One thing is clear: this report has seriously damaged the independent image of the human rights organization. When the report appeared on Thursday, the anger flared up immediately. Amnesty’s investigation found that in 19 cases the Ukrainian army had endangered civilians by hiding in schools or hospitals or too close to residential areas. By using those sites, Ukraine violated international law of war, the Amnesty report says.
However, it was not so much that finding, but rather the way Amnesty International presented these results that led to a storm that has still not abated. The piece was written as an indictment against the Ukrainian military who endangered civilians. The context in which this happened, the Russian aggression and Russian atrocities, have only been added to the report as an appendix.
The nineteen Ukrainian rule violations investigated were called “a patron” by Amnesty, and the Russian massacres and bombings and other atrocities were countered as if they were just as bad. Agnes Callamard, secretary-general of Amnesty International, argued that many incriminating reports had already been devoted to Russia. This time it was Ukraine’s turn, she said via Twitter.
False moral equality
Callamard then railed against her critics, calling them “social media gangs” and “trolls.” One of them, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Koeleba, reacted hypocritically: ‘She called me a ‘gang’ and a ‘troll’, but this will not stop me from saying that her report distorts reality, that it establishes false moral equality between the aggressor and the victim, and boosts Russia’s disinformation efforts. This is fake ‘neutrality’, not truthfulness.’
The criticism doesn’t just come from outside. Oksana Pokalchuk, head of the Ukrainian branch of Amnesty International, immediately resigned on Friday. On Facebook, she accused the leadership of not being aware of the realities of the war in Ukraine, and of not listening to the appeals and criticism of the Ukrainian branch’s piece.
Pokalchuk says it has made every effort to prevent publication of the report in its current form because it was one-sided, unbalanced, and because it would play into Russia’s hands. In vain: ‘In order to protect civilians, the investigation has become a tool of Russian propaganda.’ The management proved unwilling to change every word. Russia had been given enough attention, and Ukraine was now also criticized.
The realization that this criticism needed context and that it had to be put into perspective was completely lacking in the management. The departments that do see that have a hard time with it. As a counterweight, Poland immediately published a piece in which Russia was condemned as an aggressor, and the Netherlands also published an article on the internet that came very close to an excuse: ‘We (…) attach great importance to emphasizing that this press release does not in any way refer to the war crimes committed by the aggressor. Russia legitimizes (…) Our criticism of the Ukrainian army is also disproportionate to the massive war crimes committed by the Russian armed forces, including rape, torture, execution and systematic shelling of civilian targets.’
Apologies in similar case
Amnesty’s executive board released a statement on Sunday in which it “sincerely regrets” the commotion and anger, but does not go so far as to apologize. It does say that it was not the intention to trivialize the Russian actions. “We must be very clear: nothing the Ukrainian troops have done and what we have documented in any way justifies the Russian violations.”
A year ago, the organization made a full apology in a similar case. In February 2021, the central government unexpectedly decided to remove the designation ‘prisoner of conscience’ from Russian political prisoner Alexei Navalny. Amnesty was guided by a column on the Russian propaganda channel Russia Today. After a storm of protest, the board made an apology in May 2021, admitting it had made ‘a wrong decision’. The board also acknowledged that the Russian government had taken advantage of this by further violating Navalny’s rights.
That affair has left a hefty dent in Amnesty International’s image. The current criticism goes further than back then, even the survival of Amnesty is questioned in comments. The Times Amnesty’s scathing commentary calls ‘Putin’s propagandists’ and the report condemning Ukrainian troops for endangering civilians deadly to Amnesty’s reputation: ‘Any self-respecting NGO Callamard would resign. Nothing she says can save Amnesty’s reputation.’ Another British newspaper, The Telegraph wrote: ‘Amnesty is now completely morally bankrupt.’