From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe
Candles lit in Hong Kong as part of Amnesty International's Fire Up campaign (Jerry Ho)
Also In The News
|
Andy Murray is through to the third round of the French Open after a battling performance to beat Italy's Potito Starace in four sets. |  |
Thursday, 28, May 2009 05:01
Does a recession lead to repression? Must human rights take a backseat to economic worries? The price to be paid from accepting such a fate would be too terrible to bear, writes Matthew Champion.
Yesterday in London, Amnesty International presented its annual report 2009, The State of the World's Human Rights.
In a nod to the cataclysmic economic events that have laid waste to financial markets since the publication of its last year's version, the human rights group has taken a "holistic" approach this time, making a key connection between the rights of the individual and the chances of an economic recovery.
The 405-page report analyses the human rights records of 157 countries, including the UK, and at its unveiling, Amnesty International secretary general Irene Khan explained that whereas during the boom times (as she put it) human rights were relegated by security concerns, worries over the economy were now forcing them back on to the backseat.
Report: Save the human, save the economy
The facts are stark; the one billion people who live in slums across the world cannot afford to wait for the economy to recover.
Before the financial crisis (9/15 in Amnesty International speak, marking the date of the largest crash on Wall Street), food was already being used as a political weapon by governments from Burma to Zimbabwe, open markets had not led to open societies in China and Russia and the human element of conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan was being underplayed.
Before the financial crisis, another 'crisis' dominated headlines in the form of exorbitant food prices in the developing world.
Before the financial crisis, the bulk of Amnesty International's report was carried out, warning of widespread systemic discrimination and states that too often pick and choose the rights they will uphold and those they will suppress.
Billions of people lack food, jobs, clean water, land and housing, while discrimination, inequality, xenophobia, racism, violence and repression are on the rise.
All this before the financial crisis began, forcing states to spend billions of dollars on bailing out financial institutions and asking themselves whether they could justify development and aid budgets.
This is the task facing Amnesty International then, to convince governments, and more importantly the G20, to "invest in human rights as purposefully as they are investing in economic growth".
Governments that ignore one crisis - one that has been brewing for decades - to focus on another "is a recipe for aggravating both", Amnesty International secretary general Khan said in London.
"Economic recovery will be neither sustainable nor equitable if governments fail to tackle abuses that drive and deepen poverty, or armed conflicts that generate new violations."
But it isn't all dark clouds up ahead; the election of Barack Obama proved that. Universal celebration (as long as you're not Dick Cheney) followed his executive order that Guantanamo Bay be closed within a year and confirmed a commitment to renounce torture and regain the United States' moral authority.
The problems facing Obama in America (economy at melting point, wars, political legacies) are not unique to the Democrat president, with governments around the world facing the same issues without his powerful mandate and substantial support.
But even President Obama's actions are not enough for Amnesty International, which is unhappy with the fact that just two detainees have been released from Guantanamo since his executive order and the immunity from prosecution granted to CIA employees who may have been complicit in the use of torture.
I asked Amnesty International UK's director Kate Allen whether the group risked alienating people by the high standards it has set the callow president.
"Well it's not that high you know, and he's doing lots of very good things but what we want to see is the closure of Guantanamo and properly constructed trials," she said.
"We have to remember what Guantanamo was, in terms of justice it was a black hole, some men have been held there for six or seven years, a whole part of their life gone for nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"We hear story after story of abuse taking place at Guantanamo and there are people in Guantanamo who have been up to no good but it is absolutely essential that those people are brought before a court and tried.
"I think the president is determined to close Guantanamo but we do need to make sure that in that closure people get proper trials and that nobody is returned to countries where they may face torture."
In her introduction to this year's report Khan noted how four years ago Amnesty International was on the periphery of the spectrum of political thought when it called for the closure of Guantanamo.
The camp has since become a festering symbol of America's fallen moral standing and a recruiting beacon for al-Qaida.
Amnesty International can only hope their latest rallying call, and a new campaign (Demand Dignity) over prisoners of poverty, will be as universally-accepted in four years time. With a president such as Obama in the White House, they can rest assured their mission has a very powerful supporter.