What Criticism of Amnesty International Reveals About the Critic

Posted on October 8, 2004 in Human Rights

When I went to Croatia in 1992, they complained to me about Amnesty International. When I went to Serbia in the same year, they complained to me about Amnesty International. Palestinians tell me that Amnesty International picks on them too much. Israelis think Amnesty favors Palestinian terrorists. Friends of Cuba think there is too much talk of Castro and not enough of Pinochet. Apologists for Chile say the reverse. I know Leftists and Rightists who complain about Amnesty International picking on them and not enough on the other side. And here in the United States, boy do I hear it about Amnesty International. Especially from the Right Wing and members of the Republican Party.

It’s a good sign that extremists of all stripes dislike Amnesty International. It means that when Amnesty International says “human rights” it means Human Rights. It means that it will not stand for seeing anyone mistreated according to the international standard of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. AI doesn’t care if you are a Communist or a Capitalist, a Zionist or a Palestinian, a Democrat or a Republican. If you are tossed in prison for criticizing the state or subjected to the death penalty, it will stand by you. It will keep pressing on your behalf until you are released.

The word for that is Trustworthy.

Criticism of this highly principled organization tells me much about Amnesty and even more about the critics. It tells me that Amnesty is still doing the job I counted on it to do when I used to write letters on behalf of prisoners of conscience in the Eastern bloc.

What it says to me about the critics as individuals is that they are not to be trusted. These people say “We want Amnesty to be our tool, our weapon in our ideological fight.” This kind of person doesn’t want rules: he or she wants belligerent anarchy, terrorism, hatred.

If I hear someone complain about Amnesty International, it makes me think twice about entering business or personal relationships with them. If they don’t want fair play and a single standard of justice for all, I wonder, what will they think they are justified to do to me? I think of this person as the kind of twit who complains about lawyers and then goes to extremes in legal maneuvers to destroy others. I think of this person as one who will readily lie if he or she thinks it will advance her or his agenda. I think of this person as selfish and greedy. I think of this person as someone will who not honor a contract, who will make excuses for her or his bad behavior, who when things fall apart will blame everyone else as they lose their head and make things even worse.

They sound ever so much like old-style Soviet bureaucrats with their excuses for the abominations they practice in the name of their personalized state terrorism. I bet they crib from the same notes.

Criticize Amnesty and you tell me that you are not to be trusted.