False Accusations And Ideological Bias

The intense debate triggered by an Amnesty International report alleging Ukrainian violations of international law highlights wider questions of credibility and bias in the campaigns led by powerful NGOs which purport to advance human rights agendas.

• Although Amnesty officials repeat the mantra that they are politically neutral and simply report what they observe, the focus and timing of their activities are inherently political
• With a massive public relations machine at its disposal, the publication and accompanying media blasts of war crime allegations and accusations that states are "putting civilians in harm's way" have an immediate impact on public opinion and governmental policies
• Examining the credibility of NGO reports is therefore of pressing importance
• Amnesty International has been deeply involved in partisan political movements and used tendentious interpretations of international and human rights law to promote their agendas

After publication, information emerged showing that Amnesty Senior Crisis researcher Donatella Rovera had led this project, as she then acknowledged

• Questions of selectivity, context, framing, and factual omissions constitute additional issues in NGO reports that claim to document IHL and human rights violations.
• Media quotes from unnamed members of Amnesty's Ukraine staff point to extensive filtering of the information that was collected.

Distortion and exploitation of the ambiguity in international law

• Beyond the pretense of credible and neutral documentation, "highly respected expert organizations" such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch routinely use their self-projected reputations as arbiters of international law to manipulate agendas and policies
• The inherent ambiguity-compounded by the absence of duly constituted courts, procedures, and precedents-creates the conditions in which their claims of expertise are readily accepted by journalists, diplomats, and political leaders
• In this way, the questionable, invented, or aspirational interpretations expressed by NGOs assume the appearance of authoritative legal statements

In May this year, I was sat around a table with Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International's Senior Crisis researcher predicting their upcoming report would land like a lead balloon.

• We were in the kitchen of our hotel in Kramatorsk, the administrative capital of Ukrainian-controlled Donetsk

Amnesty International is more concerned about a Ukrainian army unit taking refuge in the basement of a college building than the Russian bombardment

• An abandoned language school in the frontline town of Bakhmut has been turned into a temporary barracks for a Ukrainian unit
• A military is perfectly entitled to set up in an evacuated educational institution

Amnesty's Research and Expertise

• Amnesty's researchers, like those of HRW or the UN Human Rights Council, are not experts and do not even attempt to provide credible and verifiable sources to support what are often their pre-determined conclusions.
• Their judgments on international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict are no more than opinions.

https://quillette.com/2022/08/11/false-accusations-and-ideological-bias/