‘Unique In Its Ferociousness:’
The Yazidi Genocide and
the Role of Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch
01/10/2017
M.A. Thesis in History - Holocaust and Genocide Studies,
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Karel Berkhoff
Word count: 26, 054
Abstract:
This thesis seeks to determine the role of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in times of acute crisis, more specifically the organisations’ approach to the ongoing Yazidi genocide. I examine how the two nongovernmental organisations reported on the Yazidi genocide through one-on-one interviews and a textual analysis of their reports between June 2014 and May 2017. An analysis of the articles enabled me to collate information on various aspects of the Yazidi genocide, from the perspective of the organisations. Namely how the genocide came to being, followed by an exploration of the content of the conflict, which involves displacement, forced confinement, mass killing of adult Yazidi males, and enslavement and rape of Yazidi females. Moreover, reprisals have been a feature of the conflict, and are therefore addressed. Throughout my thesis Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch’s work is compared and contrasted, culminating in an inspection of their successes and failures, specific to this set of reports.
Table of Contents
Introduction p.4-8
I. Inside Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
p.9-22
II. The Emergence of the Yazidi Genocide p.23-29
III. Displacement and Forced Confinement p.30-39
IV. Mass Killing of Adult Males, Enslavement and Rape of Females
p.40-45
V. Losses and Reprisals p.46-59
VI. Recommendations p.60-81
Conclusions p.82-92
Bibliography p.93-103
Appendices p.104-113
Abbreviations
The northern regions of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Iraq
Chronology of main events
Relevant employees of AI and HRW
Introduction
On 3 August 2014, members of the terrorist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS), descended on the Sinjar region in northwest Iraq, near the Iraqi-Syrian border. The majority of the world’s Yazidis, a distinct religious group, resided in the region, alongside a smaller number of Sunni Muslims. The third day of August marked the beginning of a genocidal campaign against the Yazidis. The campaign to destroy the Yazidis, referred to as Êzîdi or Êzdî in Kurdish, has been systematic since its inception, and continues to this day. The following introduction to the genocide is largely informed by a United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council report, entitled “They came to destroy”: ISIS Crimes Against the Yazidis,” alongside reports by Yazda, a nongovernmental organisation (NGO) dedicated to documenting crimes and advocating on behalf of the Yazidis, and an interview conducted by me with Yazda’s deputy executive director, Ahmed Burjus. Burjus’ family was one of the thousands forced to flee from ISIS in August 2014.
Yazidism emerged thousands of years ago. Its followers have repeatedly been subject to religious discrimination. However, in Sinjar town and various villages in the region, Yazidis and Arabs lived together. Nevertheless, after the external attack, relations between the two communities have deteriorated. Yazda has labeled the attack the 74th genocide against the Yazidis, highlighting the enduring nature of their plight dating back to at least the Ottoman Empire.1
Muslims, for centuries, have deemed Yazidis to be infidels, referring to those following the religion, as Kafir, or “devil worshippers,” due to the group’s worship of a Peacock Angel, which Christian and Islamic tradition can equate with the fallen angel Lucifer. Although Yazidism is a monotheistic religion connected to the pre-Islamic Zoroastrian faith, for centuries outsiders have perceived the religion to include polytheistic elements, which to them created grounds for maltreatment. Additionally, Yazidi customs are based on oral tradition, whereas Islam places an emphasis on the importance of a written scripture. Those that belong to the religion must have a mother and father that are Yazidi. Theologically conversion is not possible, and mixed marriage is rare.
1 Yazda, Yazidi Refugees in Greece, Turkey, Syria and Iraq seek legal admission to Germany (2016),
In the months leading up to the violent entrance of hundreds of ISIS fighters into the Sinjar region, a region consisting of ‘hundreds of villages’ that ‘are spread out around the base of Mount Sinjar, with one main town Sinjar town, huddled at the base of the southeastern side of the mountain,’ the extremist group had been seizing areas in Syria and Iraq.2 This contributed to the success of the attack, as ISIS men were able to enter Sinjar from their bases in these areas, such as Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city (captured in June 2014), Tel Afar in Iraq, and Al-Shaddadi and the Tel Hamis region (Hasakah) in Syria.3 Furthermore, there was a lack of resistance, as the Peshmerga (the Iraqi Kurdish forces) retreated from their bases and checkpoints in the Sinjar region, without adequately informing civilians. Therefore, ‘no evacuation orders were issued and most villages were initially unaware of the collapse of the security situation.’4
When the dire situation became clear, impromptu groups of Yazidi men formed in some villages, with limited weaponry, endeavoring to provide their peers with a better chance of escaping. The UN report outlines that ‘by day break, Yazidi families from hundreds of villages across Sinjar were fleeing their homes in fear and panic.’5 After ISIS entered Sinjar the group’s primary objective was to capture Yazidis. They achieved this by ‘controlling the main roads and all strategic junctions,’ as well as setting up checkpoints and sending ‘mobile patrols to search for fleeing Yazidi families.’6
Families that fled in the early hours made it to Mount Sinjar, ‘an arid 100-kilometre-long mountain range,’ forming ‘the region’s heart.’7 However, ISIS besieged and trapped thousands of Yazidis on Mount Sinjar, and hundreds of them died from lack of resources. ‘All villages were emptied within 72 hours of the attack,’ aside from Kocho, ‘which was not emptied until 15 August 2014.’8 The fighters then moved to Iraq’s Nineveh Plain, home to a community of Yazidis, to continue the assault.
2 The United Nations, “They came to destroy”: ISIS Crimes Against the Yazidis (Distr.:
Restricted: The United Nations Human Rights Council, 2016), p.5-6.
3 Ibid., p.6. 4 Ibid., p.7. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., p.6. 8 Ibid., p.7.
At the time of writing, three years on from the initial Yazidi-centric attack, the majority of the community has left their homes for other areas of Syria, or other countries. Overall, the attacks resulted in the displacement of most Yazidis: over 400,000 of them.9 Meanwhile, thousands of Yazidi women and children remain captive in the Syrian Arab Republic and in Iraq, while thousands of Yazidi males are missing. The campaign has consistently included actions defined in Article II of the 1948 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is replicated in full in the Rome Statute.10
The crime of genocide is committed when a person commits a prohibited act with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. Prohibited acts are (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.11
The ways in which the terrorist group has implicated itself in the Genocide Convention will be further elucidated in the body of the thesis. Nevertheless, in summary, the men are killed, the females are sexually enslaved, whilst the boys are separated from their families, forced to convert and trained as fighters.
The intent to destroy can be found in ISIS’ public statements, and its actual behaviour. The UN Human Rights Council declared it an ongoing genocide on 15 June 2016.12 The assault matches the criteria of the Genocide Convention, which Syria and Iraq are parties to.
