January 27, 2001
JAMAICANS UNITED AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL NEVER IN OPPOSITION TO BRITISH BAN ON GUNS TO JAMAICAN POLICE Dear Friends, We recently wrote Amnesty International asking for clarification as to what role they played, if any, in the British government's recent decision to release a shipment of 500 guns to the Jamaica Constabulary Force. This policy reversal indicates to us that the British government has turned its back on a previous concern expressed about the high homicide record of the JCF and fear that these guns might be used against the civilian population. It was reported in the Jamaican press that Secretary General Pierre Sane, who was in Jamaica on a visit at the time, had agreed to convey a message on behalf of the Jamaican authorities to the British government requesting that this ban be lifted. Please see below the response of Amnesty's Piers Bannister -- Researcher, presumably on behalf of Pierre Sane.
AMNESTY's REPLY Dear Lloyd, Amnesty International did offer to convey a simple message to the UK government from the Jamaican authorities that (according to Commissioner Forbes) officers would be forced to carry rifles (which Forbes believes set a more confrontation tone), rather than side arms, if the guns continued to be withheld. This we did but I do not believe it made AI "an emissary of the government." Of course the police then tried to portray AI as agreeing to a campaign for the release of the guns, which is not true. We have remained in contact with the UK authorities on this matter and, if anything, the information and discussions we have had with them would have held up the export of the arms. I'm not very happy at the tone of your letter to Pierre, which strongly implies AI has somehow lessened its stance against police abuse and am curious as to why you choose not to approach us directly instead of issuing an open letter. Your organization chooses to take a very confrontation stance against the authorities. I would urge you to remember that AI is not an organization that confronts governments but attempts to work with them to improve human rights protections. While you may see this as "not standing up to the government," we believe it is the most effective way to positively impact upon the situation. FYI: we are about to release a statement critical of Knight's statements. Sincerely, Piers Bannister - Researcher
JUAPB's REPLY Dear Piers, My question to Amnesty was designed to determine what role if any Amnesty played in the British government's decision release the guns to the JCF. Your letter confirms that Amnesty did, as they were requested, deliver the message of the Jamaican authorities. I cannot understand, therefore, why you take exception to my use of the word "emissary" to describe Amnesty's role. What other word should one use to describe what was done especially when it is commonly known that the Jamaican government has ample diplomatic channels though which to relay their concerns to the British government. It was plain to most of us not so adept in understanding the art of international diplomacy, that the Jamaican government hoped to use Amnesty, a respected international human rights organization, to soften the British government's position. We find it hard to believe that Pierre Sane could have been so naive to believe that he was just relaying a "simple message," as you claim. In my opinion, Amnesty perfectly understood what was at stake and allowed itself to be used. Though, in fairness to Amnesty, it should be said that there was no apparent crisis of conscience in playing this role of emissary because, as you now explain in your recent press release (see below) , "Amnesty International did not oppose the supply of guns to the JCF." In other words, Amnesty shared the position of the Jamaican authorities, and not that of the British, that there should be no ban on weapons being imported from Britain! This is a rather shocking position for Amnesty to have taken because this was the FIRST time in Jamaica's history that ANY government or international organization had ever attempted to apply some form of sanctions for the criminal activities and gross human rights violations of the Jamaican police force. The significance of this, if only symbolic, could not have been lost on Amnesty. You readily admit "Of course the police then tried to portray AI as agreeing to campaign for the release of the guns, which is not true." So what do you expect from the Jamaican police? You admit that Amnesty did not oppose the supply of guns to the JCF. Amnesty's secretary general agrees to deliver the government's message to the British government and yet the Jamaica police is somehow wrong to portray Amnesty as agreeing to a campaign for the release of the guns. The truth is that the Jamaica police outwitted Amnesty and that is indeed a sad testament to Amnesty's diplomatic and political savvy. To further compound the problem the Minister of National Security recently gave the police open license to kill gunmen who challenge the police. That the police have license to kill was never a secret, but it makes a mockery of the so-called human rights training that the police have been receiving which the British government now uses as justification for lifting the ban. It also makes Amnesty look rather compromised in not having supported the ban on the guns in the first place and agreeing to be the government's emissary. The police argument about being forced to carry rifles if their demands for handguns are not met is a lot of crock. According to you ‘Forbes believes that the rifles set a more confrontation tone.' The issue is not the type of weapons. There is no lack of side arms or rifles in the police's arsenal and no matter what weapons they carry they are still confrontational towards the populace. It is instead a