Many in Africa perceive Amnesty International as a Western-based organisation, this weakens trust in the organization in former colonies – even after several years of trying to build strong Amnesty International environments in Africa, but often so far from reality, authorities, dictators and police officers.
.
It’s inevitable that we will be dejected and confused when we read Amnesty’s report that Putin regime uses in propaganda war, that’s an unpleasant fact.
Amnesty International can easily be abused in Africa’s humanrights situation where poverty and conflicts over financial resources lead to the killing and mutilation of civilians , and refugee flows.
Robert Mugabe came out hard against Amnesty and gave poor prospects for humanrights in Zimbabwe.
Gradually, we see that Amnesty International is useful in several places in Africa, but is losing its footing because the situation has become more and more authoritarian, and the human rights violations increasingly extensive.
Amnesty International saw what happened in Kenya when Ruto, as Minister of Agriculture, created explosive debate about whether thousands of youths arrested because of the post-election violence should be pardoned; allies of ODM have said youths should be pardoned while allies of PNU opposed such calls, saying those who killed others or burned property should face the law.
Over 1,200 people were killed during the violence sparked by the disputed 2007 presidential election results.
For Amnesty International, it was never a question of agreement or disagreement, although the crimes committed during the month-long violence were mass killings – including burning of 35 people in an Eldoret church and 12 others in a house in Naivasha – then looting, rape and destruction of property.
It was Minister of Justice, National Unity and Constitutional Affairs, Martha Karua, who asked the question whether this should be a matter that determines whether Kenya is under the rule of law or the rule of the jungle.
Still in 2022, it is misleading to say that the ICC cleared Ruto of charges related to violence in the wake of the 2007 elections; instead of an acquittal, ICC dropped the charges and released Ruto without prejudice to the right to re-prosecute in the future – the case was adjourned and Amnesty International claimed that the decision is seen as a major setback by thousands of victims who have waited so long for justice.
This shows both Amnesty International and the ICC’s limitations in Africa when the relevant government refuses to cooperate.
Blood on their hands
Africa has carried out many wars of liberation, and Africa has had many heavy positions in the world. If we look at what happened in Zimbabwe in the year 1983 when the massacre against the Ndebele people started, it is estimated that up to 20,000 people were killed, as part of crushing the opposition.
Militarization of African states
Far more Africans experience, and live under, a relationship of mutual dependence with military, and became clearer when several videos are shared on SoMe where a number of human rights activists report that the military advises people to vote sensibly.
Seems like AFRICOM and Western organizations actually have been responsible for militarization of many african states police, in order to aide the US’ in looting ressource: getting to the roots of the issue of police brutality in many African countries
The role of civil society
In Kenya, in Zimbabwe and largely in Africa, there is an active civil society that brings up protest actions against unemployment, corruption and human rights violations – but can military coups, as world has seen in West and North Africa, be a driving force for human rights and democracy?
The military itself has often insisted that it was not a coup but a peaceful seizure of power to ensure stability: however, for the vast majority of Africans, armed vehicles on the streets, soldiers taking control of the media and a uniformed general announcing that the military is in control, looks suspiciously like a coup.
The international community should pay close attention when military men claim that they are acting in a patriotic spirit, for the good of the population.
It will be more important than ever to support civil society in Africa, which will have a tough fight in the future, and there Amnesty International can still motivate both physically and mentally.
Amnesty International has laid basic foundations, but gets more attention when inappropriate hashtags like #AmnestyStandsWithTerror are used on SoMe and less effect when furious characterizations are hurled at Amnesty International, and the UN, after the human rights organization published its controversial Ukraine – and British newspaper The Sunday Times writes in a leading position that “nothing can save Amnesty’s reputation”.
While the chess player and Putin critic Gary Kasparov claims that Amnesty International is pathetic and can go to hell for their garbage that will be used in Russian propaganda: President Zelenskyj claims, Amnesty International equates Ukraine as a victim, along with the Russian invasion force.
Amnesty International has become a popular hashtag not only with Africa’s SoMe, the question then becomes whether Amnesty International is given criticism or praise when the facts are contested – and if Ukraine uses a strategy that puts civilian lives at risk.
First of all, human rights organizations should investigate and point out human rights violations, war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law in conflicts around the world, and an independent organization must do this on both sides in both war and peace.
Since Russia’s Ukraine – invasion on 24 February 2022, Amnesty International has published a long series of reports specifically on Russian war crimes in Ukraine: Amnesty International has accused Russia of targeted attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, of using cluster weapons and landmines and guilty of the most serious the attack on the Court of international law; it’s a war of attack.
Amnesty International loses its effect when both ICC and UN are asked about poor cooperation with African states – then Western criticism of little help. Amnesty International would not have received such attention in Africa if Ukraine report had come from another place: for example, very central relations with serious conflict areas such as Congo, Rwanda and Sudan.
Every day more refugees arrive in Uganda, especially from North Kivu and Ituri province in Congo.
It’s the rights of individual refugees, which very few care about; apart from UN and local authorities, they only takes care of the most elementary and practical. Information about rights and individual protection can only be provided by Amnesty International, which is close to the problems – but refugees also have access to SoMe, so questions of doubt are raised.
Such allegations by Amnesty International must be made clear – if they are provable as such, and often conflict with perception of African states: that’s the role of Amnesty International, often with legal questions about whether and when there can be legitimate grounds for violations for any states, for Ukrainian forces, to establish bases in residential areas, schools and on civil and military rights.
Human Rights Watch has pointed out the same, and UN High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed concern – and it’s dangerous when Amnesty International’s General’sec Agnès Callamard renames UN Security Council to UN unsecurity Council – in a fierce attack on Security Council’s inability to stop the world’s atrocities.
When Amnesty International reports on violations of international humanitarian law, it becomes unreasonable to accuse the cooperating parties of a false balance: The international law of war, international humanitarian law, is manifested in the Geneva Conventions and the rules for warfare include all parties and must, among other things, ensure humanitarian treatment of non- combatants in a conflict.
Amnesty International will nevertheless claim that conflicts and wars in Africa have on several occasions broken these rules, by placing military forces and weapons in civilian areas, schools and hospitals – far from conflict area, and without African states having done anything or enough to to evacuate civilians.
Critics on SoMe give right that Amnesty International often has conflicting interests and that Amnesty International has become warmongers, consciously or unconsciously but often using information sources that are present in conflict areas and as a background for reports.
The question then becomes whether the Ukraine report is used in propaganda war, in which case an unpleasant fact for Amnesty International.
Perhaps both Amnesty International and General’sec Agnes Callamard can do more to prevent this, and the fact is that rhetoric has created a paradigm shift in understanding of human rights and security policy.
It’s problematic to think that Amnesty International should not present Ukraine report for tactical reasons: human rights organizations cannot be required to be party to an information war, their task is not strategic communication for military purposes.
Amnesty International must be free to point out violations of international law and the rules of war.
If SoMe criticism and negative hashtags are to have any positive effect, this must also be pointed out precisely while violations of international law, wars and conflicts are ongoing – when it’s fresh product – so that actors can have opportunity to change tactics: this, however, requires that they listen.
Now Amnesty International has instead become a victim of global information warfare.
PEP FORUM - UGANDA 