The Yazidi Genocide and Human Rights NGOs
When looking at the current Yazidi genocide it felt necessary to consider questions about ‘why it matters and to whom; who is responsible for its cause; and what sort
9 Yazda, Mass Graves of Yazidis Killed by the Islamic State Organisation or Local Affiliates On or
After August 3, 2014 (2016), 4.
10 The United Nations, “They came to destroy,” p.8. 11 Ibid., p.4.
of action, by whom, should be taken.’13 The musings of Melissa Leach, a social anthropologist, and Mariz Tados, a political scientist, were considered and deconstructed over the course of the thesis by identifying the key features of the quotation. This thesis takes a close look at the way Amnesty International (AI, or Amnesty) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) have treated the Yazidi genocide, by using their online archives. Who do they hold responsible for it? What actions are needed in response? And who should enact these recommendations?
Ian Gorvin, the guardian of HRW’s written standards, wrote a unique and important article looking at how NGOs, more specifically HRW, evaluate themselves.14 His work allowed for a more thorough understanding of the ways in which NGOs work. It is interesting to note that there are virtually no published studies of the way these NGOs react to specific case of genocide and mass violence, which explains why Gorvin’s article was unique. The lack of such material acted as a motivation for my thesis.
AI and HRW were chosen as the sources; because they are intrinsic human rights focused nongovernmental organisations, which partially addressed the questions of why it matters and to whom. The genocide matters, in a broad sense, because of the grave human rights abuses that are being committed; and it matters specifically to Amnesty and HRW, because their foundations are based on the right to basic human rights. Both NGOs are ‘established, experienced, and trusted in the field of research and advocacy on human rights.’15 Additionally, these types of organisation are important for our ability to learn about genocides that are in progress, thus addressing the latter two statements of the quotation.
It proved difficult to gain certain types of information on this specific genocide due to the captives’ inability to inform the outside world of their treatment. Additionally, ISIS, as a travelling force does not keep the same records available as say a static government perpetrating genocide can, such as the records from the Shoah. Nevertheless, the two NGOs have employees in the area of conflict and therefore, first hand accounts frequent their reports on the genocide. AI and
13 Melissa Leach and Mariz Tadros, “Epidemics and the Politics of Knowledge: Contested
Narratives in Egypt’s H1N1 Response,” Medical anthropology 33, no.3 (2014): 241.
14 Ian Gorvin, “Producing the Evidence that Human Rights Advocacy Works: First Steps
towards Systematised Evaluation at Human Rights Watch,” Journal of Human Rights Practice 1, no.3 (2009): 477-487, accessed May 08, 2017, DOI:10.1093/jhuman/hup022
HRW spoke to victims, survivors, witnesses, local officials, local and international organisations and civil society groups. There is a clear utilisation of the materials that ISIS themselves provide on the Internet, as a means to understand their motives. I also believe that NGOs are removed enough from the cause to effectively report on matters as emotive as genocide.
The first chapter is dedicated to establishing the stated goals and track records of AI and HRW, to provide a clear sense of why the two NGOs appropriately illuminate why the genocide matters and to whom. The second chapter analyses the emergence of the genocide, as told by AI and HRW, in order to achieve an understanding of who is responsible for the genocide waged against the Yazidis. The reader, who would like an understanding of the chronology of the conflict, can consult the appendices. The following three chapters, “Displacement and Forced Confinement,” “Mass Killing of Adult Males, Enslavement and Rape of Females,” and “Losses and Reprisals,” demonstrate how the genocide has been enacted, making more apparent how Article II of the Genocide Convention can be applied to the case of the Yazidis. The final chapter discusses what sort of actions should be taken, and by whom, according to the two NGOs. AI and HRW have links to and are influential in both Western governments and international institutions, further explaining their viability.16
16 “Human Rights Watch,” NGO Monitor, Last modified February 26, 2017,
1
Inside Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch ‘A world where human rights are enjoyed by all.’17
Introduction
This chapter explores the organisations at the focus of the thesis. The history of Amnesty, created in 1961, is looked at initially, before turning to HRW, which was the product of a watchdog formed in 1978. We will be comparing and contrasting the aims of each NGO, and how those have changed and expanded in past decades. The techniques employed, by the NGOs, to achieve these goals are also compared. We look at various methods the two organisations have been using to enact change, including, the carrying out of research, the utilisation of technology, and interacting with those whose human rights have been abused.
In addition, we should also look at the structure of the organisations: how the two NGOs are organised to achieve their goals, and the ways in which AI and HRW are financed. Finally, we shall see that both NGOs use the arts, in various guises, in their fight against human rights abuses.
History
Amnesty International was founded in 1961, by the English labour lawyer Peter Benenson, as a result of his outrage ‘when two Portuguese students were jailed just for raising a toast to freedom’ under the authoritarian government of António de Oliveira Salazar.18 Benenson’s article, “The Forgotten Prisoners”, first published in the Observer on 28 May 1961, and then throughout the world, articulated the feelings that inspired AI. Benenson argued,
Open your newspaper any day of the week and you will find a story from somewhere of someone being imprisoned, tortured or executed because his opinions or religion are unacceptable to his government... The newspaper
17 “Who We Are,” Amnesty International, Last modified n.d.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/
reader feels a sickening sense of impotence. Yet if these feelings of disgust could be united into common action, something effective could be done.19 He subsequently launched the “Appeal for Amnesty” to unite said feelings in support of “Prisoners of Conscience,” which was supported and printed by several international newspapers. In London, now home to AI’s headquarters, the first official meeting took place in July 1961. Benenson believed that AI’s work could not be completed until ‘the last prisoner of conscience has been freed, when the last torture chamber has been closed, when the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a reality for the world’s people.’20
Human Rights Watch was born out of Helsinki Watch, which was created in 1978 by ‘a group of activists and lawyers concerned about the censorship and harassment faced by their friends and colleagues in the Soviet Union.’21 The basic principle was to ensure an independent watchdog existed firstly, to make certain censorship did not go unnoticed; and secondly, to ensure the government of the Soviet bloc was complying with the 1975 Helsinki accords. Created to reduce Cold War tensions, these accords set out that in ‘return for acceptance of the Soviet Union’s hegemonic position in Eastern Europe, the West urged respect for human rights in the Eastern bloc and cooperation in humanitarian, economic and scientific areas.’22 The form this monitoring took was to publicly name and shame governments, utilising the media and communicating with policymakers.
Several committees were formed, which looked at specific geographical areas, America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. They were known as “The Watch Committees,” and in 1988 they came together as HRW. Alison Watson, a lecturer in International Relations at the University of St. Andrew, describes HRW as ‘a child of the Cold War’ and part of the policy of détente.23 Bruce Montgomery, the Archives Curator at the University of Colorado, believes the Carter Administration was the first executive branch to ‘fully embrace’ human rights, as shown by the
19 Ibid. 20 Ibid.
21 Ken Miller, “Crossing Borders: Human Rights Watch International Film Festival,” The
Independent Film & Video Monthly 25, no. 5 (2002): 36.
