Infiltrated by the Russians? Pretty scandalous and Amnesty Ukraine have distanced themselves from the report.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1555199584946864130?s=21&t=X2NJ_9W5mRaiuHr1Mirz-Q
Amnesty International
posted on 5/8/22
comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
Not accusing you of this Robb, but I think the reaction to the Amnesty International report is driven by the radicalised centre here in the UK - these are the people who post-Brexit desperately clung to 'people's vote' and you still see them now, the FBPE types, pointing out the damage it has caused and then swiftly arguing Brexit can and still should be reversed.
This no-compromise attitude to politics is now also applied to Ukraine where anything even remotely critical of Ukraine is seen as appeasement, or pro-Putin etc. We saw it last week with Corbyn's pretty asinine interview where he does what he always does - says he wants a peace process involving dialogue, but that was quickly spun as him saying we must end arms shipments.
We talk about polarised left and right but the same has happened in the centre too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to agree with this.
posted on 5/8/22
Rosso, have to acknowledge that your grasp of the detail much exceeds mine and perhaps I've been unfair. Where I have suspected AI being swayed by a political urge to emphasise their neutrality, perhaps in the light of your remarks the issue is instead a more technocratic inability to apply sensible context and political perspective, which is more forgivable. So, as you say, if scrupulously following the methodology leads them to delist as a political prisoner someone who is very obviously a political prisoner, and (for whatever his flaws) a benign character in comparison with his persecutor, then it makes sense to stop and ask whether the methodology is fit for purpose. (Which you point out they eventually did.)
Similarly, I would argue in this case, it's possible that criteria have been applied to the actions of the Ukrainian military which would be perfectly valid in most cases, but which don't really make sense in that of a war of existential defence against a force which is carrying out genocide in occupied territories and indiscriminately shelling heavily populated civilian areas throughout Ukraine. When it comes to a war of survival, and conscious of what has taken place in Bucha etc, I would guess that civilian population is much more likely to consent to the proximity of military infrastructure. Again, if this comes from technocratic tone deafness, I have more sympathy for the outcome than if it's for other reasons.
posted on 5/8/22
I think that’s absolutely fair, RR.
It’s easy to focus in on the headline, and I wouldn’t argue too strenuously that AI has necessarily done itself any favours there; but anyone reading the full AI statement on the publication of the report - which I would encourage everybody to do, as well looking more widely at AI’s wider investigations into the conflict - will find that AI is at pains to place its findings in context, repeatedly calling out indiscriminate Russian bombardments, and explaining that any shortcomings in elements of the Ukrainian defensive strategy are no justification for any aspect of Russian military activities, including assaults on Ukrainian defences in residential or other civilian areas.
posted on 5/8/22
Rosso, I've since read a couple of sober, detailed responses that critique the report criticising Ukrainian military positioning in urban areas. One focuses on a misapplication of the law / ethics governing such matters. The other criticises the report for drawing from emotive anecdotes rather than rigorous evidence gathering.
I don't want to go into the motivations etc. (and I totally accept that the 'good side' in any conflict should be held to account) but my anxiety that this particular work does not further the cause of protecting human rights remains.
posted on 5/8/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Rosso, I've since read a couple of sober, detailed responses that critique the report criticising Ukrainian military positioning in urban areas. One focuses on a misapplication of the law / ethics governing such matters. The other criticises the report for drawing from emotive anecdotes rather than rigorous evidence gathering.
I don't want to go into the motivations etc. (and I totally accept that the 'good side' in any conflict should be held to account) but my anxiety that this particular work does not further the cause of protecting human rights remains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any links I can check out, RR? The latter would certainly interest me, particularly?
posted on 5/8/22
^ Question mark. Why?
Man, I need some sleep
posted on 5/8/22
What a nonsensical article.
posted on 28/4/23
(You might see this if you follow 'recently updated'...)
An Amnesty International review (which was commissioned, and on completion not made public, but subsequently leaked) appears to have been very critical of the report.
From the Guardian write-up:
"Leaked to the New York Times, that unpublished review has concluded that the report was “written in language that was ambiguous, imprecise and in some respects legally questionable”, according to the newspaper. In particular the report’s authors were criticised for language that appeared to suggest “many or most of the civilian victims of the war died as a result of Ukraine’s decision to locate its forces in the vicinity of civilians” at a time when Russian forces were deliberately targeting civilians."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/28/amnesty-international-leaked-review-ukraine-report-legally-questionable
posted on 28/4/23
Thanks Russian, I saw this on Twitter earlier tonight. Goes to show how BS that original report was.
posted on 28/4/23
My instinct remains that this came to pass because as an organisation, Amnesty will tend to attract people who are given to holding the power of the state to account (which in itself is a good thing); and that Europeans/North Americans of that inclination are liable to be hyperaware of the hypocrisies and abuses of Western governments; and from there it's easy to develop a cynicism about the West and its allies (or it's adversaries' enemies) which lead to blind spots.
I do hope lessons are learned. Both across Amnesty and the wider progressive / Left movements.