War in Ukraine: Amnesty International’s impartiality favors Russian propaganda

By Clara Ferreira

No one can pinpoint exactly where the expression “useful idiot” comes from. It is supposed to have been invented by Vladimir Lenin, but it is almost certainly older. But we have all seen examples of this behavior in recent months, as far too many followers of both the far left and right in Europe and the US – in search of balance or angry at Western wrongdoing – have fueled the propaganda machine. of the Kremlin.

Such is the case with the report published late last week by the human rights group, Amnesty International, which claimed that Ukrainian forces have put ordinary citizens at risk by setting up bases in residential areas, including in schools vacated by their students. There is a pattern that puts civilians at risk, the organization argues, and violates the laws of war.

Amnesty International’s interest in the lives of civilians is commendable, as is its commitment to impartiality and its effort to consider all actors on the battlefield. He has spoken out about Russian atrocities in Ukraine and Moscow’s actions against its own citizens who oppose the war. However, last week’s report on Ukraine’s actions is naive at best. Allowing Moscow to present residential areas as part of a fair “game” is also dangerous.

What does the report get wrong? First, by providing the option. Amnesty International notes that it found evidence that Ukrainian forces “launched strikes through residential areas” and, in one case, “hid armored vehicles under trees in residential neighborhoods.”

Ukraine has clear obligations to its citizens, but as a defender, it counters aggressors where necessary. Armed forces should avoid urban areas, but this is clearly not always possible, given that Ukrainian soldiers are defending cities and settlements, which are often considered strategic targets by the Russian military. Battles cannot always be shifted to woodlands or open fields. Amnesty International’s experts say there are many “viable alternatives” but provide little evidence of them in their report.

Then there’s the missing frame. For example, the report says that, in the cases it documented, Amnesty was “unaware” of efforts by soldiers stationed in schools, hospitals and other similar places to evacuate civilians in nearby buildings. But it makes no mention of Kiev’s wider efforts to relocate civilians – or indeed that many are reluctant to leave, justifiably fearing a worse fate away from Ukraine’s soldiers. Forced displacement is itself a violation.

There is also the key issue of how to conduct research. Amnesty International says the report followed “extensive field investigations” and that external experts from the Crisis Response Program had also looked into Russian war crimes. Their findings reflect rigorous research standards, the organization says. All of this may be true, even if the exhibition sheds light on a single snapshot. “Albeit unwittingly, the organization has produced material that sounds like support for the Russian narrative,” Amnesty International’s head of office in Ukraine, Oksana Pokalchuk, said in a statement on Facebook. She herself resigned.

All violations of international law deserve to be investigated, but the risk of creating a false equivalence between attackers and defenders is real and requires far more caution, balance and self-awareness than Amnesty International has demonstrated. Simply saying, as Amnesty does, that the violations do not justify Russian attacks does not solve the problem the report creates. This is a war led by a regime seeking to wipe out a nation – not a skirmish in which both sides share responsibility.

“To say that issuing a four-page press release compares to hundreds of pages we’ve published since the beginning of the Russian invasion … is simply not true,” said Amnesty’s senior crisis adviser Donatella Rovera, defending its actions. organization. This may be correct from the perspective of the researcher, but not for many readers. Nor, of course, for the Kremlin’s propagandists, who enthusiastically exploited the report.

All this brings us to perhaps the most disturbing aspect, the response of the Secretary General of Amnesty International. Agnes Callamard initially denied the allegations of bias, but in subsequent comments suggested the “attacks” came from “social media trolls”. “This is called war propaganda, misinformation,” she tweeted. Reasonable questions, including from the Amnesty International team themselves, deserve credible answers, not arrogance. Finding balance in the fog of war while maintaining trust requires transparency.

No one will claim that Ukrainian forces are always heroic. Few participants emerge from the war unscathed, and it is clear to all that Ukraine has challenges that predate the conflict. But impartiality is simply not posting about one side and then posting about the other.

Amnesty International could have considered the risk of presenting its findings in the way it did, and how a report lacking explanations would be used. Russia has attacked a theater that housed civilians, bombed a shopping mall, and prevented the evacuation of civilians, it didn’t need more reasons to hit civilian targets. Amnesty International has made mistakes before. Last year, he referred to Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny as a prisoner of conscience after his arrest, but later retracted that reference due to past xenophobic comments – without considering the context or the fact that it is possible to oppose both racism and in unjustified imprisonment. Then he changed his mind again. The organization could have reconsidered instead of handing Russia another propaganda victory.

Amnesty International’s work is important. Her reports matter and people’s lives depend on them, as does justice. For this, proper work must be done.