I think there is at least an argument to be heard for sending in armed UN Peacekeepers to defend groups who are being subjected to systematic genocide.

If people are being murdered in their tens-of-thousands by armed militias, we're hardly going to stop the holocuast with witty t-shirts and a colourful info-pack. And, if UN Peacekeeprs are necessary, and they are deployed lawfully, accountably and under international scrutiny, then it makes no sense for Amnesty not to support the measure.

I think a very strong argument can be made that it is more morally problematic to remain "neutral" when faced with a genocide-in-progress. Of course, Amnesty will need to be reminded that if they do support armed intervention in certain circumstances, they will have a duty to monitor and report on the UN Peacekeepers too.

Qwerty, you've really got it all wrong. As I stated in my article first time round, there will be strong arguments for and against military intervention in certain circumstances until Doomsday (probably sooner than later the world is going). The point I am making is this: supporting one side in an armed conflict is not within Amnesty's remit and can never be, and furthermore leads the organisation wide open to corruption and political manipulation. This is an issue for the UN and other bodies to decide on, not Amnesty. Amnesty can only monitor all sides, equally, as to their observance of human rights and correct behaviour under the Geneva conventions. Plump down on one side and its values become worthless. We can all have our own opinions on an ongoing struggle, but Amnesty cannot take one side or another. Imagine, for example, that Amnesty had supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 due to the wholescale human rights infringements by Saddam Hussein? Where would that have left the organisation now, in the light of Abu Ghraib and Falluja? Redundant, that's where - a used up cosmetic in someone else's power game. This is the point to keep in mind, not a dull, pathetic 'pacifism vs militarism' one.

The Amnesty AGM is in London on the 8-10th of April 2005. Many, many members are unaware of this motion, even now. There is NO information about it at the website, and very little elsewhere. You won't be able to find out ANYTHING about the national conference even, unless you know the page. However, you can go direct to:

 http://www.amnesty.org.uk/members/natconf/2005/

You can also write a letter for publishing in Amnesty Magazine UK. Write to:

 journal@amnesty.org.uk

Ms Maggie Paterson
Editor
UK Amnesty Magazine
99-119 Rosebery Avenue
London
EC1R 4RE

It is crucial that Amnesty members get active and arrest this dubious manoeuvre in its tracks. You can attend the conference AND VOTE just as a member.

But surely the pointis that the intervention in Iraq was very legally dubious from an internationa law stand-point. From your original post, it doesn't seem to suggest that the motion will be proposing that Amnesty "take sides in a conflict", only that under certain circumstances Amnesty might support the lawful intervention of UN Peacekeepers.

I would agree whole-heartedly with you that in any conflict, Amnesty should remain neutral, but what should they do in a case where a government or militia is comitting genocide against civilian populations? Should they then support the sending in of international Peacekeepers (after due process of law) or not?

Even if they did support the sending in of UN Peacekeeprs, that would not mean that they shouldn't still monitor and report on the behaviour and conduct of those troops.

It's hard to make a judgement based solely on your posting though, do you have the text of the actual motion?

Hello again, Qwerty. Alas I have no wording of the motion, as all this is being kept under wraps from the membership. Going by past experience of Amnesty motions, it may not be available to the public until just before the Conference. Of course it all may, as you point out, be quite innocent. The fact that we don't know is not helping matters. One asks, why are the details of such an important proposed change obscured from the view of the general public and grass roots Amnesty activists? Added to this is the choice of language in the few leaks that we are getting, which does not bode well. The terms 'under pressure' and 'humanitarian intervention' in the extract below I think are give aways. This implies that officials within Amnesty are tailoring their 'response' to the question rather more to the pressures of power groups, than to popular demand. Read this:

"Did you know that Amnesty International (AI) currently takes no position on the use of armed force? Well, this stance is now under review. Virtually every armed conflict leads to violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. Invariably people lose their lives and casualties are overwhelmingly civilian. The question is how we can stay silent when we know that a conflict will cause the loss of innocent lives and the violation of human rights? On the other hand how can we not support military action when it is perhaps the only way to halt massive human suffering? In recent years, AI has come under pressure to support ‘humanitarian intervention’. Some have also criticised us for not opposing invasions that are apparently at odds with international law. Against this background of pressure and debate AI’s 2003 International Council Meeting (ICM) – AI’s ultimate decision-making body – called for a review of our position on the use of armed force." From an AIUK February newsletter.

I don't think there's any question that Amnesty should not approve legal UN intervention to prevent genocide. Yet sadly, this laudable intervention type arises so infrequently in the 'real world' of callous power politics that it cannot be the driving force behind the 'pressure' to change AI's constitution. Far more likely requests for AI 'support' will come from unilateral, ad hoc or dubiously multilateral forces that claim 'genocide' or other atrocities in an emotive fanfare of pre-invasion publicity and media coverage. This is the moment when Amnesty top brass could easily be 'pressured' (as they've already admitted they're susceptible to) and become, wittingly or unwittingly, a fig leaf for political expedience. And if this occurs just once, then it will be the instant kiss of death for Amnesty International as an independent organisation. That's one hell of a risk.