February 13, 2010
As organisations and individuals who stand for and support
the universality of human rights, we have noted with concern the
suspension of Gita Sahgal, head of the Gender Unit at the International
Secretariat of Amnesty International in London, for questioning Amnesty
International’s partnership with individuals whose politics towards the
Taliban are ambiguous.
We come from communities that recognise and appreciate the
work of Amnesty International in defending human rights and women’s rights
around the world. Many of us work closely with Amnesty International in
their campaigns at various levels.
We believe that Gita Sahgal has raised a fundamental point
of principle which is “about the importance of the human rights movement
maintaining an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed
to systematic discrimination”.
This issue of principle is critical at the present moment,
with the United States-led “war on terror” leading to the suspension of
human rights and increased surveillance over individuals and the body
politic. Ironically, the language of human rights and human rights
defenders is being taken over by the US/NATO alliance in its efforts to
legitimise a reborn imperialism. Equally disturbingly, this language is
also being hijacked by organisations that espouse extremist and violent
forms of identity-based politics. The space for a position that challenges
both these is shrinking and human rights are becoming hostage to broader
authoritarian political agendas, whether from states or communities.
In this context, it is crucial for human rights defenders
and organisations to clearly define principles and core values that are
non-negotiable. Our commitment to countering, among others, Islamophobia,
racism, misogyny and xenophobia should at no time blur our recognition of
the authoritarian, often fascist, social and political agendas of some of
the groups that suffer human rights abuse at the hands of the big powers.
The broader issue of principle which we raise here is one
which concerns all of us as human rights defenders from different parts of
the world. Many of us who work to defend human rights in the context of
conflict and terrorism know the importance of maintaining a clear and
visible distance from potential partners and allies when there is any
doubt about their commitment to human rights. Given the circumstances in
which questions regarding the partnership with Cageprisoners appear to
have been raised, we feel that Amnesty International should have refrained
from providing them with a platform. It should have been possible for
Amnesty International to campaign against the fundamental human rights
abuses that have occurred at Guantلnamo and elsewhere without making
alliances that compromise Amnesty International’s core values, just as
other human rights organisations have done.
History has repeatedly shown us that anti-democratic
organisations can and do manipulate information and their own
self-representation for narrow political advantage. In any situation of
ambiguity, we feel that the benefit of doubt should have been given to the
expert staff members of Amnesty International. We feel that in this
instance there has been a lack of respect for the opinions expressed by
Gita Sahgal, who is a senior member of staff, and a critical failure of
internal democratic functioning at Amnesty’s International Secretariat.
What is needed is democratic debate, internally as well as
in the public sphere, on the human rights principles that should guide
Amnesty International and all of us in determining our alliances. We have
to ensure that the partnerships we form are true to the core human rights
values of equality and universality. Our accountability in this area,
internally as well as externally, to all our diverse constituencies,
cannot be put at risk. We need a rigorous examination of potential
partners. Given the complex situations we work in, what is needed is open
debate, not a censoring and closure of discussion on these important
issues. Shifting the debate and turning this into a discussion about
‘Othering’ and ‘demonisation of Guantلnamo prisoners’ is merely obscuring
the real issues at stake. It puts at risk the work that Amnesty
International is attempting to do in Afghanistan and other areas.
Unfortunately, it also fails to answer the very serious questions that
have been posed to which we are also seeking answers.
In the present context of ‘constructive engagement’ with
the Taliban, as proposed at the recent Conference on Afghanistan in
London, it is our obligation to ensure that we do not barter away the
human rights of minorities and of women for ‘peace’. There are enough
recent examples of such attempts which show that these deals are a chimera
and do not result in either peace or security. Whatever the nature of
‘engagement’ with authoritarian groups, and whatever partnerships and
alliances we enter into with individuals or organisations involved in such
‘engagement’, the positive conditionalities and checks based on human
rights, which are universal and indivisible, must remain central and
non-negotiable for human rights organisations and defenders.
We call on Amnesty International to clearly and publicly
affirm its commitment to the above in all areas of its work; and to
demonstrate its obligation to make itself publicly accountable, as it has
so often demanded of others.
We extend our solidarity and support to Gita Sahgal, who
is well known and widely respected for her principled activism on human
rights internationally, for her courageous stand in raising this issue
within and outside Amnesty International.
Drafted and initiated by:
ط Dr Amrita Chhachhi, Women, Gender and Development
Programme, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague; member, Kartini Asia
Network of Women/Gender Studies
ط Sara Hossain, Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
ط Sunila Abeysekera, INFORM Human Rights Documentation
Centre, Sri Lanka
To sign go to: www.human-rights-for-all.org/spip.php?article15