IWC 1#: Amnesty for Amnesty International
Information War Correspondence 1# from Leander H.
Betting Against Myself
Your favorite war correspondent was ready for a chill weekend, when they learned Amnesty had criticized Ukraine for endangering civilians.
At first, I thought nothing of it, I had finished my IW rubble picking for the week and was already writing a different next newsletter.
Surprisingly, the issue was not only still trending the next day, but seemed even more significant.
Judging by my Twitter timeline, the response from the pro-Ukraine sphere had grown more accusatory as well, with reactions being limited to disappointment on day one, but including allegations that “Amnesty spreads Russian disinformation” on day two.
The fallout caught my attention and I came to regard it as something I had to cover.
Problem was the issue was TOO BIG, everyone were already on board and the fever pitch of Twitter resembled an unfolding catastrophe.
Personal feelings aside, I expected a retraction within hours, and that by the time I got around to reading Amnesty’s report, it would only be available through a web archive, if at all.
That changed the following day, when yet again I saw #Amnesty trending, now for a third day in a row. It appeared a retraction wasn’t coming and that the issue would linger for at least the following week.
As I was about to check a Norwegian online newspaper (or “nettavis”) I made a bet with myself: if I see an article about the Amnesty allegations on the “front page”, I will drop everything to write a timely essay about it.
And sure enough, there it was and here we are.
Endangering Civilians
On August 4th, Amnesty published a report stating Ukraine had endangered civilians by setting up military bases in residential areas, including schools and hospitals.
This didn’t come as a surprise to me, and no, not because I hate Ukraine.
I don’t believe they are fighting any less honorably than my own country, Norway, would have, should we be invaded by Russia.
It is because I know that, despite international law, keeping civilian and military targets completely separate is impossible.
Building a totally independent military infrastructure would be prohibitively expensive, twice as expensive as running a civilian society alone, assuming same cost for the military and civilian equivalents and that the nation requires a pair of everything.
There is a reason why there aren’t separate military bridges, train tracks or tunnels (in most cases) after all.
On top of that, even if the military has its own buildings, vehicles and production facilities in the beginning, that might change once the war starts.
If the enemy blew up the “military personell only” bridge, I think everyone would put the civilian one to military use, if it was still standing.
Further more, in a situation of hostile air superiority, sleeping in a building or driving a vehicle clearly marked “military” is as good as suicide, so I understand why anyone would want to avoid that.
Did Amnesty Get it Right?
Despite everything written above, I expect humanitarian organizations to be maximalists in these matters.
In my eyes, even when a liberal democracy is under investigation, a human rights score of less than 100/100 should not be atypical.
While the title understandably sounds defamatory to some, the body of the report makes it clear that Amnesty’s assessment of Ukraine is a “you don’t get an A+”-critique, not a condemnation of the country.
It’s kind of like having a mechanic inspect your car, even if it only has minor flaws and everyone is driving around in slightly crooked vehicles, their job is still to make a list of problems and advice you on how to fix them.
For these reasons, I still think Amnesty should have said what they said and I am glad they have not issued a retraction so far.
Takeaways
Nonetheless, I think the opposite is likely the version of events that will be remembered and that this controversy will hurt Amnesty in the long run.
The rebuttals from Ukrainian government officials and media outlets have been measured, at least in relation to the seriousness of the allegations.
Most also stopped at claiming Amnesty’s report was being exploited by Russian propaganda, not that it was intended as such.
However, in Western media and among non-Ukrainian Ukraine supporters, especially on Twitter, I think the truth might become that Amnesty was and still is a subverted organization, and that they “collaborate” with Russia in the most deliberate sense.
I fear the backlash over this report will make Amnesty and others less likely to speak out, and that in the future we won’t hear about the five percent of war crimes committed by the defending side, because it is “false equivalence” or “hides the full picture”.
As always, you are welcome to leave a comment.