Newsgroups: biz.americast.samples
From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com
Organization: American Cybercasting
Subject: Wearing world's white hat
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 11:09:31 EDT

This is an actual portion of the electronic edition of the Washington Times, as
distributed by American Cybercasting.  For more information, send e-mail
to usa@AmeriCast.com or write to POB 575, Aurora, OH 44202.

\SE A
\HD Wearing world's white hat
\SH Amnesty stands tall in 3rd decade
\BY Andrew Borowiec
\CR THE WASHINGTON TIMES

It has helped topple dictators, uncover torture chambers in far-flung
countries, and embarrass governments in banana republics and established
Western democracies alike.

Occasionally accused of liberal or conservative bias, it increasingly
acts as the self-anointed conscience of the world.  Some claim it has
assumed the powers of a government.

At the age of 31, in a world witnessing a rapid proliferation of human
rights organizations, Amnesty International occupies a towering position.
It likes to say that it measures governments by "the state of the morgue."

Its ultimate objective is to eliminate torture, abuse of prisoners and
the death penalty throughout the world.

It has been honored for its work by a Nobel Peace Prize.  The United
Nations accepts its reports of human rights violations without challenge.
Despite Amnesty's stinging criticism of capital punishment, police
brutality and mistreatment of Haitian refugees in the United States, the
State Department praises its role.

Governments, often shocked by Amnesty's disclosures, usually come
around and offer cooperation - albeit perfunctory - in tracking down the
culprits.

"To hell with Amnesty International," Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi
exclaimed last year, angered by Amnesty's worldwide campaign to free a
jailed lawyer critical of his regime.  But within a day, the man was freed.

Syria, accused by Amnesty last month of imprisonment, torture and
murder of political opponents, quietly offered to start a dialogue with the
organization.  In June, Greece at first denied Amnesty's charge of
condoning police torture, then offered to "look into the allegations."

"We have ousted Marcos, Idi Amin and Obote; we are going to initiate
new human rights governments," said James O'Dea, Washington office director
of Amnesty, which has its international headquarters in London.  Ferdinand
Marcos was president of the Philippines, and Mr.  Amin and Milton Obote
ruled Uganda.

"We're not on the side of governments, we are on the side of victims.
We're a victims' organization," Mr.  O'Dea said.  "We go to governments and
tell them, 'We measure you by the number of bodies, by the state of the
morgue.'  "

Mr.  O'Dea acknowledged that his organization's influence has grown
considerably, affecting its conduct.  "We behave like a pseudo-government
and we are treated by the U.N.  virtually as a government," he said.
"Unquestionably it is a colossal power."

Criticized for often being harsh with established governments but
ignoring abuse by opposition movements, Amnesty was quick to respond by
changing its approach, particularly now that some guerrilla movements
control and administer portions of territory.

According to one Amnesty official, "Amnesty recognizes that there are
some situations when insurgents have a quasi-governmental status, including
control of territories.  Consequently, Amnesty is adopting a more
comprehensive assessment of the [human rights] problem."

One of the most recent examples was a report on Peru titled "Peru:
Caught Between Two Fires," which reported violations by both the government
and Shining Path guerrillas.

With autonomous chapters in some 60 countries, Amnesty spans the globe
with its vast network of dues-paying members and sympathizers, ready to
respond to dramatic appeals on behalf of prisoners.

"Techniques include long-term adoption of prisoners of conscience;
publicizing patterns of human rights abuses; meetings with government
representatives, urgent telegrams indicating international concern," the
Amnesty said in a recent statement, adding:

"One well-written letter to a minister of justice is not pressure; 10
letters are."

Amnesty's by-now-well-oiled machine moves into action as soon as a
report of political arrest, torture, a prisoner's "disappearance" or
imminent execution is received.

In the first stage, the research department in London ,with a staff of
200 recruited in 30 countries, verifies the report from a variety of
sources.  They include newspapers, radio broadcasts, reports from local
human rights activists and on-the-spot investigation.

In the second stage, a massive campaign is mounted, usually resulting
in gaining the attention of the authorities involved - and often in the
release of the victim.

"When the first 200 letters came, the guards gave me back my clothes,"
wrote a released prisoner of conscience in the Dominican Republic.  "Then
the next 200 letters came, and the prison director came to see me.  . . .
The letters kept coming and coming, 3,000 of them.  The president was
informed, called the prison and told them to let me go."

By now, Amnesty's reputation is such that it is overwhelmed by
information.  "We're information-laden," said Christine Haenn of Amnesty's
Washington staff.  "The challenge is to get independent corroboration."

What motivates Amnesty workers, she added, is that "human rights have
no religion and no nationality."

Every year, Amnesty publishes a comprehensive human rights report
covering all countries.  This year's document consists of 311 pages, in
many instances giving names of the victims, dates and detailed description
of human rights abuse.

In addition, Amnesty publishes special reports, dealing with specific
aspects of human rights violations or countries undergoing difficulties.

Amnesty does not work surreptitiously.  When a team of investigators
goes into a country, it has the official - often reluctant - blessing of
the government.  At least three different sources on each incident are
needed before it is publicized.

Not all governments cooperate.  North Korea, China and Kenya
systematically keep Amnesty out.  When Amnesty wanted to send a team to the
U.S.  Cuban base of Guantanamo to interview refugees from Haiti, U.S.
authorities refused access.

And when Amnesty tried to investigate U.S.  immigration screening
procedures, "we were given a royal runaround which made us wonder about the
value of the new world order," according to one Amnesty worker.

Funding is a perpetual problem.  The bulk of fund raising is conducted
by direct mail.  There are 400,000 dues-paying Amnesty members in the
United States and chapters on some 2,000 university and college campuses.

Of the annual budget of $21 million of the U.S.  chapter, $4 million is
turned over for use by the London headquarters.  Amnesty has seven regional
American offices that orchestrate action, conduct lobbying and issue
periodic bulletins.

On the whole, officials of other human rights organizations heap praise
on Amnesty - and are envious of its clout.

"It is simply excellent," said Anne Manuel, associate director of Human
Rights Watch.  "Amnesty is the largest human rights organization, has the
most resources and the highest professional caliber.

"I can't think of anyone not tarred by affiliation with a government
who would be critical of Amnesty," she added.

"We find their reports fair and helpful," said Douglas Payne of New
York-based Freedom House, which publishes an annual "Survey of Freedom."

He said Freedom House often complements its reports with information
from Amnesty that is "well respected within the community of human rights
organizations."

"We consider Amnesty one of the most reputable human rights groups," a
State Department official said.  "We respect and value their contributions.
Once in a while they go off the deep end, but I can't think of a specific
example."


This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to
other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American 
Cybercasting Corporation.  For more information, send-email to 
usa@AmeriCast.COM