I have mixed feelings about the award. Shamima has done tremendous work for women and their families over the years and on this count alone she deserves full recognition. But why was this award created -- and created by Amnesty International New Zealand -- at this particular point in time?
The citation was ostensibly about women's rights but AI executive Patrick Holmes spoke of another reason. AI, he said, "saluted Ms Ali for the immense courage she has shown in challenging the 2006 military coup and in continuing, despite threats and intimidation, to document its impact on the people of Fiji."
Unkind thoughts surface, detracting from Shamima's work. What does AI NZ really know about Fiji? Our media certainly would not have helped a proper assessment. Is the award at least a teeny bit political? Is their Fiji information based on Apolosi Bosi's one-sided AI reporting, and communications perhaps from Shamima? Are they aware that AI Fiji rejected Bose's report? Has NZ Foreign Affairs (NZAid is a major funder of the FWCC) had a role in any of this?
Why did AI not make awards to those who resettled Indo-Fijian refugees who fled their farms during the 2000 Speight Coup? And what did it say then about the tens of thousands of Indo-Fijians who "fled" Fiji, thinking it was no place for their children? How do numbers like this stack up against the "human rights abuses" of the present Fiji government?
Why has it said nothing about the old political system that made some people's vote worth far less than the votes of others? Was this not a breach of their human rights? And, if that is not sufficient, why has it said nothing to the NZ Government that -- in applying its travel bans to whole families -- has taken away the rights of individual family members who have nothing to do with the military or Fiji Government? Is there not a UN Convention that protects the rights of the individual? Whole families cannot, in all justice, be punished for the transgressions of one of it members.
If any of these "unkind thoughts" are valid, Amnesty International NZ has shown itself easily swayed and more than a little biased. I'll still make a donation next year but I hope the money will be used on countries where there are more substantial abuses than Fiji. And awards made to people living in situations that make their actions far more courageous than Shamima's.
3 comments:
Your reservations are justified, Croz. This is a place for instinctive caution. No one should receive an award for the defence of human rights anywhere when they are exclusively paid by and funded by other interests. Neither should this take place when outcomes are so obviously wanting. No Shelter or One Stop Shop in any division of Fiji for battered and abused women and children? Why? One good reason is: the carbon-footprints and the airmiles accumulated by many NGOs in Fiji (and presumably elsewhere in the globe) are a regional disgrace. Those who defend human rights must 'stay grounded'. Not exclusively but in the main. They are needed in Fiji to perform. Running off all over the place hardly inspires trust and it distances them from their constituency especially with PER in place. These so-called professionals should know better. In fact the must but they choose like butterflys to flutter by. If this sounds mean-spirited it is not intended to be. It is a reflection of observations made over more than a decade at close quarter. Consider the divisive nature of such an award when the country requires dialogue?
One point that we should all think about concerning AI New Zealand is this: in 2000/2001 Amnesty International's Director in Asia/Pacific was a person born in Communist East Germany. He was a professional of many accomplishments who fully understood a regime of fear, of oppression and with in-built division necessitating a culture of silence. No one around of that stature in AI New Zealand or anywhere else it might be suggested? Growing up under the STASI promotes a culture of excellence?
Croz. You boci levu, kulina vavaku!
Post a Comment