The church hall in central London was standing room only, the atmosphere charged. In a room draped in banners carrying the slogan “Workers’ Rights are Human Rights,” a trade union representative summed up the mood: “We are here and we are pissed off.” These were not the disgruntled workers of a large corporation, but the staff of Amnesty Internationa, their anger not focused on human rights abuses, but on their own management.
The battle between Amnesty’s staff and management has intensified in recent months following proposals to restructure the organization. Strikes have been held at both the UK branch and the international secretariat headquarters in London, and picket lines have formed in solidarity outside Amnesty offices around the world. Staff have given management a vote of no confidence and — in response to more than 100 members expressing concern about changes taking place in the organization — an extraordinary general meeting has been called for next month.
The core of the dispute lies in the decision, led by Amnesty secretary-general Salil Shetty to take the organization “closer to the ground,” opening 10 new regional hubs in hotspots where human rights violations occur. Some of Amnesty’s 500 staff in London will be moved abroad, and those affected argue that the shift is under-planned, ill-judged and risks muddying the purpose of the organization. For them this is not an industrial dispute over job cuts, but a battle for the organization’s soul.
Illustration: Mountain People
According to Thomas Schultz-Jagow, Amnesty’s senior director of campaigns and communications, the organization has no choice but to adapt to a changing world.
“It is anachronistic to have an organization with more than 500 people in London when we need to be where these abuses are happening, we need to be where the action is,” he said. “If we do nothing, we will lose influence and become out of touch with those places where human rights violations are happening.”
The majority of workers the Guardian spoke to agreed, in principle, with the proposal. So how have relations become so bitter?
Schultz-Jagow said that although the proposals had been on the table for two years, only now were cuts to staffing being implemented and he suggested that Unite, the workers’ union, was stalling the process.
“The role of Unite is to keep as many jobs in London as possible, and our job is to deliver a global strategy,” he said. “We have huge sympathy for the people who are impacted but we also have a responsibility to take this forward.”
The complaints at Amnesty’s two offices in London vary. Workers in the UK section fear the security risks in opening new offices in often dangerous places have not been properly assessed, that human rights work and impartiality could be put at risk and that Amnesty UK could, in the words of one worker, be turned into a “cash cow” rather than a campaigning hub. In the UK section, 23 posts will be made redundant, reducing the total from 171 to 148; the number set to go in the international secretariat has yet to be established.
Workers are incensed that redundancy terms have been torn up before cuts are made, with three weeks’ payments given for every year of service rather than four. By contrast, Shetty’s predecessor, Irene Khan, received £530,000 (US$852,600) — four times her annual salary — on leaving Amnesty last year. Her deputy, Kate Gilmore, who left at the same time as Khan, was paid £320,000.
Three program directors have left in the last year. The most recent, Susan Lee, the Americas program director, resigned last month because of “senior management’s failure to honor its commitments to treat staff fairly and with respect.” The next day, the union voted to strike, saying it had lost all confidence in management because it lacked “integrity, competence, transparency and accountability.”
It is, according to one worker in the Amnesty UK office, a “stressful and unhappy” time.
“In my most fearful moments I feel we are on a precipice, that we are unintentionally and thoughtlessly putting the future of the movement at risk,” said the worker, who did not want to be named. “I worry that we could be seeing the unraveling of an inspiring idea that has been hugely successful.”
Amnesty was formed in 1961 after a British lawyer, Peter Benenson, on hearing that two Portuguese students had been imprisoned for drinking a toast to liberty, wrote an article in the Observer newspaper suggesting prisoners of conscience might be released if people wrote letters to governments.
Since then its scope has become much more far-reaching, encompassing support for abortion rights, the right to a fair trial and opposition to the death penalty. Shetty, who took up the role two years ago, has gone further — positioning the organization as a champion of economic, cultural and social rights — with the argument that “the ultimate torture is poverty.”
Critics argue that Amnesty has lost its focus and too much emphasis has been put on the brand rather than human rights work.
As one worker put it: “There is a fear that the hubs are more about media and communications than about campaigning for human rights. Are we there to publicize Amnesty, or fight for those rights?”
Kate Allen, head of Amnesty UK, insisted that the difficult changes happening in the organization were vital for that fight to continue.
“We have to have members all over the world, we have to have workers on the ground lobbying governments,” she said. “You can’t have that influence just by flying in. You need to be there.”
Redundancies were “really tough,” she said, but despite calls for her resignation she believes she can lead the section through the changes.
“It was quite horrible to hear my resignation called for,” she said. “But I absolutely stand by this decision. I don’t want to think about what Amnesty International would be like in 10 years’ time if it didn’t happen.”
The battle in the UK appears to have reached an impasse, but Allen hopes the extraordinary general meeting will clear the air.
“We are having a fierce debate, but we will come through it,” she said. “It doesn’t feel like [Amnesty] is broken; it feels like we are having a hard time changing but we will achieve it.”
One of her workers agreed, but only in part.
“It is not a bad thing to have a look and think about what we do,” she said. “As long as we don’t tear ourselves apart in the process.”
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs