American political behavior and voting patterns

Organization Social Capital

NGOs, the U.S. Government and Social Capital: Amnesty International

Organization:

Amnesty International describes itself as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) dedicated to research on human rights abuses, action on humanitarian crises and the proliferation of global justice. (AI, 1) Since its founding in London in 1961, Amnesty International has been a leading voice calling for reform in every setting in the global community where there is a demonstrated need for improvements in democracy, health rights, gender equality, environmental rights, economic opportunities, freedom from violence and protection from genocide.

Policy Goal:

Originating in London but operating all over the world, its primary focus is in the developing sphere, where humanitarian crises are often symptomatic of larger economic, political and ethnic strife. However, its policy goals also call for it to interact closely with established global powers such as the United Kingdom and the United States. Its relationship to the latter is of particular interest in understanding the organization's policy goals. This is because it must both work in collaboration with the political bodies of the United States in order to advance improvements in the developing sphere but must also use its objective position to rebuke the United States for its own abuses. This denotes a challenging balance that will be of particular interest in the discussion proposed here within.

Organization's Recruitment Tactics:

As the discussion hereafter will explore, Amnesty International's recruitment tactics are of an especially important relevance in its mission to operate independently from the influence of any government group while still maintaining the resources to influence political, legislative and government policies. Amnesty International courts members throughout the global community by emphasizes that it accepts no donation, funding or moneys from government groups. This assertion of its independence from ulterior interest is effective in garnering the type of social capital necessary to bring credibility to its research and its assertions.

Organizational Outlook:

Introduction:

With its founding in 1961, Amnesty International quickly became a prominent voice in calling for change on a global scale, targeting conditions in the developing sphere with a particular focus on wrongful imprisonment and the suppression of civil liberties. Its ambition gathered a tremendous amount of support even in its first decade, with Amnesty quickly rising to a role of council for international bodies such as the United Nations and the UNESCO fund. As it relates to the United States, Amnesty International has long possessed a mixed relationship, most specifically underscored by the manner in which the organization interacts with America's political orientation. Both in terms of its recognition of the U.S. As a model for democratic and socioeconomic development and in terms of its steady line of criticism for the U.S., Amnesty International has sought not just to influence U.S. policy but to use the pressure applied by its findings to force the U.S. To be a better role model to nations in the developing sphere. The discussion hereafter will examine the unique dynamic between the political bodies of the United States and the Amnesty International organization.

Background:

Before proceeding to a more direct discussion on the relationship between the U.S. And Amnesty International, as well as consideration of the role played by social capital in this relationship, it is appropriate to offer some discussion on the most pressing issues currently facing the organization. Amnesty International faces no small number of obstacles in its ambition to help reduce human rights abuses and acts of cruelty perpetrated or enabled by organized governmental bodies in the developing world. The primary issue that is considered in this report is governmental use of the death penalty, social inequality and the general exclusions which detain the impoverished in untenable living conditions throughout the Third World. These key Amnesty International issues impact individuals in countries throughout the world and, as a NGO of note, it plays a prominent role in identifying and improving governments which lag in human rights categories. Moreover, these areas all implicate the United States and its political bodies in important ways.

According to our research, there are many developing nations in which those rights and protections which are assumed by some as inalienable are not only denied but are met by aggressive, often violent oppression. This identifies a core set of conflicts to which Amnesty International must respond directly.

The issue of the death penalty is one which is especially troubling, given the implications of its outcome. For many nations, draconian governmental control is accompanied by this permeating threat of capital punishment. In the developing sphere, where nations often lack the organizational capacity, judicial propriety or political will to ensure that legal proceedings are fair and equal, it is also the case that the death penalty will tend to be used with more rigor and frequency. As this discussion will further demonstrate, there is a clear historical connection between the application of the death penalty in dictatorial contexts and the dramatic inequality of the classes. This reflects on the relevance of poverty to world governance, which will be considered in light of recent events in the economic sector. With the crash of global markets and the use of government bailouts to protect floundering banks, there is a background to current conditions of economic inequality which points to a total lack of accountability for the poor.

Discussion:

Because Amnesty International is a global organization, its focus is not on the United States specifically. As the discussion will show hereafter, there are a number of areas in which the United States government and AI are on the same page. Still, the U.S. is identified as the single greatest offender in the area of human rights based on the number of studies reported by AI. This may not be a fully proportional representation of human rights abuses but is instead, Ron et al. (2001) report, a demonstration of the tactics employed by AI to generate political capital. Ron et al. find that by publishing a disproportionate number of reports regarding abuses committed by the United States, AI hopes to bring greater political pressure on U.S. leaders to correct said abuses. According to Ron et al., "we find that while human rights conditions are associated with the volume of their country reporting, other factors also matter, including previous reporting efforts, state power, U.S. military assistance, and a country's media profile. Drawing on interviews with Amnesty and Human Rights Watch Staff, we interpret our findings as evidence of Amnesty International's social movement-style 'information politics.' The group produces more written work on some countries than others to maximize advocacy opportunities, shape international standards, promote greater awareness, and raise its profile." (Ron et al., p. 2)

