” by the Asian Human Rights Commission, is staggering. How can Mr. Zawacki’s judgement be trusted when he is working cheek by jowl with the Thai government? How far does Amnesty’s much vaunted neutrality extend in Thailand, if it ever existed at all?

It is added:

Mr. Zawacki now needs to do the right thing – resign and let someone more neutral and committed to the admirable values of Amnesty International take his place [see point 1 above]. He has failed both the Thai people and those committed to human rights.