Do you think that human rights organizations are inherently untrustworthy?
Speaking as a former activist of Amnesty International, they certainly have their biases. I do not want to generalize from one example, so the following is specifically about Amnesty, which you have linked in the article; other human rights organizations may work differently.
Amnesty perceives itself as an organization that values things such as neutrality and non-violence. Let’s focus on neutrality, as it is relevant here. In practice, this is achieved in two ways. First, Amnesty has offices in many countries all over the world. When a situation in some country is evaluated, Amnesty members from that specific country are excluded from the debate. For example, in the annual Amnesty International report, the chapter about e.g. Germany was (in theory) written in collaboration of all Amnesty International branches, except for the Germany branch. Same for other countries. One reason is that it is assumed that people living in that country would be most partial about what happens there. Another reason is that this supposedly protects the lives of Amnesty members in various countries, because if some dictatorship is angry about the report, they know that the local members have not contributed there, so it reduces the motive to simply go and kill the local members, or maybe torture them until they write an updated report.
In theory, this works great. In practice, the “collaboration of all countries except the one concerned” often means that the central in London makes the decisions, and everyone else accepts them as the international consensus of Amnesty International. By the way, the central in London has an exception from the impartiality rule; they are allowed to also comment on things happening in their own country. Thus, a cynical person might conclude that this reduces entirely to people in London making all the decisions, and the other branches just communicating them to local public.
Another problem is that local members sometimes feel that London, ahem, the international consensus got some important facts wrong, because they miss the local knowledge. This concern is usually dismissed as (using a LessWrong expression here) “this is what being biased feels from inside”. And who knows, maybe this is exactly it.
The second way the neutrality is practiced, is that you are supposed to list the crimes of both sides; that is, as long as they are state actors, or an equivalent. (That means, Amnesty does not concern itself by ordinary crime; only by crimes committed by governments, or by de facto governments, or wannabe governments, or various political groups.) On one hand, yes, if you criticize the bad actions of one side, it is fair to also mention the bad actions of the other side, otherwise you are writing propaganda instead of an impartial report. The problem is what you do if both sides do bad things, but the difference between them is an order of magnitude. Ultimately, you have a limited space on paper, so you list the 5 worst crimes of the side X, and 5 worst crimes of the side Y, which sometimes gives a “arson, murder, and jaywalking” vibe. Also, an unsophisticated reader is likely to conclude “5 crimes vs 5 crimes, both sides are equally bad”. When that happens, Amnesty members get offended and insist that this is absolutely not what they meant. But the fact that this misunderstanding happens all the time suggests that Amnesty should somewhat improve its communication skills.
Another problem is the different treatment of political vs non-political groups. Suppose there is a problematic group, which is horribly oppressed by the government. If the problematic group is classified as political, Amnesty will produce a “both sides” report, listing both the oppression by the government, and the bad actions done by the group. But if the group is non-political, Amnesty will produce a “one side” report, where only the government oppression is listed; it is a taboo to comment on the group’s misdeeds. So if you have a gray area, like an organization that describes itself as non-political but actually does a lot of political activity, Amnesty could generate two dramatically different reports based on how it decides to classify this group.
Oh, lest I forget, Amnesty calls itself politically neutral, but I would be surprised if fewer than 90% of its members were left-wing, at least in London. If you ask random members about this, they will most likely see no problem and tell you something like “everyone is free to join, and it is not our fault that only left-wing people care about human rights”. (Which ignores the fact that the definition of “human rights” is interpreted to exclude the things mostly right-wing people care about these days, such as free speech.)
*
Let’s look on the “Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians” report from this perspective. I believe that the facts mentioned there are true. So the debate is mostly about proportionality: if you report on Ukrainian army staying dangerously close to the civilian buildings, should you use the same font size / same article length / give it the same visibility, as when you talk e.g. about Bucha?
And if subsequently pro-Russian people worldwide joyfully share this article saying: “see? both sides are equally bad, even Amnesty International says so”, is it really Amnesty’s fault? On one hand, this was totally predictable. On the other hand, this is how Amnesty communicates all the time, so why should they make an exception for Ukraine?
As I see it, this is basically an “all lives matter” kind of situation. Yes, literally true, but also completely tone deaf.
The report was most likely written in London, most likely by Agnès Callamard, the General Secretary of Amnesty, who is also quoted twice in the article. In reaction, the chief of Ukraine branch of Amnesty has resigned; Amnesty regrets the pain caused by the article but fully stands by the findings (link). The former chief of the Ukrainian branch further explains:
International Humanitarian Law does not impose a blanket prohibition on establishing military bases in proximity to civilian infrastructure. Instead, the military should, to the maximum extent possible, avoid locating military objectives near populated areas and should seek to protect civilians from the dangers resulting from military operations. This warrants an assessment of each situation on a case-by-case basis, not just from a legal perspective, but also in terms of the military realities on the ground.
The reality of the war in Ukraine is that Russian forces are seeking to occupy towns and cities in Ukraine, and Ukraine’s armed forces are trying to prevent that. Given the widely publicized accounts of Russian atrocities against civilians in Bucha and Irpin, it is not immediately evident that by withdrawing from populated areas, the Ukrainian military would have achieved the maximum possible protection of civilians.
Sorry for long rant, but you keep posting that link.
