Amnesty International projects itself as the watchdog on human rights worldwide with the stated mission to campaign for “a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.”
However, lesser known is the fact that Amnesty International was created by British Intelligence for intelligence gathering to carry out social engineering of targeted nations critical of the British Empire. Amnesty International was involved in not only the cover-up of torture and regime change by British agents but also in sparking a war.
- 1 Amnesty International – Intelligence gathering arm of British Empire
- 2 Peter Benenson – the Undercover Spy
- 3 Amnesty International infiltrated by Spies
- 4 Regime Change in Sudan
- 5 Amnesty International coverup torture by British agents in Yemen
- 6 Amnesty International exposed by Dr Francis Boyle
- 6.1 How Amnesty International sparked a War
Amnesty International – Intelligence gathering arm of British Empire
Amnesty’s stellar image as a global defender of human rights runs counter to its early days when the British Foreign Office was censoring reports critical of the British Empire. During the 1960s the U.K. was withdrawing from its colonies and the Foreign Office and Colonial Office were hungry for information from human-rights activists about the situations on the ground. In 1963, the Foreign Office instructed its operatives abroad to provide “discreet support” for Amnesty’s campaigns.
The Deep State Anglo American lobby has since been working to re-create the British Empire of Modern Times, recruiting native politicians and businessmen for gathering intelligence and cracking business deals. One of its outfits, CTD Advisors operated by the son of a Pakistani British spy and heavily infested with former British intelligence chiefs advocating foreign intervention in Kashmir was recently exposed by GreatGameIndia.
Isn’t providing “insider knowledge” for cracking business deals to former intelligence chiefs of a foreign country by serving member of Indian Parliament a conflict of interest, if not an economic offense and an act of #espionage?
— GreatGameIndia (@GreatGameIndia) November 22, 2019
Due to its meddling in Kashmir, former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1990 (that time Leader of Opposition) demanded ban of entry of Amnesty International in Kashmir accusing Amnesty as a dubious organisation.
Rajiv Gandhi in 1990 (that time Leader of Opposition) demanded ban of entry of Amnesty International in Kashmir accusing Amnesty as a dubious organisation https://t.co/oJLLOAzOu4
— J Gopikrishnan (@jgopikrishnan70) September 29, 2020
During the 1960s the United Kingdom was still in the process of withdrawing from its colonies, and civil service departments such as the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office welcomed information from those familiar with human rights issues. The relationship between Amnesty and Whitehall was placed on a more solid footing in 1963, when the Foreign Office wrote to overseas missions urging “discreet support” for Amnesty: discreet, because its public endorsement would have seriously undermined the campaign’s credibility.
Peter Benenson – the Undercover Spy
Peter Benenson, the co-founder of Amnesty International, had deep ties to the British Foreign Office and Colonial Office. During the war, he worked in military intelligence at the Bletchley Park code-breaking center. Benenson worked as an undercover spy gathering intelligence under the cover of Amnesty International, directly sponsored by The Crown.
In 1964, Benenson enlisted the Foreign Office’s assistance in obtaining a visa to Haiti. The Foreign Office secured the visa and wrote to its Haiti representative Alan Elgar saying it “support[ed] the aims of Amnesty International.” There, Benenson went undercover as a painter, as Minister of State Walter Padley told him prior to his departure that “We shall have to be a little careful not to give the Haitians the impression that your visit is actually sponsored by Her Majesty’s Government.”
Amnesty International infiltrated by Spies
In 1966, Amnesty International was rocked by a major scandal when its founder Peter Benenson claimed that the organisation was infiltrated by British intelligence agents and called for its headquarters to be moved to another country. This is followed by claims from the US that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was also involved in Amnesty. Benenson himself was then exposed for accepting funds from the British Government.
One thing that Amnesty International and the White Helmets have in common is that they were both founded by former British military intelligence officers https://t.co/M6uXNi7jx5
— Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) February 3, 2020
Unclassified documents also reveal how Israeli intelligence operated the local branch of Amnesty International. The Israeli government funded the establishment and activity of the Amnesty International branch in Israel in the 1960s and 70s. Official documents reveal that the chairman of the organization was in constant contact with the Foreign Ministry and received instructions from it.
