Through unjust imprisonment, inhumane torture, and oppressive lawmaking, human rights are constantly put in danger in places all across the world. In light of this tense political climate, various international non-governmental organizations have emerged with the purpose of defending human rights and fighting for justice. Perhaps one of the most notable of these movements is the well-known activist organization Amnesty International. In the 60 years since its founding, Amnesty International has evolved from a single open letter into a global movement in over 170 countries. With over 10 million people campaigning for human rights, and even winning the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize, Amnesty’s growth and impact are undeniable. (“Who We Are”, 2023; Mudge, 2021). However, Amnesty International is not faultless or beyond criticism, and beneath the surface of its noble cause lies challenges and biases that threaten to erode the very basis of its foundation. Like many human rights organizations, despite its good-natured intentions, Amnesty is still subject to inherent biases rooted in the Eurocentric nature of human rights discourse. This is evidenced by cases of employee suicide and internalized racism that has contributed to reports concerning Amnesty’s problematic working environment. Despite Amnesty International’s many accomplishments and worldwide recognition, these cases of Eurocentrism and workplace toxicity expose the bias and double standards within the organization and the need for reform to ensure Amnesty’s pursuit of human rights is truly inclusive, unbiased, and effective.
There are many different aspects to take into account when analyzing the content of Amnesty International. In order to realize the significance of how and why human rights organizations are susceptible to Western influence and bias, one must first grasp a sense of the theories and problems surrounding human rights discourse as a whole. Once that is understood, it is then time to dive into the main critiques of Amnesty, like toxic working conditions and allegations of racism. Whilst it is important to acknowledge the many accomplishments made by Amnesty, it is crucial to ensure that these feats do not overshadow the present faults. This paper will address both the successes and flaws of Amnesty International to ultimately determine the overall impact and potential future of this organization. Amnesty plays a highly significant role in the global fight for human rights, and understanding its organization's successes and faults is key to navigating the past, present, and future of human rights advocacy.
Nonpartisanship and Integrity
Despite Amnesty’s largely respected global reputation, the non-governmental organization has received various criticisms over the years questioning its validity and integrity. Particularly, Amnesty’s response to global conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Russo-Ukrainian war have been subject to notable recent scrutiny (Aizenberg, 2022; Zivo, 2023). Furthermore, allegations of one-sided reporting have emerged that continue to fuel debates surrounding Amnesty’s claimed nonpartisanship (Mudge, 2021). In light of these public doubts, it is critical to acknowledge how Amnesty partially relies on public donations, and thus maintaining a positive brand image is crucial to ensure financial support. Swedish writer David Isaksson highlights the emergence of competing organizations like Civil Rights Defenders and Human Rights Watch, emphasizing the need for a pristine brand image, as any misstep can cost Amnesty millions of funds (Isaksson, 2022). These critiques serve as important starting points, but further research into Amnesty International and its practices reveals that the problem with this organization is not specific to one particular misstep or critique, but rather from inherent cultural issues within the organization itself.
As noted previously, Amnesty aims to achieve its mission by appealing to the interests of human rights defenders across nations, and this is most efficiently done by presenting a universal nonpartisan framework. A quick look at the official website displays the organization's values and goals of defending human rights. Moreover, Amnesty also boasts that it is independent of any political ideology, economic interest, or religion, and that no government is beyond scrutiny (“Who We Are, 2023). These are large claims to make in an increasingly politicized world, which ultimately forces many to ponder the question, have these promises made by Amnesty actually been upheld over time? The suspension of Amnesty senior officer Gita Sahgal over her speaking out against the organization working with Taliban supporters caused Christopher Hichens to write on this topic and how “Amnesty International has lost sight of its original purpose” (Hitchens, 2010). In light of this and as Amnesty continues to see larger scandals and critiques unfold, it seems that the organization may no longer be living up to the image it claims to project.
However, the situation turns out to be even more complex, and the more important question to wonder is if the promises that Amnesty makes are even achievable in today’s world of human rights. Kenyan professor Makau Mutua discusses the problematic and Eurocentric roots of human rights discourse in his paper about the savage, victim, and saviour metaphor. This metaphor explains how the terms savage, victim, and saviour are examples of how the way academia and the international community discussion of human rights promotes a Eurocentric ideal (Mutua, 2001). He then points out how the main authors of human rights discourse are Western states and academics or organizations who are highly influenced by Western culture (Mutua, 2001). This is important to bear in mind when analyzing Amnesty, or any humanitarian organization, as the “biased and arrogant rhetoric and history of the human rights enterprise” is likely a key factor behind some of the main challenges encountered (Mutua, 2001).
