In Search of Global Values

When she became secretary-general of Amnesty International last August, says Irene Khan, international human-rights groups like the million-strong, 40-year-old organization she had been tapped to head were in danger of becoming complacent. “Sept. 11 and everything that happened after, all the antiterrorist legislation, the rapid rolling back of civil liberties in so many countries,” put a swift stop to that, says Khan.

Since taking up her new post Khan, 44, has devoted much of her time to issues related to the terrorist attacks on the U.S and the resulting military action in Afghanistan. She visited Pakistan, where she met with President Musharraf and toured an Afghan refugee camp, and has spoken out strongly against U.S. treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. “These people are either suspected criminals and should be subject to whatever system applies to them under U.S. criminal law or they are pows and subject to international humanitarian law,” she says.

Last week it was Australia’s turn. Khan was there to mark International Women’s Day and wasted no time in criticizing Prime Minister John Howard’s government’s policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. Howard, who was hosting the Commonwealth heads of government, claimed to be too busy to meet her. But in sessions with Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock and the Attorney General, Khan urged them to reconsider a policy she says is “contrary to Australia’s human-rights obligations.” Her meeting with Amnesty member Ruddock elicited special attention, with press reports speculating on whether Khan would ask him to stop wearing his Amnesty pin. The subject never came up, says Khan. “There were more important things to talk about.”

Although never a refugee herself, Bangladeshi-born Khan knows the experience of being uprooted from a war-torn homeland. She first left home to attend high school in Ireland, a move she calls ironic since she left civil war in Bangladesh only to find herself in another strife-riven nation. After university in the U.K. — where she met her German-born economist husband — she studied law at Harvard. It was there that she developed an interest in human-rights issues. She has since spent her entire career in the field — until now at the U.N. refugee agency. Her Amnesty term is off to an eventful start, and she’s already had some success in her goal of expanding the organization’s membership. Her 13-year-old daughter is starting an Amnesty group at school.

Q&A

TIME: What sympathy do you have for a nation’s right to limit or exclude foreigners from its borders?
KHAN: Every nation has the sovereign right to control its borders, but nations also have the obligation to fulfill international responsibilities that they have undertaken.

TIME: What other issues are foremost for Amnesty right now?
KHAN: At the moment, our big concern in Africa is Zimbabwe. We’ve been reporting on the escalating violence and human-rights violations there for some time now, and we are very worried.

TIME: Have you had any contact with the Zimbabwean government?
KHAN: Yes. [Amnesty] has worked on Zimbabwe for a long time, and Rhodesia before that, so we have a long history of engagement in the area. At one point we’d even adopted Mr. Mugabe as one of our prisoners and worked on his case. But he has not been very positive toward Amnesty and has accused us of interference.

TIME: You’ve said you hope to place greater emphasis on economic and social rights during your tenure.

KHAN: I hope to shift Amnesty from being an organization that has primarily focused on prisoner and prisoner-related issues to becoming a broader human-rights organization that takes into account the challenges of the 21st century in this area. With economic globalization there is at the same time a need for a globalization of human rights, a global values system. Human rights provides that framework.

TIME: You’re the first woman, Asian and Muslim to head Amnesty. Are you an observant Muslim?
KHAN: I’m not sure whether I’m a good Muslim or a bad Muslim. That will be decided by someone else.