EDIT:
By the way, Agnès Callamard actually believes that Ukraine is the good guy here. (Took me some time to figure out her actual opinions.) It’s just the hard-to-understand communication standard of Amnesty International, as usual. Here is what she said at a different opportunity (video, after 38 min):
Even though the scale of the violations committed by Ukraine is not comparable to what Russia is doing at the moment, based at least on what we know, it does not mean that Ukraine should evade its responsibilities for any war crimes that it may have committed or will commit. [...] Russia’s aggression is unprecedented for the last 15 years [...] We need to begin by tackling aggression in a much more forceful fashion than had been done so far.
Speaking as a former activist of Amnesty International, they certainly have their biases. I do not want to generalize from one example, so the following is specifically about Amnesty, which you have linked in the article; other human rights organizations may work differently.
Amnesty perceives itself as an organization that values things such as neutrality and non-violence. Let’s focus on neutrality, as it is relevant here. In practice, this is achieved in two ways. First, Amnesty has offices in many countries all over the world. When a situation in some country is evaluated, Amnesty members from that specific country are excluded from the debate. For example, in the annual Amnesty International report, the chapter about e.g. Germany was (in theory) written in collaboration of all Amnesty International branches, except for the Germany branch. Same for other countries. One reason is that it is assumed that people living in that country would be most partial about what happens there. Another reason is that this supposedly protects the lives of Amnesty members in various countries, because if some dictatorship is angry about the report, they know that the local members have not contributed there, so it reduces the motive to simply go and kill the local members, or maybe torture them until they write an updated report.
In theory, this works great. In practice, the “collaboration of all countries except the one concerned” often means that the central in London makes the decisions, and everyone else accepts them as the international consensus of Amnesty International. By the way, the central in London has an exception from the impartiality rule; they are allowed to also comment on things happening in their own country. Thus, a cynical person might conclude that this reduces entirely to people in London making all the decisions, and the other branches just communicating them to local public.
Another problem is that local members sometimes feel that London, ahem, the international consensus got some important facts wrong, because they miss the local knowledge. This concern is usually dismissed as (using a LessWrong expression here) “this is what being biased feels from inside”. And who knows, maybe this is exactly it.
The second way the neutrality is practiced, is that you are supposed to list the crimes of both sides; that is, as long as they are state actors, or an equivalent. (That means, Amnesty does not concern itself by ordinary crime; only by crimes committed by governments, or by de facto governments, or wannabe governments, or various political groups.) On one hand, yes, if you criticize the bad actions of one side, it is fair to also mention the bad actions of the other side, otherwise you are writing propaganda instead of an impartial report. The problem is what you do if both sides do bad things, but the difference between them is an order of magnitude. Ultimately, you have a limited space on paper, so you list the 5 worst crimes of the side X, and 5 worst crimes of the side Y, which sometimes gives a “arson, murder, and jaywalking” vibe. Also, an unsophisticated reader is likely to conclude “5 crimes vs 5 crimes, both sides are equally bad”. When that happens, Amnesty members get offended and insist that this is absolutely not what they meant. But the fact that this misunderstanding happens all the time suggests that Amnesty should somewhat improve its communication skills.
Another problem is the different treatment of political vs non-political groups. Suppose there is a problematic group, which is horribly oppressed by the government. If the problematic group is classified as political, Amnesty will produce a “both sides” report, listing both the oppression by the government, and the bad actions done by the group. But if the group is non-political, Amnesty will produce a “one side” report, where only the government oppression is listed; it is a taboo to comment on the group’s misdeeds. So if you have a gray area, like an organization that describes itself as non-political but actually does a lot of political activity, Amnesty could generate two dramatically different reports based on how it decides to classify this group.
Oh, lest I forget, Amnesty calls itself politically neutral, but I would be surprised if fewer than 90% of its members were left-wing, at least in London. If you ask random members about this, they will most likely see no problem and tell you something like “everyone is free to join, and it is not our fault that only left-wing people care about human rights”. (Which ignores the fact that the definition of “human rights” is interpreted to exclude the things mostly right-wing people care about these days, such as free speech.)
*
Let’s look on the “Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians” report from this perspective. I believe that the facts mentioned there are true. So the debate is mostly about proportionality: if you report on Ukrainian army staying dangerously close to the civilian buildings, should you use the same font size / same article length / give it the same visibility, as when you talk e.g. about Bucha?
And if subsequently pro-Russian people worldwide joyfully share this article saying: “see? both sides are equally bad, even Amnesty International says so”, is it really Amnesty’s fault? On one hand, this was totally predictable. On the other hand, this is how Amnesty communicates all the time, so why should they make an exception for Ukraine?
As I see it, this is basically an “all lives matter” kind of situation. Yes, literally true, but also completely tone deaf.
The report was most likely written in London, most likely by Agnès Callamard, the General Secretary of Amnesty, who is also quoted twice in the article. In reaction, the chief of Ukraine branch of Amnesty has resigned; Amnesty regrets the pain caused by the article but fully stands by the findings (link). The former chief of the Ukrainian branch further explains:
Sorry for long rant, but you keep posting that link.
EDIT:
By the way, Agnès Callamard actually believes that Ukraine is the good guy here. (Took me some time to figure out her actual opinions.) It’s just the hard-to-understand communication standard of Amnesty International, as usual. Here is what she said at a different opportunity (video, after 38 min):