Further, Christopher Hitchens also mentions that “Amnesty International was not set up to defend everybody, no matter what they did. No organization in the world could hope to do that” (Hitchens, 2010). By stating this, Hitchens is making the point that as a nonpartisan organization, Amnesty is inevitably set up to fail. This is further echoed by German writer Rob Mudge who states that “the policy of neutrality and taking up a position that doesn’t take sides has become increasingly difficult to maintain due to today’s complex challenges” (Mudge, 2021). What Mudge means by this is that certain situations, for instance, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are not so easily categorized into ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’. This reflects some of the key points in Mutua’s writing and his argument that the construction of a black-and-white narrative that pits good against evil is an oversimplification that does not take into account cultural and historical nuances and power dynamics (Mutua, 2001). Collectively, these insights shed light on the complexities of human rights advocacy and serve as a foundational basis for critiquing Amnesty International.
Toxic Working Culture
Amnesty works hard to ensure the health, safety, and security of people around the world, but unfortunately, is not able to protect the wellbeing of its own members. A 2019 report on Amnesty Staff Wellbeing brought up some upsetting concerns surrounding a toxic workplace culture (Avula et al., 2019). It cited a severe lack of trust in senior management, who reportedly used bullying and public humiliation in the workplace (McVeigh, 2019). These are serious and troubling findings, and what is worse is that it does not appear to be a singular or new issue either, as one quote stated that “Amnesty International had a reputation for doing great work but being a hard place to work” (McVeigh, 2019). Further, many of the interviews in the report found use of the word ‘toxic’ as far back as the 1990s describing Amnesty’s work culture (McVeigh, 2019). This clearly does not match Amnesty’s values. The concern of bullying and toxicity from management is not the only contributing factor to the difficulties of working at Amnesty International, as the report also found that ‘martyrdom culture’, was a significant issue. This occurred when staff would sacrifice their personal well-being by taking on excessive workloads (McVeigh, 2019). While the dedication and commitment of those working in human rights is commendable, this practice is a slippery slope leading to employee overload and burnout. (McVeigh, 2019). This challenge is inherent to many humanitarian organizations where the urgency and gravity of the work often can take a heavy toll on the well-being of employees. The combination of a martyrdom culture and bullying from management creates a detrimentally harmful working environment that is unexpected for an organization that values human rights so highly.
These toxic working conditions are not just a matter of discomfort or inconvenience but have had harmful, and in some cases even deadly, consequences. A tragic event occurred in May 2018 when Amnesty International’s West Africa researcher Gaëtan Mootoo, one of the organization’s longest-serving employees, committed suicide in his Paris office, leaving the entire organization in shock (“Independent review into the tragic loss”, 2018; McVeigh, 2018). Mootoo left a letter mentioning “work pressure and a lack of management support”, and it was found that he was unhappy at work due to a “justified sense of having been abandoned and neglected” (McVeigh, 2018). Amnesty International responded to the tragedy, secretary general Kumi Naidoo issued a statement regarding Mootoo’s passing and promised to ensure that the recommendations from the Staff Wellbeing report are implemented to prevent such heartbreaking incidents from happening again (“Independent review into the tragic loss”, 2018). Although it does show accountability and hope that Amnesty was able to respond to the situation and create a plan for moving forward, Gaëtan Mootoo’s memory serves as a painful reminder of the precarity of employee well-being at Amnesty.
Internal Racism and White Privilege
Amidst the already alarming reports of staff dissatisfaction with Amnesy’s work culture, further distressing allegations against the organization by employees came only a couple of years later. In 2021, an internal review at Amnesty’s international secretariat was published highlighting instances of racism towards ethnic minority staff. Eight employees from Amnesty International UK spoke out about their experiences of racial discrimination, claiming in a statement that the leadership “knowingly upheld racism and actively harmed staff from ethnic minority backgrounds” (Ping, 2022). These workers called out Amnesty for having a culture of white privilege, specifically referencing a “lack of awareness or sensitivity to religious practices resulting in problematic comments and behaviour” and “aggressive and dismissive behaviour … often directed towards staff in offices in the global south” (Parveen, 2021). Further, one of the whistleblowers, Katherine Odukoya, said, “We joined Amnesty hoping to campaign against human rights abuses but were instead let down through realizing that the organization actually helped perpetuate them” (Parveen, 2021). These troubling allegations serve as a reminder of the Eurocentric tendencies earlier highlighted by Mutua, showing the enduring reality of power imbalances and cultural insensitivity at Amnesty International. Within a focus group report, Amnesty avowed these claims, stating that “we sometimes perpetuate internally the very inequalities we try to change through our external human rights work” (Durrant & Brown, 2020). While these reports are distressing, Amnesty’s acknowledgement of its bias and wrongdoings is a crucial first step in reforming its prejudiced culture. However, acknowledgement alone does not suffice, and consistent effort must be made to ensure that Amnesty’s internal practices are aligned with its external values.
