PublishedAugust 13, 2022, 6:55 PM
Amnesty InternationalCriticizing Ukraine, a perilous exercise
The director of the Swiss section of the NGO spoke regarding the controversy that affects her following a report criticizing certain choices of the Ukrainian army.
The independent organization documents human rights violations on both sides.
20min/Matthias Spicher
A report published by Amnesty International which accuses the Ukrainian army of having, in certain cases, put the civilian population in danger by installing military infrastructure in residential areas has caused much ink to flow. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky himself deemed the position “intolerable”, accusing the NGO of putting the aggressor and the attacked on an equal footing.
This Saturday, the director of Amnesty Switzerland, Alexandra Karle, returned to the case in an interview with “Tages-Anzeiger“. “International humanitarian law applies to both parties,” she recalls. Ukraine also faces criticism, although it must defend itself once morest Russian aggression.”
Clearer wording
She says she understands the strong reactions following the publication of the report, but recalls that, at the same time, more than a dozen reports denouncing the even more serious actions of Russia have been published. According to her, the controversy might not have been such if the report had been worded differently.
“Nobody in our country questions the fact that Russia is responsible for this war. We should have mentioned it more clearly,” she says, adding that she finds it “frightening” that Russian propaganda has used the Amnesty report to serve its interests.
“We investigate human rights violations and document them so that the situation improves. There is no political agenda behind it and we are used to criticism,” she says.
In general, Amnesty International is sometimes criticized for its choice of language. Alexandra Karle also returns to the criticisms leveled once morest the use of the word “apartheid” when speaking of the policy of the State of Israel. “We use the term as defined in international law, namely the institutionalized domination of one ethnic group over another,” she recalls. Besides, Israel is not the only state for which we speak of apartheid. We are also doing it for Burma and its oppression of the Rohingyas.”
(ywe)