Regime Change in Sudan
In the mid 1990s, the Sudan Vision Daily, a daily newspaper in Sudan, compared Amnesty to the US National Endowment for Democracy, during its regime change campaign in Sudan. The newspaper claimed “Amnesty International is, in essence, a British intelligence organization which is a part of the Government decision making system.”
— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) October 6, 2018
In a September 2016 report, Amnesty International claimed that the Sudanese government was waging chemical warfare against its own people. Western media ran with it as fact, but African media found it to be highly dubious and based on hearsay. The following Sudanese report (republished in full by Modern Ghana) reflects on Amnesty International’s history as a propaganda arm of the British government.
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 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.
Amnesty International coverup torture by British agents in Yemen
In 1966, an Amnesty report on the British colony of Aden, a port city in present-day Yemen, detailed the British government’s torture of detainees at the Ras Morbut interrogation center. Prisoners there were stripped naked during interrogations, were forced to sit on poles that entered their anus, had their genitals twisted, cigarettes burned on their face, and were kept in cells where feces and urine covered the floor.
The report was never released, however. Benenson said that Amnesty general secretary Robert Swann had censored it to please the Foreign Office, but Amnesty co-founder Eric Baker said Benenson and Swann had met with the Foreign Office and agreed to keep the report under wraps in exchange for reforms.
Amnesty International exposed by Dr Francis Boyle
Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.
In an explosive interview Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act has given a detailed statement admitting that the 2019 Wuhan #Coronavirus is an offensive Biological Warfare Weapon and that the WHO already knows about it.https://t.co/MbItPq8OTz
— GreatGameIndia (@GreatGameIndia) February 3, 2020
In an exclusive interview given to Geopolitics and Empire, Dr. Boyle confirmed GreatGameIndia‘s exclusive report Coronavirus Bioweapon – where we reported in detail how Chinese Biowarfare agents working at the Canadian lab in Winnipeg were involved in the smuggling of Coronavirus to Wuhan’s lab from where it is believed to have been leaked.
In the explosive interview Dr. Francis Boyle, gave a detailed statement admitting that the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive Biological Warfare Weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knows about it.
As member of the board of Amnesty International USA at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, he claimed that Amnesty International USA acted in ways closely related to United States foreign policy interests. He attributes links between Amnesty International and US/UK foreign policy interests to the relatively large financial contribution of Amnesty International USA to AI’s international budget, which he estimated at 20%. Boyle added that Amnesty International was instrumental in publicizing the “Iraqi soldiers dumping children from incubators in Kuwait” hoax.
How Amnesty International sparked a War
In an exclusive interview with Covert Action Quarterly, Dr Francis Boyle explained how covert agents at Amnesty International sparked a war:
Of the six votes in the United States Senate that passed the resolution to go to war, several of those senators said that they were influenced by the Amnesty report. Now I want to make it clear this was not a job by Amnesty International but by London, and what happened then, when the war started, at the next AI USA board meeting, I demanded an investigation.
By then it had come out that this was Kuwaiti propaganda put together by the PR firm, Hill & Knowlton, and I demanded an investigation. Absolutely nothing happened. There was never an investigation, there was total stonewalling coming out of London. They refused ever to admit that they did anything wrong. There has never been an explanation, there has never been an apology. It’s down the ‘memory hole’ like 1984 and Orwell.
My conclusion was that a high-level official of Amnesty International at that time, whom I will not name, was a British intelligence agent. Moreover, my fellow board member, who also investigated this independently of me, reached the exact same conclusion. So certainly when I am dealing with people who want to work with Amnesty in London, I just tell them, “Look, just understand, they’re penetrated by intelligence agents, U.K., maybe U.S., I don’t know, but you certainly can’t trust them.”
GreatGameIndia is a journal on Geopolitics and International Relations. Get to know the Geopolitical threats India is facing in our exclusive book India in Cognitive Dissonance. Past magazine issues can be accessed from the Archives section.
New ‘Licence to Kill’ bill shows UK is happy to let its spies break the law – while lecturing other countries how to behave
By RT - 6. October 2020
The SIS Building, also commonly known as the MI6 Building, is the headquarters of the British Secret Intelligence Service (otherwise known as "MI6") © Getty Images / Pictures Ltd./Corbis
Tom Fowdy is a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations with a primary focus on East Asia.
