Amnesty in the twilight of human rights and imperialism

I have been a supporter of Amnesty International for years, because I care deeply about the causes it promotes. However, I find myself at odds supporting an organization that condones military intervention as a mean of advancing human rights. I am unequivocally opposed to all wars, because there are no good wars. I reject all forms of imperialism, colonization and oppression of foreign nations.

This past week, Amnesty came under fire for a poster it displayed, urging NATO to safeguard women's rights in Afghanistan.The poster reads, NATO: Keep the Progress Going. I saw the poster and my blood started to boil, because NATO and progress should not be in the same sentence.

It's an insult that Amnesty is asking NATO to safeguard the progress made on women’s rights in Afghanistan, when NATO has been assassinating their children, fathers and brothers for the past ten years. Is that the progress Amnesty wants NATO to preserve? I think that Afghan women deserve better.

I tweeted about my outrage over the poster, and Amnesty replied to my tweets, but I wasn't convinced by its arguments. Furthermore, the poster crystallized what I've been already suspecting: Amnesty seems to believe that the end justifies the means, and that military intervention is acceptable under some circumstances. I disagree with that notion.

To add to my discontent with Amnesty, I just read the entry it published yesterday: “Failure Is Not an Option." In this entry Amnesty laments the lack of action by the United Nation Security Council:

Even the United Nations Security Council, which is supposed to be the bulwark of global peace and security, has failed in its response to these popular uprisings, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. The Security Council’s ramparts have been thinly manned, its response to cries for help too often feeble. Inaction over Syria has left the Council seeming woefully unfit for its primary purpose: maintaining international peace

When I read those statements, I am forced to conclude that Amnesty supports an UNSC resolution to answer “the cries for help” coming out from various nations, especially from Syria. The problem is that Amnesty seems to forget that every time the UNSC passes a resolution "to help", it results in the bombing of that nation. The latest example of such help is Libya. Thousands of people were killed in that humanitarian and merciful bombing at the hands of NATO and the US.

If it were up to Amnesty, Syria would have been yet another country destroyed by the military power of the United States and NATO. Fortunately, China and Russia vetoed the resolution that would have opened the doors to another war. I am not naive, and therefore, I know that both countries had their hidden agendas in vetoing the resolution, but at least, as of today there are no NATO’s bombs falling on children from the sky. That's how I see it, but here is what Amnesty has to say about the veto:

In the case of Syria, Russian and Chinese intransigence has put the credibility of the Council at risk; undermining its core function as a guardian of human rights, and rendering accountability for crimes against humanity elusive.

China, resolutely opposed to intervention in the internal affairs of other states, except when it suits Beijing, has not exactly been a profile in courage. China appears stubbornly committed to preventing the Council from acting decisively to quell the violence.

The Council is not the “guardian of human rights” but rather a tool at the disposal of imperialists, to legitimize their invasion of nations for economic or geopolitics maneuvering. That's what the UNSC does. I applaud China and Russia for standing up to the US and its European allies, and for having avoided yet another war. I do recognize, however, that none of the two nations vetoed the resolution out of kindness. I know they have their own economic interests to preserve, but at least, they prevented shedding more innocent blood at the hand of imperialists whose thirst for power will never be satisfied.

Hoy sólo tengo preguntas....

No one is free when others are oppressed. ~Author Unknown

Amnesty International le ha vuelto a dar bajas calificaciones a la República Dominicana por el maltrato a la mujer, la brutalidad policial y las deportaciones masivas de inmigrantes haitianos. Me llega esta información a través de un artículo de Clave Digital. Al terminar de leer, me fui a la sección de comentarios a ver que opinaba la gente. Me quedé con la boca abierta al ver el contenido de estos mensajes; a juzgar por sus opiniones cualquiera pensaría que Amnesty Internacional es una organización cuyo fin es difamar a la República Dominicana. ¡Nada más lejos de la realidad! Ésta es una organización sin fines de lucro que se dedica a velar por el cumplimiento de los derechos humanos a nivel mundial , sólo basta con echarle un mirada a su página para comprobar su ardua labor global.

