Think tank: Amnesty International Squandered Reputation

CNSNews is reporting on Amnesty International's focus on the US and Israel while ignoring the horrible human right record of China. According to CNSNews:

The human rights group Amnesty International has "squandered its reputation," according to a new think tank report, by focusing on the alleged misdeeds of Israel and the United States while practically ignoring rights violations by China, North Korea and other notorious regimes.

"Amnesty International has moved its focus away from human rights as traditionally understood and toward human rights as Leftist ideology," stated Alex Svetlicinii of Capital Research Center (CRC), which conducted the study.

Amnesty has certainly been consumed with its hatred and bias against the Bush Administration that they have lost their mission compass that defines what they are all about. The elitist mentality around the world is so out of focus that they point to the mole hills of the US while ignoring the mountains of China, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba and many other places.

This lop-sided focus becomes obvious when you compare the scoring methods that describe Amnesty's research into various countries. The scrutiny score evaluates how much focus Amnesty places in researching human rights abuses for each country. CNSNews describes how incredibly out of kilter Amnesty is in their evaluations:

Svetlicinii looked at the human rights reports issued by Amnesty International as well as the separate scores that another human rights group -- Freedom House - assigned to countries for civil liberties and political rights. Svetlicinii then determined the "scrutiny score" for each country.

According to CRC's findings, Amnesty International applied the heaviest scrutiny to Israel (its scrutiny score was 255) followed by the United States (a score of 128). At the bottom of the list were the communist-run nations of Vietnam (a score of three), North Korea (a score of two) and China (a score of one).

David Hogberg of the CRC (think tank) points to a theory by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan concerning complaints of human rights abuses versus actual human rights abuses:

"The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country," Hogberg said, paraphrasing Moynihan.

It is a lot easier for Amnesty International to criticize places that are relatively free, like Israel, the United Kingdom or the United States, because there is really no penalty for doing so," Hogberg added.

After all, in a truly abusive regime how much tolerance can be expected for those complaining of abuse. Probably zero. The abuse is dished out with a very real threat of loss of life for them or their loved ones if they speak of it. In the US, how much fear is there of complaints of human rights abuse? There is barely any disincentive to make false claims of abuse. The logic of Moynihan's law is flawless, and it points to a misguided and worthless organization that has an opportunity to make a real difference in the world. Instead Amnesty chooses political ideology. Let those thousands suffering at the hands of real abusive regimes rot. The political agenda is all that matters to them.