A bill giving Britain’s security services the green light to break the law is passing through parliament. It’s another abuse of government power that a compliant media is unwilling to question.
The British Parliament is in the process of pushing through a new law, with the consent of the Labour Party leadership. Perfectly normal, right? Except that this legislation has quite huge implications.
Titled the ‘Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill,’ its purpose is to “authorise conduct by officials and agents of the security and intelligence services, law enforcement, and certain other public authorities, which would otherwise constitute criminality.”
That’s right, the security services of the United Kingdom are being given the green light to break the law, reducing the power of oversight and accountability behind what are already highly secret activities.
The mainstream media are not drawing serious attention to it, nor are they giving the bill any scrutiny. Although Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party agreed to pass the bill, he faced a rebellion from a cohort of 19 MPs, including former leader Jeremy Corbyn, who voted against it, arguing it is an abuse of government power and inherently dangerous.
MP for Coventry South Zarah Sultana stated: “I can’t support legislation that could give undercover state agents the licence to murder, torture and commit sexual violence.”
The bill marks the second time the Conservative government has sought to exonerate abuse of power from authorities with Labour’s support, with a bill legalising UK war crimes also passing through the House of Commons.
Once again, the United Kingdom believes that it is a law unto itself, which is hardly surprising coming from a government that believes Britannia still rules the waves. On one hand, it preaches the virtues of a democratic and open society, pointing fingers at countries implementing basic national security provisions and preaching ‘the rule of law,’ such as when addressing the situation in Hong Kong. But at the same time, it advocates a subtle mindset that its own actions in any capacity, even when much more questionable, are simply untouchable.
The latest act of parliament is simply the legal consolidation of a long established mentality that means the security establishment cannot truly be held to account, and it is best the public do not know about its activities.
Even before this new legislation, Britain’s intelligence services have long exempted themselves from meaningful scrutiny of their actions. The Five Eyes“PRISM” program, shared with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, is designed to counteract local privacy laws and legal constraints on government power by simply coordinating espionage activities and sharing the information.
Although defenders of this bill and the programme say it constitutes a common good – in terms of counter-terrorism, for example – they cannot say with absolute certainty that there will be no abuses of power, or more ‘political’ activities taking place.
The same people are equally likely to say that the ‘national security’ and ‘intelligence’ activities of countries such as China are always malign, oppressive and out of control, but is that the case at home too?
One of the most defining sagas of our time which suggests such is the fate of Julian Assange. Currently facing hearings over his extradition to America, his ‘crime’ is having revealed information about the activities of the US and Five Eyes intelligence around the world.
If he were Chinese or Russian, he would be heralded as a hero and glorified as a martyr. But for challenging the Western security establishment and their crimes, he’s merely considered a criminal and the Western media at large make a point of ignoring it, just as they do with this new bill authorizing criminal activity by the British security establishment.
In essence, the virtues of Western democracy do not appear to extend to challenging and scrutinizing covert, secret activities. Where is the transparency for MI5 and MI6? There is none.
And most unfortunate of all is the Labour Party leadership’s willingness to kowtow to this agenda. Under Sir Keir Starmer, the party is moving back towards the political centre and is eager to completely disregard the anti-establishment, anti-war and anti-imperialist policies of Jeremy Corbyn.
In a manner very similar to Tony Blair, he is reintegrating the party back into the core of the Western security establishment and supporting the government’s positions on these matters. This has caused many within the party to lambast the leadership as a ‘controlled opposition’ – one similar to the Democrats in the United States, which does not oppose the government’s foreign policy or national security agenda whatsoever. Such bipartisanship ultimately serves to protect the agenda of the ‘deep state,’ as it is sometimes described, from any serious public scrutiny, buffered by mainstream media complicity.
In this case, Britannia is a law unto itself. The government is securing the absolute power and untouchability of the security services beyond the rule of law, and bar a few Labour MPs and followers on social media, there is not a whimper about it.
For a country that prides itself on such deep moral and political superiority over others, it is simply not open to serious discussion, spotlighting or scrutiny of its activities in a way its values endeavour to profess. One rule for me, another for thee.