“Ukraine does not protect its own civilians enough in its defense against Russia,” Amnesty states in a much-discussed report from last week. The report, which Amnesty itself believes is most correct to call an “extended press release”, set minds ablaze on social media. “You clearly don’t care about the Ukrainians,” writes one on Twitter. “Amnesty has collapsed” and “No. It’s Putin’s war, shame on you!” others write. “Do you understand that you have just given Russia permission to attack civilians?” writes a Ukrainian lady from Kyiv. A classroom in Kharkiv is destroyed by Russian bombs. Attacks on civilian targets occur in Ukraine. Photo: SERGEY BOBOK / AFP In the report, Amnesty writes that Ukraine has military bases in primary schools, hospitals and in residential areas, and that they thus put civilians at risk in 19 cases. Afterwards, the critics believed that Amnesty makes it easier for Russia to attack civilian targets. They believe that Russia can now bomb civilian targets, and then use Amnesty’s report to clean themselves up by saying that they bombed civilians because Ukrainian soldiers were hiding among them. Opted out after 20 years In Norway, around 100 people have opted out of Amnesty in Norway in protest, according to the human rights organisation. One of them is Jens Kihl. He has been a member of Amnesty for about 20 years, but resigned this week. He justifies this by saying that he “cannot vouch for the report”, and demands that Amnesty apologize. – The findings in the report are so vague and without context that it is impossible to assess how serious they are, says Kihl, who is culture editor at Bergens Tidende, to news. He points to Amnesty’s findings that civilian buildings are used for military purposes, which he believes is not objectionable in itself, but must be seen in the context of several things. – We need organisations, researchers, journalists and others to report from the war. Information without context is often worthless, and in this case Amnesty instead goes full-on attack against the critics, says Kihl. He points to the way Amnesty has responded to critics after the report came out, including in social media. – The criticism against Amnesty is massive. What do you expect from Amnesty in the future? – I expect them to see how bad this has become, and to proceed more cautiously. But Kihl also faces opposition. The class match goes directly against Kihl, and calls the announcement poorly thought out. Secretary General John Peder Egnæs of Amnesty Norway will not apologise: – Our evaluation will probably show that we could have done things better in the process leading up to the launch of the report, but the findings and essence of the report will not change, he says. Trond Blindheim believes the Amnesty report damages the organisation’s reputation. Photo: Høyskolen Kristiania Points to a reputational crisis – Amnesty has suffered a reputational blow since so many people have opted out, says reputation expert Trond Blindheim at Høgskolen i Kristiania. Secretary General John Peder Egnæs of Amnesty Norway disagrees: – For the time being, we have no clear indications of that. In any case, in order to preserve our long-term reputation, Amnesty must be impartial and true to our own investigative methods. We are confident of that in this case, he says and adds: – This investigative work has gone through exactly the same quality assurance work as the reports where we criticize Russian forces for war crimes. Reputation expert Trond Blindheim believes we must not forget that it is Putin and Russia who are the villains. The timing of the report is wrong and appears clumsy, he believes. – In any case, it is clear that they have not met their audience in relation to the timing. This came as a bombshell. 99 percent of the population sympathizes with Ukraine and opposes Putin. War is the triumph of madness where the parties have their nerves outside their bodies. There are strong emotions at play, he says and continues: – It is very inappropriate to present the report now. They should have at least waited until the war was over. It should be easy to admit that the timing was not right. – Gift package for the Russians Associate professor Tom Røseth at the Norwegian Defense Academy also agrees that the timing was wrong. He emphasizes that he has a strong sympathy for Amnesty’s mission and that both parties have responsibility for maintaining the international law of war. – I understand that Amnesty wants to publish while the war is going on, but they should have had an information strategy connected to that and not come on the defensive. They failed to establish that the attacking party is responsible, after all, says Røseth, who is the main lecturer in intelligence at the Norwegian Defense College. – They should have seen the storm coming. Tom Røseth is an associate professor at Forsvarets høgskole (FHS), and believes the report is a gift package to Russia. Photo: Forsvaret Røseth believes Amnesty should prepare for the fact that Russia would use the report in its propaganda war. – The Russians have received the report as a gift package, he says. – The more doubts the Russians manage to sow in Western public opinion about what is happening, the greater the risk that the West will lose interest in the course of the war. Believes it is difficult to follow the report. He fears increased civilian casualties as a result of the report. – Russia now says that the report proves that the Ukrainian side is completely reprehensible and that they do not take civilians into account. It supports what Russia has been saying all along: That it is Ukraine’s fault that civilians are missing out. They don’t mention that Russia is actually killing civilians, only that Ukraine uses civilians as shields, says Røseth. The Amnesty report has also been criticized for not having been published in its entirety. The head of Amnesty Norway, John Peder Egenæs, explains this by saying that publishing more and more detailed information is out of the question, because it would lead to Russia gaining knowledge of the hiding places that exist. Amnesty does not want that. Røseth says that it is difficult to verify the findings in the report, since it lacks details about which findings have been made, says associate professor Røseth. – I do not dispute the facts in the report because it is simply difficult. I think it is important that Amnesty takes it up, but at the same time it has consequences beyond what Amnesty has taken into account. The report has also attracted criticism among Norwegian politicians. Høyre’s Peder Frølich believes the report is full of factual errors; that it interprets the law incorrectly and uses a questionable method. – The report builds on a major problem in this war, with a false balance. Where people can say that both parties are wrong. It erases the very fundamentals of this conflict. It is one party that attacks the other aggressively, that wipes out cities, kills civilians, takes land and resources, Frølich says of Russia. Warns of internal review The report has also caused a lot of dissatisfaction internally at Amnesty. The head of Amnesty Ukraine has resigned in protest, and in Sweden Per Wästberg, who founded Amnesty Sweden back in 1964, has resigned. Amnesty will now have a review of the work surrounding the report, and what happened in the time until the report was published. John Peder Egenæs is Secretary General of Amnesty Norway, and he is open to the fact that Amnesty has made some mistakes. John Peder Egenæs is Secretary General of Amnesty Norway. Photo: Håkon Mosvold Larsen / NTB scanpix – We disagree with the immediate reaction of our international secretary-general to call the critics of the report trolls. We have pointed that out directly to her. It is also conceivable that the report could contain examples of Russian violations of international law in addition to the Ukrainian ones, says Egenæs. He says that Amnesty assessed it as having already published 20 reports with such examples, and that it therefore seemed unnatural to do even more of it in this particular report. – But perhaps that assessment should have been different, says Egenæs. – Are you afraid that the Russians will intensify their brutal warfare because of the report? – Our intention with this report is therefore the opposite, to ensure that the military and civilians do not mix, in order to reduce the risk of killing civilians, says Egenæs. He points out that another major human rights organization, Human Rights Watch, published a similar report a week before, in which they pointed out the fear that Ukrainian forces are mixing with civilians. – We know from other conflict situations that the risk to civilians increases when militaries place their bases near, or mix with, the civilian population.
ttn-69
– Amnesty has suffered a reputational blow – news Urix – Foreign news and documentaries