Les confieso que me declaro impotente ante tanta xenofobia y falta de conocimiento. Es cierto que hay muchos desafíos, y que las soluciones no son tan claras ni fáciles. Es cierto que hay muchos problemas y muchas personas están siendo afectadas a diario, pero no debemos olvidar algo: la dignidad humana debe siempre estar por encima de todo, y la nuestra propia se mancha cuando somos cómplices en denigrar y oprimir a otros. Tengo amigos y familiares que opinan como los que dejaron esos comentarios en Clave Digital. ¡Es muy triste reconocerlo!Trato de explicar mi opinión al respecto, pero como buena roca izquierda siempre me encuentro en la minoría. Me siento totalmente impotente por no saber cómo hacerles entender que cuando se violan los derechos humanos de un individuo perdemos todos, porque tarde o temprano, esa víctima podría ser uno de nosotros mismos. Ese mismo gobierno que hoy abusa de "los otros", mañana podría tener "razones de peso" para hacer lo mismo con nosotros.

Pero hoy no quiero hablar de culpables ni de responsables, hoy mi mayor preocupación es el ciudadano promedio y la posibilidad de que alguien en algún lugar pueda ayudarnos a lidiar con el conflicto de una forma saludable. Admito que no tengo respuestas, las preguntas se amontonan y se me anudan en la garganta: ¿Cómo se le enseña a la gente a pensar críticamente?¿Cómo se enseña a la gente a analizar una situación en vez de reaccionar ante ella?¿Cómo es que algunas personas pueden analizar y criticar una situación y otras simplemente no?¿Cómo se desprograman las mentes que por años han sido manipuladas por regímenes dictatoriales cuyas consecuencias aún se sienten hoy?¿Cómo se sobrepone una nación de años de odio, histeria y manipulación?¿Como distinguir entre el buen y mal patriotismo? ¿No somos nosotros seres humanos antes que ciudadanos de un país?

Amnesty Internacional en Wikipedia

Take Action on the Execution of Anthony Davis

Yesterday I blogged about the execution of Anthony Davis, which is scheduled to take place on July 17. Tomorrow the Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles will meet. Amnesty International has started a petition on behalf of Anthony. I am pasting below the text of the letter that is being sent to the Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles, for those of you who may want to take action in trying to stop Anthony's execution. The process is very simple, all you have to do is fill out your personal information, and send an email. It is that simple.

Here is the link to the page from which you can send your letter: Troy Anthony Davis.org



Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles:

I appeal to you to commute the death sentence of Troy Anthony Davis, whose judicial appeals have been exhausted. Mr. Davis has been on death row in Georgia for more than 15 years for the murder of a police officer he maintains that he did not commit. He was convicted in 1991 of fatally shooting Officer Mark McPhail and was also convicted for the non-lethal shooting of Michael Cooper and the assault of Larry Young at the same crime scene. Both Cooper and Young now deny knowing who the perpetrator in their attacks was. Davis' conviction was not based on any physical evidence, and the murder weapon was never found.

Despite mounting evidence that Davis may in fact be innocent of the crime, appeals to courts to consider this evidence have been repeatedly denied for procedural reasons. Instead, the prosecution based its case on the testimony of purported "witnesses," many of whom allege police coercion, and most of whom have since recanted their testimony. One witness signed a police statement declaring that Davis was the assailant then later said "I did not read it because I cannot read." In another case a witness stated that the police "were telling me that I was an accessory to murder and that I would...go to jail for a long time and I would be lucky if I ever got out, especially because a police officer got killed...I was only sixteen and was so scared of going to jail." There are also several witnesses who have implicated another man in the crime but the police focused their efforts on convicting Troy.

Despite these compelling facts, Mr. Davis' habeas corpus petition was denied by the state court on a technicality -- evidence of police coercion was "procedurally defaulted" so the court refused to hear it. The Georgia Supreme Court and 11th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals deferred to the state court and rejected Davis' claims. It is shocking that in over 12 years of appeals, no court has agreed to hear evidence of police coercion, or consider the recanted testimony. On Monday, June 25, The United States Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari in Mr. Davis' case. All of his avenues of judicial relief have now been exhausted and an execution date will be set.

It is deeply troubling to me that Georgia might proceed with this execution given the strong claims of innocence in this case. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that our criminal justice system is not devoid of error and we now know that 124 individuals have been released from death rows across the United States due to wrongful conviction. We must confront the unalterable fact that the system of capital punishment is fallible, given that it is administered by fallible human beings. I respectfully urge the Board of Pardons and Paroles to demonstrate your strong commitment to fairness and justice and commute the death sentence of Troy Anthony Davis.

Thank you for your kind consideration.