22 Alison Watson, “Global Monitor. Human Rights Watch,” New Political Economy 9, no. 3
(2004): 443, accessed May 3, 2017, DOI: 10.1080/1356346042000259875
substantial increase in funds gifted to human rights organisations.24 This resulted in the public being alerted to the importance of preserving and creating human rights. Montgomery believes this paved the way for HRW, and the advocacy for the protection of human rights more generally.
Aims
The NGOs have similar and varied desires. AI’s ambitions were influenced by Benenson’s “Appeal for Amnesty.” Benenson desired for Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR) to come to fruition globally and to create protection for those wrongly imprisoned.25 Article 18 of the UDHR is the ‘right to freedom of thought and religion,’ and Article 19 pertains to the ‘right to freedom of opinion and expression.’26 In contrast, HRW has been committed to multiple forms of established international humanitarian laws. In particular, besides the UDHR, these are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966. The commitment to using the international standards of human rights has been constant since HRW’s inception. Additionally, the NGO uses agreements from the regions where abuses are occurring.
Amnesty’s targets have increased, rather than changed, over time, and this change is in tune with events. As articulated by its website, ‘Amnesty has grown from seeking the release of political prisoners to upholding the whole spectrum of human rights.’27 The concept of increasing, rather than changing aims, can be applied to HRW’s trajectory too. The addition of targets in the 1970s can only be looked at in relation to AI, due to HRW’s conception coming later. Despite this, it is still interesting to look at how Seán MacBride, one of the founders of AI, and Martin Ennals, the Secretary General at the time, widened AI’s remit in the 1970s. MacBride and Ennals added Article 9, opposition to long detention without trial and Article 5, of the UDHR, concerning the torture of prisoners to AI’s remit.
24 Bruce Montgomery, “The Human Rights Watch Archives,” Peace Review 14, no. 4 (2002):
455, accessed April 30, 2017, DOI: 10.1080/1040265022000039259
25 “Who We Are.” Amnesty International.
26 “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Claiming Human Rights, Last modified
January 4, 2010, http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_18.html
The 1980s saw HRW cultivate global aims that focused on political and apolitical prisoners, such as refugees and women. Indeed, HRW ‘focused more and more not simply on human rights abuses that were government-led, but on those abuses that were committed by rebel groups not recognised as legitimate by the state.’28 This highlights the overarching objective to help vulnerable groups, regardless of the form of the groups committing the abuses. Much like HRW, refugees, specifically those that were displaced due to human rights violations rather than war or famine, became part of AI’s sphere in the 1980s. Amnesty also added extrajudicial and political killings; transfers by military, security and police forces, and disappearances to its endeavours.
The work of both NGOs adapted to unfolding human rights violations in the 1990s. But the genocides in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, amongst other armed conflicts, provoked different reactions from AI and HRW. AI began to look at external intervention, more specifically at the motivations behind decisions to intervene or not intervene, whereas achieving justice was and remains vital to HRW, as shown in the organisation’s support of the international tribunals for the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. HRW also ‘sought prosecutions of abusive leaders including Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Hissene Habre of Chad.’29 This commitment to justice is elucidated in HRW’s involvement in the creation of the Rome Statute and subsequently the International Criminal Court (ICC.) The bombing campaigns that took place during the 1991 Persian Gulf War led to HRW’s reporting taking a legal angle regarding the laws of war in relation to bombs. HRW also ‘broadened and strengthened its work on the rights of women, children, refugees, and migrant workers, bringing a human rights perspective to such issues as domestic violence, trafficking, rape as a war crime, and child soldiers.’30
The challenges associated with globalisation that came to the fore in the 2000s caused not simply an addition of aims, but a shift in the type of work that AI pursued. AI began focussing on economic, social and cultural rights, as companies grew exponentially in power, whilst nation states were being undermined. For HRW, the turn of the millennium brought into focus the need to directly appeal to terrorist groups and their supporters, but also to sharply monitor policies
28 Watson. “Global Monitor.” 443.
29 “History,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified n.d. https://www.hrw.org/history 30 Ibid.
undertaken against these forces, as those can also violate human rights. Like AI, HRW brought economic, social and cultural rights into its remit, due to globalisation, which it believes has threatened said rights. Additionally, ‘the HIV/AIDS pandemic led to the creation of a Human Rights Watch program devoted to human rights and health.’31
Currently AI’s vision is ‘a world where human rights are enjoyed by all… We speak out for anyone and everyone whose freedom and dignity are under threat.’32 A summary of the specific areas where its aims to help lists ‘armed conflict, arms control, corporate accountability, death penalty, detention, disappearances, discrimination, freedom of expression, indigenous peoples, international justice, living in dignity, people on the move, sexual and reproductive rights, torture, united nations.’33 To compare, a summary of the specific injustices HRW currently aims to end, is as follows: ‘summary executions, torture, arbitrary detention, restrictions on the freedom of expression, association, assembly and religion, violations of due process, and discrimination on racial, ethnic and religious grounds.’34
Techniques
AI and HRW use a variety of techniques. Both NGOs place a particular onus on their own research into human rights abuses. AI and HRW view their impartial and accurate reports as an asset. AI’s website succinctly summarises why research is a necessary component to a human rights centric NGO: ‘human rights change starts with the facts’ and therefore experts need to ‘do accurate, cross-checked research into human rights violations by governments and others worldwide.’35 This is fundamental to AI and HRW’s ability to call for change.
The work of HRW serves a dual purpose to human rights violations, as they ‘challenge entrenched, longstanding, or steadily deteriorating human rights
31 Ibid.
32 “Who We Are.” Amnesty International.
33 “What We Do,” Amnesty International, Last modified n.d.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/
34 Giuseppe Schiavone, International Organisations: A Dictionary and Directory. (U.K.:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 159.
problems.’36 However, according to Watson, ‘at times of acute crisis, HRW attempts to report up-to-the-minute information of the developing human rights situation in a particular area, often using emergency researchers that can be speedily deployed as a human rights situation changes.’37 These descriptions apply to AI’s research too. Time-sensitive research requires a specific methodology, as researchers must go to the location quickly and all information must be compiled with haste. Whereas, addressing deep-rooted abuses allows for a more thorough background research that contextualises events for the researchers, before interacting with those involved in and impacted by events.
These two types of research are not mutually exclusive. Interestingly, the genocide in Rwanda and the Balkans created the need for ‘both real-time reporting of atrocities and in-depth documentation of cases to press for international prosecutions, which became possible for the first time in the 1990s.’38
Both NGOs dispatch missions to areas to inquire into abuses. The locations AI and HRW work in are decided upon in line with the objectives of the NGO, but need to be reinforced by the belief that paying a visit could make a real difference. Past research is utilised to decide where the fact-finding teams should be deployed. The NGOs visit many locations within one country, after carrying out extensive background research. Research at both organisations contains a legal stance with an examination of ‘international humanitarian law and international human rights law, domestic or local law.’39 Information from a variety of sources is utilised. These sources include reports by other international organisations, trials, human rights activists from and external to the country, academics, doctors, and the media. The research comes in multiple forms: the publication of timely press releases, newsletters, regular websites updates, ‘literature reviews, media reports, and background interviews with experts on the topic.’40
Additionally, ‘local partners in human rights organisations, academia, and civil society’ ensure they have spoken to and know where victims, witnesses and
36 “About Our Research,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified n.d.
https://www.hrw.org/about-our-research
37 Watson. “Global Monitor.” 442 38 “History.” Human Rights Watch.
39 “About Our Research.” Human Rights Watch. 40 Ibid.
perpetrators that reside in different places are.41 Local activists and civil society members are helpful in regard to gaining access to interviewees. HRW’s ‘goal with any research mission is to gain enough information about an incident, or about repeated rights violations, to create an accurate picture of what happened.’42 The examination of the sites where abuses have taken place is perceived to be of value, as there is evidence of the way the killings are happening, where they are happening and what weaponry is being used. However, adequate security is paramount to both NGOs and can prevent research from taking place if a location is too high risk.
The NGOs operate using modern means. AI recognises the importance of technology and uses it to develop news tools to aid their aspirations. For example, it has ‘a mobile phone app that acts as a personal ‘panic button’ for activists at daily risk of being arrested or detained.’43 HRW uses sophisticated technology to expose illegal acts, such as forensic tools, bomb-date analysis, GPS coordinates and satellite imagery to expose the transformation of a location both aesthetically and regarding population numbers. HRW believes that ‘combining its traditional on-the-ground fact-finding with new technologies and innovative advocacy keeps Human Rights Watch on the cutting edge of promoting respect for human rights worldwide.’44 These modern means are of particular importance in closed societies where HRW cannot physically enter, but have been informed of abuses taking place. Photography, both satellite and on-the-ground, is a vital contributor to their evidence. The evidence uncovered by their fact-finding teams is then put in HRW’s hundreds of reports, press releases, briefings and news releases each year. Their website contains this information, in the hope of mobilising public opinion and enacting change.
Interacting with people whose human rights have been abused is necessary in the pursuit of ‘a world where human rights are enjoyed by all.’45 Carrying out interviews is part of HRW and AI’s work, as it provides key insights to the abuses and allows the NGO to formulate recommendations and advocacy objectives with the ultimate goal of ending persecution of a specific group. They interview the
41 Ibid. 42 Ibid.
43 “Who We Are.” Amnesty International. 44 “History.” Human Rights Watch. 45 “Who We Are.” Amnesty International.
victims and witnesses for this purpose, but in addition aim to provide them with a voice that is heard throughout the world. However, in order to locate and talk to the victims and witnesses Amnesty and HRW must speak first to activists and human rights organisations working within the country that have an established understanding of why the abuse is being carried out, and by whom.
Additionally, the NGOs speak to a variety of people, such as: ‘representatives from local and international nongovernmental organisations, UN representatives, journalists, doctors and medical experts, lawyers and legal experts, community leaders, law enforcement officials, diplomats, and civil society leaders in order to corroborate information from witnesses and victims, and to better understand the social, political, and cultural contexts of the situation.’46 AI and HRW both try to contact the accused perpetrators to both gain information and to inform them of their opposition to the abuses. The NGO is not always able to carry out these interviews, as it is dangerous for the staff. The inclusion of as many groups, involved in the conflicts, in the discussion of abuses contributes to the protection of accuracy and fairness, which principally is of the upmost importance to them.
Human rights NGOs are not always able to conduct interviews in those countries referred to as “closed societies”, such as Iran and North Korea, which cannot be entered by its employees. They try to counter these restrictions by conducting interviews at geographical boundaries, refugee and displaced person camps, as giving people a voice and exposing the truth is a priority. Despite the variety of difficulties associated with compiling information from these countries, such as ‘identifying rights violations, gaining a thorough understanding of the local context, identifying victims and witnesses, and identifying suitable recommendations and advocacy opportunities’, border interviews are felt to be an effective tool.47
A universal policy for interviews is not the norm, as situations can be vastly different and therefore, work is coordinated on a case-by-case basis. However, HRW does have a set of principles to abide by ‘to ascertain the truth, to corroborate the veracity of statements, to protect the security and dignity of
46 “About Our Research.” Human Rights Watch. 47 Ibid.
witnesses, and to remain impartial’; and a basic format, ‘to conduct interviews in private settings, one-on-one with the researcher, and to focus the interview on the details of what occurred.’48 The NGO believes this setting ‘helps to avoid false statements, exaggeration, and conjecture by ensuring interviewees are making independent statements.’49 Another policy is to ask numerous victims and witnesses about the same events and therefore establish specifics, recognise hyperbole and eradicate statements that cannot be verified. There is a focus on details and interviewees are requested to repeat their answers.
The avoidance of re-traumatisation is of the upmost concern to AI and HRW and therefore, a variety of safeguards are in place. The interviewers at HRW have sensitivity training to ensure they approach the interviewees in the correct way. This extends to the time and setting, which must feel safe, which is achieved both through location and open and honest communication regarding why the interview is taking place, what will be discussed, and the reassurance that the interviewee will remain anonymous. The interviewees must provide consent and possess an understanding that the interview can be terminated at any point and they can decline to answer questions. The interviewer also is expected to cancel or reschedule the interview if they meet the victim or witness and feel they are not mentally or physically ready to answer the questions.
In the majority of cases the researcher speaks to the victims and witnesses in a language they are fluent in, and if this is not possible, impartial interpreters and consultants are used. Those are trained ‘to translate questions and responses verbatim so that follow-up questions can be asked when clarity is needed.’50 In-person interviews are the most common and desirable. However, HRW will use other forms of communication when necessary, such as in closed societies. AI is guided by a similar set of principles; for example, they train and educate people, whose rights have been or are being taken away from them in the hope of reducing abuses.
The following is a compilation of techniques used to enact change on the basis of information held by the two NGOs. Amnesty and HRW see the value in interacting with other organisations to advance the improvement of human rights.
48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid.
They therefore both attend sessions held by important organisations, such as the United Nations. Campaigns, pertaining to an individual, country or specific theme, are made by both NGOs to mobilise public opinion and raise funds. The mobilisation of public opinion is considered vital for the production of civilian action. Civilian engagement in turn provides AI and HRW with millions of members, who help carry out forthright action, in the form of petitions, letters and protests that ‘press for action from the people and institutions who can make change happen.’51
Advocacy and lobbying is another component to Al; the NGO uses its analysis of situations ‘to influence and press governments, companies and decision-makers to do the right thing.’52 The “right thing” to AI is for governments and groups with influence to comply with international law.
Structure
AI began with a single base in London, but as the organisation grew in size and power its opened regional offices across the continents, which are ‘major hubs’ for their ‘investigations, campaigns and communications.’53 HRW’s headquarters are in New York City, and it has multiple other offices. The offices prove a great asset for AI and HRW, as they enable quicker responses to events. HRW employs approximately 400 people, whereas AI is much smaller and employs 170.54
AI has an International Secretariat, which is a major part of its structure. It was set up in the mid-1960s, and is led by the Secretary General and Senior Directors. It is split into two entities in accordance with U.K. law, AI Limited and AI Charity Limited. They share a wide range of responsibilities, including carrying out research and reporting, imparting legal expertise, scrutinising AI’s finances and ensuring that it speak ‘with one voice globally about the whole range of human rights themes and situations and their impact on people and communities.’55 Additionally, AI’s International Board ‘provides guidance and leadership for the AI
51 “What We Do.” Amnesty International. 52 Ibid.
53 “Who We Are.” Amnesty International. 54 Ibid.
55 “Structure and People,” Amnesty International, Last modified n.d.
movement.’56 Sections directed by the International Secretariat and the Executive Committee are vital elements of AI. They exist in more than 70 countries and work at national and regional levels to lobby local governments, to campaign and raise funds within their designated area, and also to carry out research into human rights maltreatment. The sections also look to gain more supporters for AI. Internally, the organisation has several networks ‘made up of members who share an interest, identity or expertise which gives them a particular role to play in taking up human rights issues.’57
Groups operating within communities are another key component to the NGO. They aim to educate and recruit people to the cause by conducting campaigns on behalf of Amnesty, and mobilising media contacts within the area. The organisation involves them in decision-making both on a national and international level. The majority of those working are volunteers that pay a membership fee; paid employees are in the minority. Crisis networks exist with the specific purpose of responding to situations that urgently need attention.
HRW’s offices are composed of journalists, academics, and lawyers. There are also interns and volunteers as well as ‘a number of consultants and fellows on short-term contracts.’58 Kenneth Roth has been HRW’s executive director since 1993. He ‘previously worked in the USA as a federal prosecutor on the Iran–Contra affair, amongst other investigations.’59 The staff research, report and advocate for the end of human rights abuses in over 90 countries, with their work organised according to ‘five geographic divisions - Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe & Central Asia, and Middle East & North Africa, plus a separate program on the United States,’ which allows for a ‘global spread.’60 Additionally, the NGO is organised according to themes and programmes: ‘Arms; Business & Human Rights; Children's Rights; Terrorism & Counterterrorism; Health & Human Rights; International Justice; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual &Transgender Rights; Refugees; and Women's Rights.’61
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
58 Watson. “Global Monitor.” 442. 59 Ibid.
60 “About Our Research.” Human Rights Watch. 61 Ibid.
The organisation works ‘closely with a broad range of local and international civil society actors to maximize’ its impact.62 It employs more than 80 researchers that are supervised by divisional or program directors, as well as core departments within the movement. The researchers must have a ‘powerful commitment to human rights and an existing expertise in their countries or issues of focus.’63 Some of them are based in or near to the locations where violations are occurring. Others mostly carry out their research in the main offices (Berlin, Brussels, Johannesburg, London, Moscow and Washington DC), besides going into the field.
HRW researchers must ensure that the reporting and advocacy have a human face. The job is not insular, for it must ‘cooperate with local civil society activists, lawyers, and journalists, and… seek contacts with state and government officials.’64 The researchers must be up-to-date with the media’s portrayal of the abuses. Additionally, they must be in tune with ‘the output of peer organisations and the research community,’ as they must conduct ‘continuous phone and email communication with trusted contacts in the local activist community.’65 The researchers also need to focus on advocacy: it is important to establish who can and should hold the perpetrators accountable, besides stopping the abuses. A clear plan for how this should unfold needs to be provided by the researchers, according to HRW’s guidelines.
Funding
Fees and donations from its worldwide membership largely finance AI. The NGO claims to refuse donations from governments, governmental organisations or political parties to ensure its ‘full independence from any and all governments, political ideologies, economic interests or religions.’66 However, Amnesty did accept grants from the UK Department for International Development, the European Commission, the United States (U.S.) State Department and other governments, which provoked criticism.
62 “About,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified n.d. https://www.hrw.org/about 63 Ibid.
64 “About Our Research.” Human Rights Watch. 65 Ibid.
66 “Finances and Pay,” Amnesty International, Last modified n.d.
HRW also professes a commitment to independence from governments and thus claims to decline money from them. Instead, private individuals and a plethora of foundations worldwide provide their support. HRW received the highest four star rating from the independent watchdog organisation, Charity Navigator on 10/01/2016.67 The NGO itself believes this shows ‘exceptional financial health in its efforts to manage and grow its finances in the most fiscally responsible way possible.’68 However, their finances have not been exempt from condemnation by another watchdog: NGO Monitor, whose mission statement declares the group ‘provides information and analysis, promotes accountability, and supports discussion on the reports and activities of NGOs… claiming to advance human rights and humanitarian agendas’.69 NGO Monitor does not believe that HRW’s pledge to accept no government funds is fully implemented,as, for example the group accepted funds from Oxfam Novib, which gets ‘the vast majority of its budget from the Dutch government.’70
Art
Both NGOs view the arts as a valuable component in the pursuit of combating human rights abuses. AI created the “Art For Amnesty” programme, which is ‘a global community of artists of all disciplines and nationalities who share Amnesty International’s vision of a world where human rights are enjoyed by all.’71 The programme promotes a variety of cultural media work addressing topics that AI aims to prevent in truthful and educational ways. Additionally, the Secretary General’s Global Council of AI is a ‘volunteer forum that brings together leaders in the arts, business and philanthropy to work together to further human rights.’72
Likewise, HRW believes in the medium of film to ‘educate and inspire a broad constituency of concerned supporters,’ and thus made their International
67 “Human Rights Watch,” (2) Charity Navigator, Last modified n.d.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3845#
68 “Financials,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified n.d. https://www.hrw.org/financials 69 “About,” (2) NGO Monitor, Last modified n.d. http://www.ngo-monitor.org/about/ 70 “Human Rights Watch,” NGO Monitor, Last modified February 26, 2017,
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/human_rights_watch_hrw_/
71 “Art for Amnesty,” Amnesty International, Last modified n.d.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/art-for-amnesty/
72 “Structure and People,” Amnesty International, Last modified n.d.
Film Festival.73 The annual festival’s purpose is to ‘showcase fictional, documentary, and animated films or videos with a human rights theme.’74 Having looked at various works of art by both NGOs one can conclude that the power of this tool indeed should not be underestimated.
Conclusions
We looked at the history of the organisations, their current and past aspirations, their techniques, the ways in which the NGOs are organised and funded, and, additionally, how they deploy the arts in their quest to end human rights abuses. Numerous similarities in the way the two entities have been operating exist. For instance, both organisations have increased, rather than changed, their scope since inception, with their aims being routinely revised and added to in line with global events. If one looks at the summaries of the organisations’ aims, as outlined by their respective websites, AI articulates the areas where they aim to help, whereas HRW focuses on abuses that they aim to end; but otherwise there are no significant disparities between the lists. Both NGOs themselves research human rights abuses, and focus both on immediate crises and on long-term abuses. Both organisations claim to accept no government funds, to ensure impartiality in their work, but both have been criticised for this declaration. Both NGOs believe in the power and need for art to be deployed in their attempts to end human rights abuses.
There are also differences. Whereas Amnesty was born out of a lawyer’s contempt for oppressive governments, in 1961, HRW derived from a watchdog intended to hold the Soviet bloc to account in 1978 and was formed in 1988 with the intention of holding several continents to account. The structures of AI and HRW also differ, with AI employing 170 people and in HRW 400. Much more than HRW, AI relies on volunteers to lobby and advocate on its behalf; its paid employees are in the minority.
73 “Frequently Asked Questions,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified n.d.
https://www.hrw.org/frequently-asked-questions
II
The Emergence of the Yazidi Genocide
‘Being a… Yazidi… in ISIS territory can cost you your livelihood, your liberty, or even your life.’75
Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch Introduction
The purpose of chapter two is to describe and compare how AI and HRW described the inception of the genocide, perpetrated by ISIS against Yazidis victims. The victimhood of the Yazidis is a recurring motif in history; thus first their past is explored. Then we look at members of ISIS as the perpetrators. The conversion of males and the enslavement of females are briefly looked at here, as in subsequent chapters these topics are afforded more space from different perspectives. However, it is necessary to include them in this chapter, as the motivations for conversion and enslaving aid our comprehension of the emergence of the genocide.
History of persecution
The concept of Yazidis as victims is not a new phenomenon. Therefore, it is not surprising that Donatella Rovera, AI’s Senior Crisis Response Adviser, referenced the longevity of the Yazidi’s persecution during 2014. She references their ‘long suffered persecution because of their religion… an off-shoot of the pre-Islamic Zoroastrian faith.’76 Yet AI’s work is distinctly lacking in explanation regarding the roots and the form of their previous persecution.
In comparison, HRW places more emphasis on that past. Letta Tayler, a Senior Researcher, who investigates terrorism and counterterrorism in the HRW’s Emergencies Division, extrapolates the groups (‘the Chaldo-Assyrian, Yazidi, and
75 “Iraq: ISIS Abducting, Killing, Expelling Minorities,” Human Rights Watch, Last
modified July 19, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/19/iraq-isis-abducting-killing-expelling-minorities
76 “Iraqis displaced by ISIS attacks in Sinjar ‘desperate’ for aid,” Amnesty International,
August 5, 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/08/iraqis-displaced-isis-attacks-sinjar-desperate-aid/
Shabak communities’) that have long been subject to persecution by extremist Sunnis, prior to ‘ISIS’s rise last year’ and therefore ‘have historical reasons to be fearful.’77 Examples reinforce her statements, such as bombings in August 2007 in Nineveh by suspected armed Islamists, killing more than 300 Yazidis and wounding 700.78
HRW’s “news release” written from Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan highlights another historic way minorities were alienated from the greater population, as prisons already had separate sections for religious and ethnic minorities.79 Another “news release” on 27 June 2014, sees Tayler outlining an ISIS attack on Shia Turkmen, which illuminates the ‘long pattern of attacks by armed Sunni extremists on Turkmen and other minorities,’ including the Yazidis.80 Understanding the longevity of the attempted marginalisation of certain groups because of their religious affiliation in Iraq and Syria aids the reader’s understanding of the conflict, as one sees what practices of discrimination were already in place and which are unique to ISIS.
In 2015, HRW put forward the following detailed explanation as to what has fuelled the conflict:
ISIL’s gains in Iraq were in large part enabled by former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s politics of exclusion, which fed a cycle of sectarian violence through discrimination and other human rights abuses directed at Sunnis. Armed groups and Iraqi security forces continue to commit abuses that fuel ISIL’s ongoing campaign of cruelty.81
77 “Iraq’s Minorities Left between Scorpions and a Hard place,” Human Rights Watch, Last
modified June 24, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/24/iraqs-minorities-left-between-scorpions-and-hard-place
78 Ibid.
79 “Iraq: ISIS Executed Hundreds of Prison Inmates,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified
October 30, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/30/iraq-isis-executed-hundreds-prison-inmates
80 “Iraq: ISIS Kidnaps Shia Turkmen, Destroys Shrines,” Human Rights Watch, Last
modified June 27, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/27/iraq-isis-kidnaps-shia-turkmen-destroys-shrines
81 “UN Human Rights Council: Interactive Dialogue on High Commissioner’s report on the
human rights situation in Iraq,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified March 25, 2015, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/03/25/un-human-rights-council-interactive-dialogue-high-commissioners-report-human-rights
Samer Miscati, a Senior Researcher for HRW’s Women’s Rights Division at the time, partially attributes the violence to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, as ‘violent attacks against Yezidis by Sunni Arab extremists escalated after’ this.82 ISIS’ perception of the Yazidis
The sentiment of the previous section is reiterated, by both AI and HRW, that the persecution of minorities in this area of the world is not novel, with the reference to the Yazidis as “devil-worshippers,” being an established tool for degradation. Linguistics are an important aspect to ISIS’ strategy, as it aims to engrain in the minds of those that consume their content that the Yazidis are not only inferior to them, but in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. The conviction that the group worships the devil is due to the Yazidis practicing ‘a 4,000-year-old religion that centers on the Peacock Angel.’83 The NGOs frequently write about ISIS’ perception of the Yazidis religion and its followers.
