This is probably not Amnesty’s role, but one area that may be important to address is educating people locally about the universal declaration of human rights, the basis for having it and the responsibilities of adhering to this. I dont think even the average person in affluent democratic countries such as Britain or the US is clear on this.

Maybe work also has to be done on informing more people locally including non-English speaking groups about the role of organisations such as Amnesty. This leaves less room for governments etc to manipulate people.

———

Thanks again. Will be reading with interest.

Firstly, it has to be said that comments, critiques and advice provided with the benefit of hindsight cannot and should not claim a superior or even equal wisdom to that of the orginators of such judgments, decisions and actions. Hindsight is a powerful knowledge template that combines memory and learning, allowing actors and observers to review objectively past courses of action and, if they are wise (and perhaps humble) enough, to utilize such knowledge for better and effective judgements, decision and actions in the future. The humility factor on the part of the observers comes in at the point they provide their critique and feedback, especially where such initiatives are well intentioned responses in a given setting. (In this context, I find Sumane’s analogical remark about the Anti-War Front campaigns in Sri Lanka being “totally ineffective even destructive”, a nonhelpful application of hindsight that lacks the quality of humility. Many of us who attended the peace rallies- this includes many of the key figures in the civil society movement, did so, because it was the only credible act of resistance at the time. This was despite the concerns about the credentials and antecedent actions of the key organiser/s. We also did not have the beneifit of hindsight in terms of subsequent actions and behaviours of these actors, which I agree have not only brought to nought these efforts, but also helped strengthen the resistance to future efforts. I also find Sumane’s attempt to read into the AI campaign an ulterior motive of putting pressure on the GOSL regarding its human rights violations by bringing about a failure of the team through psychological means, or the insinuation about the symbolism behind the “white” ball, a bit convoluted and farfetched. It is also revelatory of a mindset and position that is subtly tilted towards those nationalistic, chauvinistic forces who see a conspiracy behind every bush. While I agree that we should not come to an apriori conclusion that everything that organizations like AI do are correct, I do not subscribe to the conspiratorial views concerning organizations like AI ).

It is with these preambulatory thoughts that I like to address SH’s request, which challenges those providing the critique and and analysis, not to stop there but to provide altertnate and remeidial schemes using the benefit of hindsight.

I like to make some sugestions in terms of general principles that an interantional organisation like AI must consider in formulating a campaign of action at the international level.

1) The need for a more thorough problem analysis to identify: causal mechanisms and agents both active and sympathetic; the communities of concern and the direct and indirect beneficiaries; the parties needing to be influenced; the ciriteria of success with a view to clearly arriving at the goal and objectives of the campaign.

This should be done through consultation with key local, regional and international human rights organisations, who by being privy to knowledge from their particular perspectives will provide valuable inputs to the planning process.(I am aware of course ofthe need to protect local organizations and also the need to bring in the element of surprise in certain actions.)
2) Adopting some form of game theory in understanding that in the given context how the spoilers, the media, the GOSL, the LTTE, other non-state actors , the international community and other organisations asscoiated with the action (e.g. ICC) would behave and tailoring the strategies to obtain maximum effect , with minimal energy displacement. Again the counsultative process mentioned earlier would be of great value in preventing some of the problems, that have resulted in the AI campaign coming surprisingly under criticism from even staunch defenders of human rights like FMM, and even having to make retractory statements in clarification which dilute the effectiveness of the campaign.
3) Looking for possible collaboration and complementarity of actions to achieve greater effect – e.g talking to Human Rights Watch – who too are involved in international level action, e.g.the recent letters to the US Senate and the Vatican, which did not attratct the same reactionary emotive repsonses.

The following are some specific actions I would suggest if I were to be part of these consultative brainstorming sessions referred to above. (Brainstorming exercises are meant to genrate creative thinking- hence all ideas are solicited however stupid they may be – and I would like these suggestions to be seen in that light!)

1. Discuss with BBC the possibility of staging a debating programme on the lines of Tim Sebastian’s “Doha Debates” – speicific to the human problem in Asia
A topic to deabte could be along the lines of the point made my Liz Phillipson: “Should a country with a poor record of human rights be allowed to comfortably enjoy other aspects (like sports) of international interaction?””
2. Similarly the possibility of arranging a special progeamme on “Have your say” BBC, targetting Human Rights problems pertaining to conflict situations with AI and Human Rights Watch as commentators.

3. Sumane’s idea regading a campaign targeting Sri Lankan Embassies, and International Fairs in which the Sri Lankan Government has made representations, is a good one.