Navigating Achievements and Concerns
While it is clear that there are some significant concerning aspects within the structure and functioning of Amnesty International, the positive impact that this organization has had in defending human rights is undeniable. Amnesty has worked tirelessly to free tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience, played a crucial role in abolishing capital punishment in over 100 countries, and led other impactful campaigns against torture, refugee abuse, and police brutality (“History”, 2017). In just the last few years alone, some of Amnesty’s victories include facilitating the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to Madagascar, achieving the first-ever judicial ruling on marriage equality in Japan, and empowering young people in Latin America with knowledge about sexual and reproductive rights (“Human Rights Wins”, 2023). These accomplishments, among many others, stand as compelling evidence of Amnesty’s profound impact and effectiveness as a human rights organization.
However, although Amnesty has been and continues to do valuable and effective work in the field of human rights, it does not absolve them of the systematic issues that have been brought to light. As an organization advocating for universal human rights, it is more important than ever that Amnesty upholds the very principles it seeks to promote. The recent revelations regarding toxic working conditions, allegations of racism, and the challenges in maintaining a nonpartisan stance raise significant concerns about the organization’s integrity and accountability. It is promising that Amnesty consistently and professionally acknowledges and responds to the controversies it has faced thus far, but it is the commitment and concrete implementation of reformation that will determine the true effectiveness of the organization in upholding its principles.
Amnesty International is not an inherently bad or corrupt organization; rather, it is a well-meaning institution struggling with complex issues common to all human rights advocacy. The problems that it faces are very serious and the organization requires significant culture and structure reformation, but that does not mean that it needs to shut down. As Stephen Hopgood wrote, “I think Amnesty is a good example of that kind of deeply ethical but deeply problematic culture” (Hopgood, 2006). By effectively confronting workplace toxicity and striving for employee well-being, particularly for ethnic minorities, Amnesty has the potential to be a truly inclusive and equitable organization. As a leading force in the global human rights movement, Amnesty International has the opportunity to be an example of inclusivity and integrity, both internally and externally. Eliminating bias and addressing ingrained Eurocentrism are key steps for Amnesty to truly become the entity that upholds all of its primary values. Perfection is an impossible thing to achieve, but it is something to be strived for, and Amnesty International is an organization that has both the power and the potential to continue pushing for excellence in order to ensure the prosperity of human rights worldwide.
References
Aizenberg, S. (2022, April 14). Amnesty International’s cruel assault on Israel: Systematic lies, errors, omissions & double standards. ngomonitor. https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-internationals-cruel-assault-on-israel/
Avula, K., McKay, L., & Galland, S. (2019, January 31). Amnesty International Staff Wellbeing Review. Washington, DC; The Konterra Group.
Durrant, L., & Brown, C. (2020, October 26). Amnesty International Focus Group Report. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/org10/3268/2020/en/
History. Amnesty International USA. (2017, September 14). https://www.amnestyusa.org/about-us/history/
Hitchens, C. (2010, February 15). Suspension of Conscience. Slate Magazine. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/02/amnesty-international-loses-sight-of-its-original-purpose.html
Hopgood, S. (2006). Keepers of the Flame: Understanding amnesty international. Cornell University Press.
Human rights wins in 2022. Amnesty International. (2023, February 9). https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/12/human-rights-wins-in-2022/
Independent review into the tragic loss of Gaëtan Mootoo, Amnesty International’s West Africa researcher. Amnesty International. (2021, August 13). https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/11/independent-review-into-the-tragic-loss-of-gaetan-mootoo/
McVeigh, K. (2018, November 19). Amnesty “failed to support and value” Paris worker who killed himself. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/19/amnesty-paris-worker-who-killed-himself
McVeigh, K. (2019, February 6). Amnesty International has toxic working culture, report finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/06/amnesty-international-has-toxic-working-culture-report-finds
Mudge, R. (2021, May 28). Amnesty International: The good, the bad and the ugly? – DW – 05/28/2021. dw.com. https://www.dw.com/en/amnesty-international-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/a-57680902
Mutua, M. W. (2001). Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights. Harvard International Law Journal, 42(1), 201–245.
Parveen, N. (2021, April 20). Amnesty International has culture of white privilege, report finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/20/amnesty-international-has-culture-of-white-privilege-report-finds
Times, G. (2022, July 15). Amnesty International caught in racism scandals while preaching about “human rights.” Global Times. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202207/1270612.shtml
Who we are. Amnesty International Canada. (2023, June 12). https://amnesty.ca/who-we-are/#:~:text=Amnesty%20International%20is%20a%20global,protect%20and%20promote%20human%20rights.
Zivo, A. (2023, May 7). Amnesty International embarrasses itself again over anti ... National Post. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/adam-zivo-amnesty-international-embarasses-itself-again-over-anti-ukraine-report