AI and HRW began their reporting on the conflict in 2014, triggered by the attack carried out by ISIS on in a village in northern Syria, al-Tleiliye in the al Hassake governorate on 29 May 2014. Eyewitnesses that spoke to AI identified ISIS as the perpetrators, ‘because of the attire and behaviour of the perpetrators and the flag they were carrying.’84 The attire the eyewitnesses speak of is all black clothing and ISIS’ personal flag. This picture of ISIS is repeated throughout the articles from both NGOs. AI released the article on 5 June 2014; HRW reported the same incident on 14 June 2014. One can glean that the disparity in the dates of the reporting is due to AI’s physical proximity to the event. HRW cited AI as the source from which they garnered this information and therefore the two NGOs provided the same explanation as to why 15 civilians were shot dead by ISIS on 29 May 2014.85 The victims were from Arab farming families. However, the violence took place not because of the families’ ethnicity, but due to ‘perceived support of a
82 “Interview: These Yezidi Girls Escaped ISIS. Now What?” Human Rights Watch, Last
modified April 15, 2015, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/15/interview-these-yezidi-girls-escaped-isis-now-what
83 “Iraq: ISIS Abducting, Killing, Expelling Minorities.” Human Rights Watch.
84 “Children among 15 civilians summarily killed in northern Syria,” Amnesty International,
Last modified June 5, 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/06/children-among-civilians-summarily-killed-northern-syria/
85 “Syria: ISIS Summarily Killed Civilians,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified June 14,
Kurdish armed group, the YPG (People’s Protection Unit) or because they were mistaken for Yezidi Kurds,’ who are regarded as infidels.86
The AI “News” item provides a basic description of why ISIS would mistakenly target a group they believe to be Yazidis. Amnesty’s usual explanation was that the Yazidis are a Kurdish ethnic minority in Syria with a ‘monotheistic religion linked to Zoroastrianism.’87 According to AI, they ‘feel at high risk of being targeted on the basis of their religious beliefs by ISIS and other armed groups.’88 AI gathered this information from interviews with Kurdish Yazidis, in the months prior to June 2014.
Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, fell to ISIS on 10 June 2014 after fighting between ISIS and Shia fighters. It was a significant event and both NGOs reported on it. Tayler’s article published on 24 June 2014 reports that Mosul fell on 10 June to ISIS, two weeks prior to the report.89 HRW’s “News Release” written from Duhok on July 19, 2014 established that ISIS formed in April 2013, and that they were capturing land in Syria and Iraq, to establish a ‘caliphate.’90 This is the only instance that ISIS’ establishment is referenced and the concept of a caliphate in both of the NGOs’ archives.
AI does not report on Mosul falling until 7 July, which contrasts to its reporting on the civilian deaths in al-Tleiliye.91 The article does not focus on why ISIS desire geographical gains, but one can infer that ISIS believes that by acquiring physical ground they can implement their vision of a world solely inhabited by Sunni Muslims.
A vivid example of ISIS’ contempt for the Yazidis was evident in AI’s publishing on 1 July 2014. The report referred to a video published on 29 June 2014 by ISIS, entitled “The End of Sykes-Picot,” where the men use the term “devil worshippers.”92 Thus AI includes information not only from victims and witnesses,
86 “Children among 15 civilians summarily killed in northern Syria.” Amnesty International. 87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 “Iraq’s Minorities Left between Scorpions and a Hard place.” Human Rights Watch. 90 “Iraq: ISIS Abducting, Killing, Expelling Minorities.” Human Rights Watch.
91 “The plight of Iraq’s civilian population,” Amnesty International, Last modified July 7,
2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2014/07/the-plight-of-iraqs-civilian-population/
92 “Iraq: Yezidis captured by ISIS amid mounting sectarian attacks,” Amnesty International,
Last modified July 1, 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/07/iraq-yezidis-captured-isis-amid-mounting-sectarian-attacks/
but the perpetrators too. It is essential to include the perpetrators, by any means available, as their reasons for persecution are integral to understanding the conflict. Again, a video by ISIS is referenced, in which they refer to their Yazidi hostages as “devil worshippers.”93 Moreover, Rovera explains that the specific minority groups ‘Assyrian Christians, Turkmen Shi’a, Shabak Shi’a, members of the Yezidi faith, Kakai and Sabean Mandaeans,’ as well as Arabs and Sunni Muslims known or believed to oppose IS have also been targeted in apparent reprisal attacks.’94 On a separate, albeit an important note, Rovera spoke of ‘Muslims’ description for the Yazidis, “devil worshippers.”95 A more clear distinction should be made between Muslims and ISIS.
Conversion of Males
Rovera wrote a piece on 20 August 2014, referring to the beginning of the month, whereby ISIS ‘turned on the Yezidi minority, whom they consider “devil worshippers”, demanding they “convert” or face death.’96 This clarifies a reason for the conflict: ISIS’ desire for a world where Islam is the only religion. HRW interviewed two boys aged 16 and 19 after they were released from being kidnapped. Their responses highlighted ISIS’ belief that their work is for the greater good. ISIS fighters had told the boys ‘“Do not call us Da’ash,” using the Iraqi acronym for ISIS, which Iraqis consider pejorative: They said, “We are mujahideen [warriors defending Islam], we are here to protect your country and your home.”’97 The purpose of taking the boys had been to convert them to Islam, but they also were taught how to fight for ISIS. Thus in 2014, ISIS did not have a blanket policy to kill. At that stage, they still viewed the Yazidis as able to convert and become part of their religion.
93 “The plight of Iraq’s civilian population.” Amnesty International.
94 “Gruesome evidence of ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq as Islamic States moves to wipes
out minorities,” Amnesty International, Last modified September 2, 2014,
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/09/gruesome-evidence-ethnic-cleansing-northern-iraq-islamic-state-moves-wipe-out-minorities/
95 “Iraqis displaced by ISIS attacks in Sinjar ‘desperate’ for aid.” Amnesty International. 96 “Escape from Sinjar Mountain, but what next?” Amnesty International, Last modified
August 20, 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/08/escape-from-sinjar-mountain-but-what-next/
97 “Iraq: Forced Marriage, Conversion for Yezidis,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified
October 11, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/11/iraq-forced-marriage-conversion-yezidis
AI and HRW continued to look at conversion and child soldiers in their reports from 2015 to 2017, however their reporting fits into chapter four, where this becomes a ramification of the conflict, rather than an explanation for it.