This denotes a strategic emphasis on the violations committed by the United States, as one example. The expectation is that the particular political structures in more highly developed governmental settings are likely to create pressure in response to negative reporting by Amnesty International. Moreover, the United States will tend to have the impact of making certain international transgressions appear as acceptable according to human rights standards. Creating reform would have the positive reverse effect of making the U.S. A far more credible advocate for policy change and improvements in the developing sphere. Ron et al. echo that assertion that Amnesty International is engaged in a positively intended but somewhat distorted mode of representing global human rights struggles. According to Ron et al., "scholars of transnational advocacy also claim that NGOs are savvy interest groups who maximize opportunities and scarce resources through innovative, social movement style tactics. Keck and Sikkink (1998) offer an influential and detailed analysis of NGO 'information politics,' explaining that activists 'seek our resources' and 'conduct public relations'; 'generate information quickly . . . [and] effectively'; deploy information in 'innovative ways' within 'hospitable venues'; and use 'symbolic' and 'leverage' politics. Their interpretation of this is positive, viewing information politics as a worthwhile tool in the struggle for global justice." (Ron et al., p. 3)

Of course, the United States is not just targeted by Amnesty International because of its visibility. It is truly guilty of a great many trespasses that AI has worked to alter through the above-noted approach of 'leverage' politics. As stated above, an area which is particularly troubling is that relating to the death penalty. On this point, in 2010, Amnesty International sharply rebuked the United States for its continued use of capital punishment in its punitive system. According to an AI report, "ahead of World Day against the Death Penalty on 10 October, Amnesty International has urged the U.S.A., the only country that carried out executions in the Americas in 2009, to end its use of this cruel and inhumane punishment. 'A clear majority of countries have rejected the death penalty. How can the U.S.A. claim leadership on human rights yet still commit judicial killings?' said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International." (AI3, p. 1).

The article released by Amnesty International would go on to detail an array of dimensions of the U.S. death penalty which make it particularly troubling. Among them, the article notes that more than half of all executions have occurred in the three states of Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia. This geographical bias, the article notes, is indicative of some degree of inconsistency in a system that determines the right to take the lives of its subjects. Another issue that is even more disturbing is the inherent racial bias that underscores the American judicial system. According to the article, "Studies have shown that race plays a part in who receives the death penalty in the U.S.A., with murders involving white victims more likely to result in death sentences than those involving black victims. 'Race, geography, electoral politics, local finances, jury composition, and the quality of legal representation are all problematic factors in capital cases in the U.S.A. Being tried for a capital crime is like taking part in a lethal lottery, and it should have no place in any justice system,' said Widney Brown." (AI3, p. 1).

The AI article resolves with the assertion that the day in which the United States does finally declare a moratorium on judicial executions will be one in which it can begin to have a more markedly positive impact on this issue on the global scale. Indeed, today, the death penalty continues in yet more unabated and troubling fashions throughout the developing sphere. And nations with the capacity to intervene such as the U.S. are clearly in no ethical or practical position to do so. One of the most immediately pressing instances where a change in U.S. policy could help improve developing sphere conditions comes to our consideration from Nigeria. Much of the African continent is demonstrative of the goals which are part and parcel to the Amnesty mission, presenting human rights advocates with a slew of institutional challenges that ultimately allow for these types of abuses in the areas of imprisonment and the use of capital punishment. For instance, contrary to the judicial parameters of a constitutional democracy, Nigeria has demonstrated a willingness to execute even convicts who have not yet reached legal adulthood. To this extent, "as of February 2008, 725 men and 11 women were on death row in Nigeria. At least 40 of them were under 18. About 53% were convicted of murder. Most of the rest were convicted of armed robbery and robbery." (AI1, 1) and as the article by Amnesty International highlights, these convictions rest on the terms of trial law that is demonstrably unfair and contrary to due process.

The Amnesty report on this subject indicates that there are root causes for this type of social problem that are exemplified by this situation in Nigeria. Particularly, there is a persistent shortcoming on the part of law-enforcement to be able to effectively combat the degree of civil crime which is rampant in Nigeria. The response which is typically exhibited by a dramatically short-handed police and judicial force will tend to suggest an aggressive over-compensation for limited resource and effectiveness. This results in broad-based tendency toward clear human rights abuses as a normalized part of law enforcement. Indeed, the experience of many death-row inmates in Nigeria is such that the resolution of execution is only the final punishment in a litany of violations. As the 2008 report tells, "almost 80% of inmates in Nigerian prisons say they have been beaten, threatened with weapons or tortured in police cells. Confessions are often extracted under torture." (AI1,1)

Nigeria is merely a representative example of a global issue with far-reaching implications to the freedoms and protections afforded citizens in the developing world. The pattern seen here with respect to capital punishment is repeated in a host of other nations which have run afoul of Amnesty International's standards. Iran is another important representative face of the developing world, often serving as a regional leader for the Arab and Islamic nations of the Middle East. This makes it a primary focus for many NGOs which concern themselves with its poor example in the area of human rights. Accordingly, Amnesty International's (2006) report, following the election of the hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, indicates that the new administration would illustrate "an apparent intensification of repression over the past six months since the President took office, which includes frequent use of the death penalty and torture, persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and limitations on freedom of speech." (AI, 1)