Amnesty's refusal to call for a boycott of the Genocide Olympics calls into question its ability to campaign effectively for human rights in Darfur.
We all know that writing letters etc, and merely publicising abuses in Darfur makes not a jot of difference to the Sudanese government. The only way is to put pressure on the Chinese Government who are uniquely placed to influence the situation, and Mia and co are doing this magnificently.
It is as if the years of green campaigners' successful actions had never happened, as Amnesty remains tied up in its own rules and red tape refusing to ever call for a boycott, even when this would give a much greater chance of success than its traditional approaches.
So, having raised hopes, expectations and funds shouldn't it return the donations or give them to Mia as a valentine?
Comments
Ethics
I did not mean to suggest that nothing would be effective - merely that a boycott of the Olympics might not work. The debate around Moscow was not, to the best of my recollection, around whether the Kremlin would pay attention, but rather around whether it was fair to deprive athletes, whose lives have been dedicated to the pursuit of Olympic glory, of the opportunity to do their thing in an arena that, for most of them, is once in a lifetime.
The only sporting boycott I recall which is credited with generating, or at least encouraging a significant political change was South Africa - where trade boycotts and political isolation supported the efforts of an indigenous civil rights movement; they were also sustained over a very long period - some of us still won't buy apples from Barclays!
Now, talk about a trade boycott of China, and I'm in. Couple it with a fairtrade-style movement of the business to indigenous sudanese businesses, and the wider geographic area, and I'm in!
Maybe that's the sort of campaign Amnesty should be mounting.
Gerry Beldon FInstF
Director, 26-01 CIC
www.26-01.com
Ethics and fundraising
Two thoughts in response to Gerry: If nothing will be effective should Amnesty have encouraged people to donate or join them? As Head of Fundraising at Amnesty, many years ago, I ran a full-page ad saying there was nothing we could do to stop the Junta in Burma. Interestingly, it raised as much as other more positive ads.
Secondly the Chinese culture is different to the Russian. They are, I think, much more susceptible to such pressure. Amnesty coming behind the campaign would create the kind of momentum that is needed if we are to see steps in the right direction. Indeed, the first phase of the campaign saw the Chinese for the first time not using the security council vote to block a the UN resolution on Darfur.
Darfur
The question has to be whether a boycott call would be effective. Such action against a third party would be unprecedented. We could boycott Sudan, but they might not notice!
Mia has done a great job in highlighting the issue, and Spielberg's gesture has added to the attention.
A boycott call would be whistling in the wind, I think - look at what happened when Washington tried to organise a boycott of Moscow. They had a few more resources than Amnesty, and despite the regime we had in power at the time Britain was represented at the games.
Maybe letter writing has had its day, and Amnesty needs something new for the 21st Century, but I don't think sporting boycotts would do the job.
Cheers
Gerry
Gerry Beldon FInstF
Director, 26-01 CIC
www.26-01.com