Gerald Steinberg debates Irene Khan, head of Amnesty International, on BBC World Service Radio
BBC WORLD SERVICE – “World Have Your Say”, May 28, 2008
Presenter: Ros Atkins
Studio Guest: Irene Khan – Secretary General, Amnesty International
To listen to the debate please click here.
ROS ATKINS: Let’s stay on this subject with Professor Gerald Steinberg from an organization called NGO Monitor in Jerusalem. Professor we asked you to come on the program because we know you have some concerns about Amnesty International’s approach to the Middle East. What would you like to say to Irene Khan?
GERALD STEINBERG: First of all, I welcome the opportunity to debate these very important issues, because after 60 years, the universal human rights declaration really is not being honored universally. And in many ways, as we heard just now, Amnesty is part of the problem. Having looked in detail, for a number of years, at Amnesty’s reports, I’m afraid that Irene Khan’s comments are simply not credible. There are two basic problems – and I think it would be important to continue this dialogue, I’d like to get her response – the two problems are: number one, the use of the language of international law and human rights is applied in a very very biased way. It’s not systematic. Most of the Amnesty reports on Gaza focus primarily on blaming Israel, using terms like “collective punishment” and war crimes”….
RA: So let’s just be clear that you have been listening to Irene’s response to Mich[sp?]. You weren’t convinced by anything that she’s just said about today’s report?
GS: I think Amnesty needs to be far more systematic. If you’re going to use the terms: “war crimes”, “collective punishment”, “violation of human rights”, “international law”; those need to be applied across the board. Saying that we are balanced because for every ten condemnations of Israel, we issue one condemnation of Palestinian terrorism that’s, first of all, not balanced and, second of all, it’s immoral, because there’s no taking into account issues like aggression, issues that Amnesty simply, frankly, tries to ignore. There’s a political bias.
IRENE KHAN: Well let me say, Gerald, I also appreciate this opportunity to talk to you directly because I’m actually on your list of
NGO Monitor and I do get the emails that you send around. And what has struck me, is, really, where is NGO Monitor coming from? Because I know what you’re saying of Amnesty, you say of all other human rights organizations, international human rights organizations – like Human Rights Watch for example – you say of development organizations, you even say of governments. It seems that you believe that we have to give equal inches to every single problem in the world, in order to be balanced. I think the question is, you have to look at the issue and analyze it, because it’s not by weighing the number of pages, or measuring the column inches as you have done, that balance can be shown. You’re talking about a situation where, look at the numbers, it’s … no one would deny, certainly not the Israeli authorities, that 350 civilians have been killed in Palestine. No one, including the Israeli government, would deny that the number on the Israeli side is around 17. So…
GS: You have one researcher who is a part-time person, who…
IK: No, that’s not true, she’s full…
GS: … the numbers you are quoting. Where do they come from?
IK: I think you are making fundamental mistakes here. Amnesty devotes quite a lot of resources to the Middle East conflict because it is a major international human rights crisis. We do not have a part-time researcher. We have several, full-time staff. What I’d like to ask you: who funds you? Who funds you?
GS: All our funding information is freely available on the internet. But the question is…
IK: Why do you…
GS: Amnesty’s a superpower…
IK: No Amnesty is…
GS: Let’s focus on Amnesty. You’re the ones who issue the reports, you say you have more than Donatella Rivera working here but in fact there s no evidence of that…
IK: No…
GS: What we do see is that you do take Palestinian claims, and the confusion – when you say civilians are killed – in fact you, and the other sources that you use, don’t really have a way of ascertaining that…
RA: But before Irene responds to you Gerald, if you are going to ask her to be transparent with you, why can’t you quickly tell us who funds NGO Monitor?
GS: Well if you look at our website you’ll see there are a number of individuals…
RA: Well, I’m not… I’m on the radio which makes going online a bit tricky. Maybe you could just tell me.
GS: I could give you the names of the individuals. I can tell you to look up Mr Harry Wechsler from Boston and I can tell you the names of other individuals, all of whom give small amounts. It’s a little bit like Amnesty, and to the degree that we can, we put this information up…
IK: Well you see the issue here is of credibility. You’re making…
GS: You’re not transparent.
IK: We are very transparent because our report is out there. And we have 150 countries in that report. It seems that your interest is only in Israel. I have never seen you, at any point, say anything critical about the Israeli government…
GS: If we…
IK: Do you believe it’s the only government that’s perfect in the world and cannot be criticized for its behavior?
GS: Irene I think that’s precisely the problem that you and Amnesty have of credibility. Obviously I’m not saying that. Let’s stick to the facts…
IK: Well then tell me where you think … let me… since this is the first, and possibly, maybe, the only, opportunity that I may have…
GS: No I think that we should engage in this dialogue. We have invited the Amnesty chapter from Israel to have these public discussions…
IK: I would be very happy… not just the Amnesty chapter…
GS: … and they said no.
IK: I would be very happy to have a discussion with you – public or private – but my question is: if you believe that there is no such thing as a perfect government or state on human rights, and we would say that everyone has room for improvement, what do you think that the Israeli government can do, that it is not doing in the occupied territories, to improve the human rights situation there?
GS: Clearly we have… this would be a very complex discussion, and I’m on the record as having favored a number of steps, but it becomes impossible, when human rights are so distorted, to have a reasonable discussion. Clearly there are many things that need to be done, but when every Israeli official who’s involved in security, is hounded and harassed, and you use terms like “war crimes” you really make a discussion impossible. Let’s have a rational discussion…
IK: Well that’s not true. I have had discussions not just with Israeli officials, but senior Israeli ministers. And they are willing to talk with Amnesty because they do believe that some of what we’re saying has validity.
RA: Now in the interests of making sure we cover all of the areas which people have been getting in touch with us, wanting to talk to Irene about – Gerald Steinberg I’m going to leave it there. Thank you very much indeed. His organization is NGO Monitor, if you want to find out more about it…