Amnesty International

Lost Integrity and Unethical Lies

Malyn after Russian shelling, 9 March 2022; Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Amnesty International was supposed to be an organization that stands up for human rights globally. The NGO claims it has more than 10 million supporters worldwide and its stated mission of the organization is 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."

That’s why millions of people are now wondering how AI could release one of the most atrocious, disingenuous, repugnant reports that accuses the Ukrainian Armed Forces of endangering the lives Ukraine’s own people and putting them “in harm’s way” while violating international humanitarian law.

Such an incredible accusation is abhorrent, especially given the reports of Russian indiscriminate bombing of civilian homes and stores, torture, rape, mass murder, and intentional destruction of civilian infrastructure.

And after all the evidence, the tears, and the heartbreak caused by the Russians, AI put out an odious, badly written and argued report that implies in no uncertain terms that Ukraine is responsible for putting the lives of its own people in jeopardy and actually causes Russian attacks against civilians.

Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today. 

Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure.  

In the first two paragraphs, AI accuses the Ukrainian armed forces of committing war crimes and implies that the Ukrainian military tactics are responsible for the Russian death and destruction in the country, absolving Moscow of its unprovoked attack and the ensuing savagery.

Amnesty International: Hey, young lady! Perhaps had you not worn that short skirt and walked alone at night, you wouldn’t have been raped.

The opening also essentially accuses Ukrainian defenders of using civilians as human shields.

I note with no small amount of disdain that AI has written no reports condemning HAMAS for its use of civilian infrastructure. The organization claims it investigated the allegations and found no evidentiary support for the claims.

I guess AI did not look very hard, because there is actual photographic proof of HAMAS having dug a tunnel underneath a UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) school in Gaza, as well as rockets found at least three times in an UNRWA school in 2014.

But I digress…

Russia loves this new report, immediately highlighting the accusations in government-controlled media, and parroting the “war crimes” allegation. Despite the fact that AI is banned in Russia, Moscow is more than happy to amplify the message.

Translation: Amnesty International accuses Ukraine of war crimes

Perhaps this is just a way for AI to get back into the Kremlin’s good graces?

The report continues…

“We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General. 

“Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law.”

“Pattern” is an extremely loaded word and lacks context. How many does a “pattern” make? Is AI aware that the military has to operate in civilian areas because that’s where the Russians are launching their attacks? How does Callamard expect them to defend cities that are under attack if they do not operate inside them?

AI, in a tone-deaf manner, acknowledges as much when it says in a subsequent paragraph that in some locations where Russia has committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv, AI found no evidence of Ukrainian forces located in the civilian areas.

Talk about stating the obvious! Yes, in cities that had no military presence, the Russians were free to torture, rape toddlers, and commit mass slaughter.

Interestingly, this admission is buried in the middle of the report, which speaks to the report’s lack of objectivity.

The report goes on to attempt to justify its accusations and describe the oh-so-vast amount of work it did on this disingenuous hit piece and then proceeds to talk in generalities without explaining nuances—especially for audiences who have no military experience.

Between April and July, Amnesty International researchers spent several weeks investigating Russian strikes in the Kharkiv, Donbas and Mykolaiv regions. The organization inspected strike sites; interviewed survivors, witnesses and relatives of victims of attacks; and carried out remote-sensing and weapons analysis. 

Throughout these investigations, researchers found evidence of Ukrainian forces launching strikes from within populated residential areas as well as basing themselves in civilian buildings in 19 towns and villages in the regions. The organization’s Crisis Evidence Lab has analyzed satellite imagery to further corroborate some of these incidents.

Most residential areas where soldiers located themselves were kilometres away from front lines. Viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians – such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas. In the cases it documented, Amnesty International is not aware that the Ukrainian military who located themselves in civilian structures in residential areas asked or assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings – a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians.

Is 19 towns and villages a “pattern?” Where are these jurisdictions located? How far from the border? How far from the frontlines? How long is the frontline? How far are these locations from Russia-controlled areas? What does “kilometres” mean? Three kilometres is much different from 100 or more.

In addition, claiming failure to take precautions to protect civilians is disingenuous at best. The government of Ukraine repeatedly ordered civilians to evacuate throughout the war, most recently from the Donetsk region. Evacuations took place in Sumy, an evacuation plan was in place in Kyiv, even before the Russians attacked, and humanitarian corridors were established to evacuate civilians, which Russia subsequently bombed.

And what happens when civilians refuse to leave?

Just because AI is “unaware” of these efforts, does not mean they did not exist, especially when video exists of military members helping evacuate civilians from the Azovstal steel plant, for example.

And who are those people behind Clarissa Ward helping evacuate civilians from Irpin— civilians who reportedly refused to leave?

When asked who those people are helping evacuate residents, how does Ms. Ward respond?

Ukrainian armed forces, was it?

AI apparently missed this and other reports.

“We are unaware” is a weasel phrase that gets the lie out there without outwardly making a claim.

AI continues with its manipulated accusations by claiming it interviewed numerous Ukrainian civilians who claim they do not understand why the Ukrainian military is operating near their homes, exposing them to Russian “retaliatory” fire, implying disingenuously that it is Ukraine that is the aggressor in this scenario, instead of the Russian forces.

International humanitarian law requires all parties to a conflict to avoid locating, to the maximum extent feasible, military objectives within or near densely populated areas. Other obligations to protect civilians from the effects of attacks include removing civilians from the vicinity of military objectives and giving effective warning of attacks that may affect the civilian population. 

