War crimes and war propaganda: Amnesty International and Ukraine

A couple of reminders. One is that the causes and meanings of the war are not determined by particular crimes and atrocities committed by either side. The second is that laws of war are there for good reasons and countries should follow them, even when the other side doesn't.

It's worth mentioning in this regard that Amnesty International has criticized Ukraine for a particular practice in the current war, Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians 08/04/2022.

Deutsche Welle gives a critical report about AI's charges, Amnesty International accuses Ukraine of endangering civilians 08/05/2022:

The DW reporters seem fairly eager to dismiss the AI report, although they are raising legitimate questions in the context. From the discussion in that report, it appears that the practice being criticized is not considered a "war crime" in the sense that perpetrators should be prosecuted, but rather an illegal practice for which victims would be entitled to compensation by the perpetrating government.

This is why I.F. Stone's guideline on reporting about wars is perennially relevant: "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Amnesty International of ignoring Russian misconduct and making one-sided propaganda against Ukraine (Isobel Koshiw, Zelenskiy rebukes Amnesty for accusing Ukraine of endangering civilians Guardian 08/05/2022):

During his nightly address, Zelenskiy accused Amnesty of “immoral selectivity” that helps a terrorist state by portraying the victim and aggressor as the same and ignoring what the aggressor is doing. Zelenskiy said that there cannot be – even hypothetically – any condition under which any Russian attack on Ukraine becomes justified.

Klaus Stimeder comments on the initial reception of the report by Zelenskiy's government (Ukrainische Reaktionen nach Amnesty-Bericht: Die Wut der Überfallenen Der Standard 06.08.2022, my translation), essentially arguing that of course AI shouldn't be criticizing misconduct by the Ukrainian military. Anyone reading the article linked above at the AI website will see that by the fifth paragraph in the piece reporting on its criticism of Ukraine it starts mentioning Russian war crimes. And then goes on to discuss that topic further.)

As for the accusation of the faction that now sees AI as a tool of the Russian regime: as ridiculous as calling the organization a bastion of the Putin dictatorship may seem, its [AI's] representatives must nevertheless acknowledge that their work does not take place in the vacuum within which it claims to do its work. AI Secretary General Agnes Callamard's sweeping insult to critical users ("Mob", "Trolls") speaks volumes about the self-image not only of her, but of all Western-dominated human rights organizations, which never miss an opportunity to flaunt their supposedly moral superiority.

Accordingly, the reactions to the AI report in Ukraine reveal one thing above all: the limits of working in the service of human rights, whose exponents insist on a "clean" war at all costs, regardless of the balance of power on the ground and the political character of the opposing systems, in which the same standards are applied to invaders and attackers. The archive images from London from the time of the Blitzkrieg, which draw the all too obvious historical parallels to the current situation, may not be a justification in this respect, but at least an explanation for how this form of non-partisanship is received in Ukraine.

Again, the laws of war are important and they apply to all sides in a war. Even if Stimeder sneers at the idea.

AI posted an additional statement on the weekend that is actually a classic non-apology, which basically says, well, we understand that people who don't like hearing what the report says are upset, but we're standing by the report: Statement on publication of press release on Ukrainian fighting tactics 08/07/2022:

Amnesty International deeply regrets the distress and anger that our press release on the Ukrainian military’s fighting tactics has caused. Since Russian’s invasion began in February 2022, Amnesty International has been rigorously documenting and reporting on war crimes and violations committed in Ukraine, speaking to hundreds of victims and survivors whose stories illuminate the brutal reality of Russia’s war of aggression. We have challenged the world to demonstrate its solidarity with Ukrainians through concrete action, and we will continue to do so.

Amnesty International’s priority in this and in any conflict is ensuring that civilians are protected; indeed, this was our sole objective when releasing this latest piece of research.

Of related interest, Stefan Schocher gives a bit of background on Zelensky's head of information operations (PR im Krieg: Wie sich die ukrainische Medienlandschaft verändert Der Standard 08/08/2022; my translation):

For more than a decade, Serhiy Leshchenko has devoted himself to the excesses of corruption in Ukraine. It was he who, as an investigative journalist for Ukrainska Pravda, followed the threads that converged in the residence of the then President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych: in Meshyhirya, a palatial country house north of Kiev including a zoo. Today, Leshchenko is one of the architects of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's communications and his advisor on information issues and the fight against fake news. Zelenskyi's speech at the Glastonbury Music Festival, for example, was his idea.

It is a strategy that is not without controversy. Some call it a show. Others without content. Others see it as the actual content of Zelensky's politics and as a continuation of his TV career, others also point to authoritarian traits.