matter of devising a strategy, locally and internationally, to put a stop to the brutal police methods employed by the Jamaican State. A belated press release from Amnesty is of no effect. Amnesty has severely hurt the case by not seizing the opportunity to support the British government's ban on weapons to the JCF. As to my decision to write an open letter rather 'approach[ing] us directly' I am under no obligation in my choice of approach to Amnesty. The truth, however, is that I telephoned Mr. Sane's assitant while they were in Jamaica to register my concerns in the strongest terms, and implored that a press release be issued immediately to clarify the situation. This was not done for obvious reasons though they were not them so obvious to me. In the final analysis, police brutality and abuse of human rights is a matter that only the Jamaican people themselves can solve. We make no apologies for our ‘confrontational' tone. We are far from convinced that professional diplomats who "work with authorities" have much to show in terms of achievement, certainly not with the type authorities we have in Jamaica. What we have in reality, is an intransigent government and a bankrupt political system which have declared class war against the poor and the unemployed. Unless you advise prostration in the face of this assault, we believe that much more than a 'confrontational tone' is required. Sincerely, Lloyd D'Aguilar
AMNESTY's PRESS RELEASE Dear Friends, The following press release addresses the recent comments by the Jamaican Minister for National Security regarding the use of lethal force by police officers sincerely, Piers Bannister - Researcher North American/English speaking Caribbean Team Amnesty International, International Secretariat 19 January 2001 Jamaica: Statements by Minister of National Security could encourage unjustified use of lethal force In light of recent comments made by the Minister of National Security, the Honourable K D Knight, Amnesty International is calling upon him to immediately issue a statement specifying that the Jamaican Constabulary Force (JCF) should only employ force as a last resort -- only to ensure the safety of themselves and the public -- and in line with international standards. Amnesty International is seriously concerned that Minister Knight's inflammatory comments could encourage the unjustified use of lethal force by Jamaica's police officers. Minister Knight was quoted as stating: "The police must be able, if challenged [by gunmen] to respond swiftly, efficiently and effectively...I know I am going to be criticised for this, but gunmen who challenge the police...their place belongs in the morgue..." "We acknowledge that police officers have the right to protect themselves and members of the public when under attack from armed criminals," Amnesty International said. "But the organization is concerned that his statements may appear to endorse the use of lethal force when it is not justified." "Minister Knight's comments contrast sharply with last week's launching of the new 'Citizens Charter' for the JCF, when the Minister called for a partnership between citizens and the police. Only a week later, he appears to be advocating police officers to be judge, jury and executioner," Amnesty International added. Amnesty International also believes the Minister's comments should be of concern to the United Kingdom (UK) authorities, who last week agreed to allow the supply of 500 guns to the JCF, having previously withheld the sale of the pistols citing human rights concerns. The UK authorities cited that the human rights training -- provided for officers receiving the guns -- would be sufficient enough to ensure thatt the firearms would not be used to commit human rights violations. "The value of any human rights training program for police officers may be considerably diminished if top government officials tell them they should kill all armed criminals, regardless of whether lethal force is necessary to ensure police and civilian safety," Amnesty International stated. "We hope the UK authorities will continue to monitor the situation and do everything within their power to ensure that the supply of these firearms does not lead to more unjustifiable deaths at the hands of Jamaica's security personnel." Amnesty International did not oppose the supply of guns to the JCF, but believes it is incumbent upon those governments involved in the supply of firearms to ensure that they are not employed in the abuse of human rights. Background Amnesty International has long-term concerns regarding the use of lethal force by the JCF in unjustifiable circumstances. In recent years, police and army officers have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people in Jamaica -- 140 fatalities in 2000. Many of the fatalities could not be justified as self-defence. For example, in 1999, both Michael Gayle and Leroy Bailey were killed by security officers even though they were unarmed and posed no danger to anyone. Gayle was beaten to death by police and army officers after he approached a road block; to date no army or police officer has been charged in connection with his death. Bailey was shot in his taxi because police mistakenly believed his vehicle contained armed criminals. Although the mechanisms to hold security officers accountable for their actions exist in Jamaica, it remains extremely rare for officers to be convicted for human rights violations. International standards governing the use of firearms by security forces are clear that only the minimum amount of force shall be employed to ensure safety. For example, Article 3 of the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (adopted by the UN in 1979) states: "Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty." Click here to return to Jamaicans United Against Police Brutality homepage. |