So, international humanitarian law does allow military operations near populated areas when necessary. Is the implication here that Ukrainian forces did not do whatever they could to protect civilians and keep them out of harm’s way? AI does not present evidence of this particular accusation, but rather manipulates the reader into believing that is exactly what is happening, despite numerous reports of evacuation warnings and efforts.

I also note that the “research” AI claims to have done provides no identifying information at all in some cases and only a first name in others.

The mother of a 50-year-old man killed in a rocket attack on 10 June in a village south of Mykolaiv told Amnesty International: “The military were staying in a house next to our home and my son often took food to the soldiers. I begged him several times to stay away from there because I was afraid for his safety. That afternoon, when the strike happened, my son was in the courtyard of our home and I was in the house. He was killed on the spot. His body was ripped to shreds. Our home was partially destroyed.” Amnesty International researchers found military equipment and uniforms at the house next door.

Mykola, who lives in a tower block in a neighbourhood of Lysychansk (Donbas) that was repeatedly struck by Russian attacks which killed at least one older man, told Amnesty International: “I don’t understand why our military is firing from the cities and not from the field.” Another resident, a 50-year-old man, said: “There is definitely military activity in the neighbourhood. When there is outgoing fire, we hear incoming fire afterwards.” Amnesty International researchers witnessed soldiers using a residential building some 20 metres from the entrance of the underground shelter used by the residents where the older man was killed.

The only thing that AI manages to “prove” is the presence of soldiers in the vicinity. There is no timeline of attacks, no photos, and no names of witnesses. A woman named Anna… a man named Mykola… a 50-year old man… One woman in Bakhmut admitted that she remained in the area because her elderly mother did not want to leave.

Amnesty International researchers witnessed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. In two towns, dozens of soldiers were resting, milling about, and eating meals in hospitals. In another town, soldiers were firing from near the hospital.

A Russian air strike on 28 April injured two employees at a medical laboratory in a suburb of Kharkiv after Ukrainian forces had set up a base in the compound.

Using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

How are we defining a “de facto military base” here? The mere presence of soldiers in a hospital could mean they are wounded and receiving medical care, while their battle buddies are waiting for them to be treated and getting a meal—something they may not have gotten for weeks on the front lines. Were there ammunition facilities inside these hospitals? Were there barracks? Were there fortifications? Communications? Military vehicles present?

And then there are the schools…

The Ukrainian military has routinely set up bases in schools in towns and villages in Donbas and in the Mykolaiv area. Schools have been temporarily closed to students since the conflict  began, but in most cases the buildings were located close to populated civilian neighbourhoods 

At 22 out of 29 schools visited, Amnesty International researchers either found soldiers using the premises or found evidence of current or prior military activity – including the presence of military fatigues, discarded munitions, army ration packets and military vehicles. 

Russian forces struck many of the schools used by Ukrainian forces. In at least three towns, after Russian bombardment of the schools, Ukrainian soldiers moved to other schools nearby, putting the surrounding neighbourhoods at risk of similar attacks.

So AI admits that these schools have been closed because of the Russian attacks, and were being used by the military when no children or other personnel were present.

Meanwhile, Russia has bombed schools with children present—even when the word “CHILDREN” was painted in large letters on the windows, in hopes that the Russians would spare the structure—and AI disingenuously ignores this fact, blaming the military’s presence for the Russian attacks.

AI does not show evidence of civilian casualties, even in places close to the schools and universities that were used as temporary staging areas by the Ukrainian military, but it certainly does not mention the fact that the Russians were bombing schools with children in them before a single Ukrainian soldier showed up.

International humanitarian law does not specifically ban parties to a conflict from basing themselves in schools that are not in session. However, militaries have an obligation to avoid using schools that are near houses or apartment buildings full of civilians, putting these lives at risk, unless there is a compelling military need. If they do so, they should warn civilians and, if necessary, help them evacuate. This did not appear to have happened in the cases examined by Amnesty International. 

Here once again, AI uses manipulative language to paint Ukrainian soldiers as war criminals. “This does not appear to have happened” is vague and disingenuous. Plenty of efforts to evacuate civilians have been assiduously documented, and frankly AI “researchers” are not the best arbiters of compelling military need. Boots on the ground are.

Only at the end does AI admit that the presence of Ukrainian armed forces does not justify indiscriminate Russian attacks in Ukraine. This after spending numerous words hurling spurious accusations against the Ukrainian armed forces, citing “witness testimony” without documentation of identification, and lacking photographic evidence to support “researcher” claims.

Fact is, the Ukrainian military would not be able to defend Ukrainian cities without entering them.

Fact is that cities have people living in them, and some of those people refused to leave despite multiple warnings and evacuation efforts.

And fact is, AI is now alienating supporters, and its Ukraine chapter chief has resigned in outrage at this badly written, badly argued, unsupported, malignant, sloppy slander that twists international law and ignores the realities of war.

In addition, this is not the first time Amnesty International has kissed up to the Kremlin. Last year, AI for a while stopped the “Prisoner of Conscience” designation for Kremlin opposition leader Alexey Navalny, claiming that in 2007 and 2008 he made discriminatory statements which “may have” constituted advocacy of hatred. The organization only reinstated the designation after a global outcry for the jailed Kremlin critic, who survived an attempted poisoning with the Novichok nerve agent in 2020.

Perhaps it’s time to examine where AI’s financing comes from?