4. Establishing a presence at the Davos type summits to bring pressure on rich countries and businesses to play by the rules and ensure similar compliance on the part of the countries who are the recipients of their trade and aid.

5. Lobby regional groupings like SAARC/Commowealth to incoporate stronger clauses into their charters concerning respect for human rights – seek collaboration with other bodies to do this e.g UN, ICJ etc.,

6. Work though international trade union federations, to bring action through worker solidarity to reduce acts violative of human rights by states.

7. Bringing regualtory mechanisms to ensure that countries with poor human rights records are restricted from doing trade with the rest of the world using a punitive scale of mild to harsh trade restrictions based on a suitable rating shceme.

8. Using an international voting scehme, establish a set of awards on the lines of the Nobel Committee, for the worst human rights offenders in the world ensuring that it has prominent interantional media coverage. This should be done both at the county and at the interantional level.

9. Set up a website like Cricinfo, providing various countywise statistics of human rights violators and violations with links to popular sites like Wikipedia.

10. If these actions do not bring the desired result and the impunity continues, a more concerted effort to call for boycots (including sports boycots, conusmer boycots), trade sanctions and travel sanctions. (Consumer boycots of products manufactured using child labour or without respecting workers rights had a positive impact of reducing such misdemeanours in the garment industry.)

I beileve now that I have given the lead that there will be other ideas in what could be a cyber brainstorming exercise that AI and other organizations could consider in their future interventions.

Can we say the same thing about this campaign? As Sara pointed out, according to the AI, “the campaign is not targeted at the Sri Lankan cricket team.” If we accept this “defensive” turn by the AI, the campaign is in itself illogical, irrational and would not produce intended results. I think on this point, Liz Phillipson is correct when she argued that AI has planned this campaign not to allow Sri Lanka to “comfortably enjoy other aspects (like sports) of international interaction”. Its main objective is to make the Sri Lankan cricket team embarrassed in the West Indies and create a psychological impact so that the team cannot fully participate in the game. AI would have expected that the resultant failure of the Sri Lankan cricket team would be viewed by the team members and the Sri Lankan fans as a result of the embarrassment caused by human rights violation of the Sri Lankan government. So a pressure will build up against the GoSL and its human rights violations. This is a logical agenda. If the AI or somebody else can convince me that it would work according to this blueprint, in spite of my sad feelings about the possible failure of the Sri Lankan cricket team, I would go with it.
Let us consider the hypothetical case that it went on as it was planned. What would be the immediate reaction of the Sri Lankan team and the Sri Lankan people in general? Would it help in improving Sri Lankan human rights situation? Would it al least facilitate in building strong human right movements in Sri Lanka? I would answer both questions in negative. It would discredit the AI in Sri Lanka and the people who have sympathies with AI work. In this sense the campaign would be totally ineffective even destructive. (like Anti-War Front campaigns against the war in Sri Lanka)

Campaign is immoral due to two reasons. International cricket is not apolitical. There has been a continuous conflict between Australia, NZ and England on one side and India, Pakistan, West Indies and Sri Lanka on the other side. Imperialism and racism as well as ‘third worldism’ are operating in the muddy field of international cricket. In this context, does WHITE ball symbolize an unhidden agenda?

Sara also mentioned about the absences. The question can be posed as to why the AI had not decided to target the cricket teams of other human right violator countries. Was it because of the magnitude of HR violations in Sri Lanka? Was it because that targeting one country makes the campaign effective?

We should not come to a priori conclusion that everything the organizations like AI do are correct. Every actions should be subjected to critical review even the bonafides of the organization is solid. Pressure groups may be subjected to varying pressures including the pressure of “capital”. Civil society may sometimes be “uncivil”.

Leo Kuper in Prevention of Genocide( 1985 ) commented on the failure of the United Nations Sub Commission on Human Rights to condemn the genocidal attack(July 1983) on the Tamil People:
“….there were also political currents observable in the alignment of members, though I could not altogether fathom the geo political considerations involved. In the end a very mild resolution was passed calling for information from the Sri Lanka government and recommending that the commission examine the situation at the next meeting in the light of the information available. There was, however, only a bare majority for the resolution (10 for, 8 against and 4 abstaining). It is unfortunate that the United Nations did not take a firm stand at this stage… That even this mild resolution adopted on 5 September 1983, calling upon Sri Lanka to provide information was opposed by 8 states with another 4 abstaining is not without significance ….”

I was wondering, if someone could outline what would have been a more effective way to achieve what Amnesty has set out to achieve through this campaign?