Enslavement of Females
Female exploitation is another component to the conflict with an alleged justification being provided by manipulation of religious text. ISIS provides an explanation, in an article published on their online English-magazine Dabiq, for why this is allowed in the realms of Islam. Tayler wrote a “Commentary” piece that was last modified on 25 November 2014. It looks at the magazine, which ‘targets potential recruits in countries such as the UK, the US and Australia.’98 Tayler states that the magazine on 11 October 2014 ‘endorsed sexual slavery.’99 The magazine argues that taking minority women, more specifically the Yazidis, ‘as concubines is a firmly established aspect of sharia [Islamic law],’ and if one questions this assertion one is ‘weak-minded and weak-hearted,’ and ‘apostatising from Islam.’100 Miscati also argues that ISIS leaders employ religion as a tool to exploit Yazidi women. Miscati gleans this from a document issued by ISIS’ Research and Fatwa Department. The document refers to ISIS’ ‘extreme interpretation of Islamic law, saying it permits sex with non-Muslim “slaves”—including young girls who have yet to reach puberty—as long as they are “fit” for intercourse.’101 It also ‘refers to female slaves as property, thus sanctioning their sale and disciplinary beating. Former captives told me [Miscati] that Islamic State fighters had sold girls and women to one another for as much as $2,000.’102
Roth wrote about sexual slavery in September 2015, prompted by ISIS’ publication of a pamphlet posted on a pro-ISIS twitter account. It contained justifications for abuse of non-Muslim women and girls using a
98 “The silence over Islamic State’s abuse of women,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified
November 25, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/11/25/silence-over-islamic-states-abuse-women
99 Ibid. 100 Ibid.
101 “Raped by ISIS and Trying to Face the Future,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified
April 14, 2015, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/14/raped-isis-and-trying-face-future
answer format.103 Roth concludes that ‘in the minds of its authors, this is not a lawless document. It sets forth an interpretation of sharia, or Islamic law, albeit an extreme one. Far from pure licentiousness, it is filled with legal constraints.’104 These pieces reinforce the extent to which members of ISIS view Yazidis as “infidels” and the different ways ISIS pursues their dreams of a caliphate. It also provides an insight into why ISIS fighters believe this type of conduct is appropriate. HRW reported in 2015 that ISIS had instituted ‘a female “Khansa,” or morality, department to enforce morality codes among women of Mosul.’105
AI also addressed female exploitation, but not in an attempt to explain the emergence of the genocide, thus it is explored in chapters four and five.
Conclusions
Various HRW employees provided explanations that were far more thorough than Amnesty’s. After looking at the past, in reports by both NGOs, one is brought to the present, whereby ISIS is acting as perpetrator of genocide. However, it is interesting to note that a wish to understand what drives the perpetrators is not clear in AI’s articles. One must infer from the information why ISIS fighters are forcing men to convert and enslaving women.
Overall, their base approach to research is similar, however HRW went into more details. These disparities could be due to HRW having 230 more employees than AI and therefore more members of staff work on one topic. Having read all articles between 2014 and 2017 there are certainly more people writing HRW’s articles on the Yazidis. 17 employees are cited in HRW’s reports, whereas AI had eight members of staff contributing.
103 “Slavery: The ISIS Rules,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified September 5, 2015,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/05/slavery-isis-rules
104 Ibid.
105 “Events of 2015,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified December 22, 2015,
III
Displacement and Forced Confinement
‘“We can’t leave. ISIS will catch us and kill us if we do. For god’s sake, please help us.”’106
A man trapped in the village of Kocho. Introduction
In this chapter, the major and universal ramification of conflict, displacement is analysed, insofar as who is being displaced, who is causing said displacement, and where those displaced subsequently settle. Our attention then turns to the capturing of Yazidi men, women, and children. The conditions in which they are kept in and the ways the captives are treated are illuminated. Some captives managed to escape, and thus we touch upon life post confinement. This chapter will also highlight the differing explanations offered by the NGOs as to why men, boys, and females were placed in forced confinement.
Displacement
After observing AI and HRW’s displacement calculations it is clear civilians as a single entity are affected. However, the NGOs repeatedly made reference to Yazidis forming the majority of those displaced. The specific locations mentioned by AI and HRW were Kocho, a village on the south side of the Sinjar Mountain, as well as the Sinjar Mountain itself; a Yezidi village south of Dohuk, the capital of Dohuk Governorate in Iraqi Kurdistan; al-Taliliya near Ras al-‘Ayn in Syria; Rabia, an Iraqi town on the Syrian border; Hamdaniyah, Sinjar and other parts of the Nineveh Plains and Mosul and Bashiqa in northern Iraq. Yazidis were the majority of inhabitants in these places prior to the entrance of ISIS fighters.
It appears that the human rights advocates divided the issue of displacement in two, to best achieve their aims. Firstly, whose actions were causing displacement; and secondly, who was taking the refugees in? Interviews with those that fled were utilised by the NGOs to understand who was making areas
106 “Humanitarian efforts failings the hundreds of thousands forced to flee ethnic cleansing
in northern Iraq,” Amnesty International, Last modified August 12, 2014,
uninhabitable. ISIS was a constant in the articles, due to their repeated entry in different areas. AI reported that ‘most Yezidi Kurds fled the area [Syria] in 2013 after ISIS took control.’107 HRW emphasized the extent of ISIS’ responsibility for the displacement in an article in December 2016. It explains that before ISIS entered Sinjar in August 2014, 360,000 Yazidis resided there. However, ‘the ISIS attacks displaced at least 90 percent of the Yezidi population from Sinjar’ with more than ‘180,000 displaced Yezidis in camps in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq,’ with only a small portion of Yazidis returning to their homes.108
The US-led coalition is also said to cause displacement, due to its use of bombs, which the coalition argued are used to stop the conflict. (The coalition formed as a result of ISIS’ actions, and will be more fully addressed in chapter six.) Additionally, HRW wrote in 2017 about the Iraqi government causing displacement, as they attempted to gain Mosul from ISIS. At the time of writing, September 2017, this operation was entering its third month and ‘the number of people displaced by the fighting is approaching 130,000, and the many camps housing these families are reaching capacity.’109 Nisha Varia, Advocacy Director for the Women’s Rights Division, succinctly summarises the reasons for displacement: civilians ‘live in fear of airstrikes by United States-led coalition and Iraqi government forces. Those interviewed said the combination of food shortages, fear of airstrikes, and abuse by ISIS led them to flee.’110
As said, the articles also focused on who will accept those displaced. The articles look at the Kurdistan region (KRI), the Hungarian-Serbian border and Germany. In December 2014, AI believed that since January 2014 over two million Iraqis were forced to migrate, with the Kurdistan region hosting ‘48 per cent of the
107 “Children among 15 civilians summarily killed in northern Syria,” Amnesty International,
Last modified June 5, 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/06/children-among-civilians-summarily-killed-northern-syria/
108 “Iraq: KRG Restrictions Harms Yezidi Recovery,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified
December 4, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/04/iraq-krg-restrictions-harm-yezidi-recovery
109 “Kurdish Officials Shut Down Group Aiding Yezidis,” Human Rights Watch, Last
modified January 3, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/03/kurdish-officials-shut-down-group-aiding-yezidis
110 “Iraq: Women Suffer Under ISIS,” Human Rights Watch, Last modified April 5, 2016,
