Read on Twitter
I have become increasingly concerned by the role of human rights organizations in violent conflicts. Unfortunately, this awareness comes only after the war in Nagorno-Karabakh and it would be naïve to think that it is unique in this respect.
Orgs such as @amnesty & @hrw were formed to speak out for the victims – give a voice to those who are not heard. This is indeed a heavy burden and carries significant responsibility. Therefore, I hope this thread will not be dismissed as partisan scorekeeping.
The public entrusts HR orgs with the communication of these atrocities because they have the expertise/resources to authenticate and provide credence to allegations. Furthermore, this work is frequently cited as a source of truth by the media, governments and even academics.
Therefore, press releases and reports should be written with an awareness of how they will be used. Here is a particularly egregious example of misuse of @amnesty @hrw work by an Aliyev-appointed chairman of an AZ government thinktank:
Justice for human rights is dependent on objectivity, not equivalence. One such shortcoming has been the unwillingness of @amnesty to discuss the relative number/severity of warcrimes committed by 2 sides of a conflict. @Brian_Castner vigorously defends @amnesty's independence:
This is a very noble sentiment. Then I have to ask the obvious question - who’s interest is being protected by equating warcrimes? Are civilians being protected? Or is @amnesty compromising its integrity and mission to protect itself from political backlash?
HR orgs are not above reproach when they fall short in their responsibility to clearly & objectively protect. We live in the world where politics is king and paid lobbyists roam free. The discerning individual interprets news through this lens to separate fact from fiction.
Why would HR orgs be immune to these influences? Do they hide behind their mission to avoid addressing the toxic undercurrents that compromise truth? I hope this thread is a friendly reminder to digest human rights coverage with a critical eye and provide constructive feedback.
