Amnesty And UK Supreme Court: An Unmasked Intelligence Face Of The British Diplomacy
On 4th July 1995, in an important legal precedent, the UK Supreme Court issued a verdict against AMNESTY at the time when only three weeks were left for the organization to conclude an intensive campaign against Sudan. The campaign ‘ the Tears Of Orphans’ started on 25th January 1995 and continued until 31st July 1995. Based on narrations of Sudanese opposition, without making any field visit to Darfur, AMNESTY, eventually, issued its report “ The Tears of Orphan “ which was prepared in its Headquarters in London.
Therefore, the report of the Amnesty was published from London’s main office without visiting Sudan as the organization turned down the invitation made by the then Sudanese Minister of Justice Abdulaziz Shiddo. The publication of the report was orchestrated with similar publications in Kenya and South Africa.
The UK Supreme Court issued its verdict on 4th of July 1995 that “Amnesty is banned from using British broadcasting”. The ruling of the court came after 32 years of establishment of the international organization. However, despite court verdict, AMNESTY is still reveling by using the international service of the British Broadcasting which is funded by the British Government, namely Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Amnesty, illegally, broadcasts programs directed at its international audience while its domestic British audience neither listen nor watch it. Additionally, the organization intensively uses British printed media.
BBC international service has never been away from this debacle; Amnesty international has frequently used the service to diffuse political propaganda and deliver its messages against political opponents all over the world using both radio and TV.. It may not be a surprise to many that the list of the British Government opponents is the same list as Amnesty opponents.
The courts ruling against Amnesty was well received by British newspapers; Daily Telegraph, Times and the Independent published stories in their 5th July 1995 issues, while the Independent published a legal OPED on 1st of August 1995, in which it endorsed the supreme court’s ruling against Amnesty.
Amnesty was established in 1963, during the cold war era (1945-1991). Its Headquarters is in London, the United Kingdom while it has 8000 branches in 70 countries in the world. It receives support from UK and British NGOs, western countries and western NGOs as well. This is why UK and its European allies hastily support, and even adopt, reports of the organization. So, when Amnesty published its 29th September 2016 report accusing Sudanese government of using chemical weapon in Darfur, they adopted the report and became part of the campaign against Sudan.
As Amnesty enjoys “observer status” in the United Nations, it receives support from the international body. It has also a declared political partnership with the British foreign office during the tenure of Minister Robin Cook.
The recent report of Amnesty on Darfur is just part of the British negative role against Sudan. The recently disclosed type of nexus between Amnesty and the British Government reveals that the former was originally a clandestine intelligence organ affiliated to the latter. Amnesty is a British clone of the American National Endowment for Democracy which preceded Amnesty in working under the umbrella of the State Department. Therefore, Amnesty is not just a pressure group; it is, in essence a British Intelligence organization which is a part of the Government decision making system.