Nobel Peace Laureates Slam Human Rights Watch's Refusal to Cut Ties to U.S. Government
Nobel Peace Laureates Slam Human Rights Watch's Refusal to Cut Ties to U.S. Government
Human Rights Watch's affiliation with ex-CIA and NATO officials generates perverse incentives and undermine its reputation for independence.
July 8, 2014
In a May 12 letter published on AlterNet, two Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and over 100 scholars, journalists and human rights activists called on Human Rights Watch to close its revolving door to the U.S. government. On June 3, HRW published a response from executive director Kenneth Roth on its website, arguing that their concern is misplaced. In a June 11 debate on Democracy Now!, HRW Counsel and Spokesman Reed Brody similarly rejected their recommendations. Now, Nobel Laureates Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel join fellow signatories Richard Falk (United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories from 2008-14) and Hans von Sponeck (UN Assistant Secretary General from 1998-2000) in demanding that their proposals be taken seriously, and additionally, that HRW remove former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana from its Board of Directors.
Dear Kenneth Roth,
While we welcome your stated commitment to Human Rights Watch's independence and credibility, we are dismayed by your rejection of our common-sense suggestion for strengthening them: bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as HRW staff, advisors or board membersor, at a bare minimum, mandate lengthy cooling-off periods before and after any associate moves between HRW and the foreign-policy divisions of the U.S. government.
Before addressing your letters objections to the three instances of HRWs advocacy that suggest a conflict of interest, we would like to reiterate that they were limited to only recent history, and that other cases could have been raised as well. One obvious example of HRW's failure to appropriately criticize U.S. crimes occurred after the 2004 coup détat against the democratically elected government of Haiti. The U.S. government essentially kidnapped Haitis president; thousands of people were killed under the ensuing coup regime; and deposed officials of the constitutional government were jailed.
In the face of what were likely the worst human rights abuses of any country in the Western hemisphere at the time, HRW barely lifted a finger. HRW never hosted a press conference criticizing the coup or post-coup atrocities. In contrast to HRWs appeals to the Organization of American States Inter-American Democratic Charter for Venezuela and Cuba, HRW never publicly invoked the Charter in the case of Haiti, even as Articles 20 and 21 afforded multilateral measures in the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime. HRW never placed an op-ed about the overthrow in a prominent newspaper. (In 2004 The New York Times alone published at least five HRW opinion pieces and four HRW letters on other subjects.) It is reasonable for outside observers to question whether this lack of response from HRW to such large-scale human rights violations had anything to do with U.S. foreign-policy priorities.
More:
http://www.alternet.org/world/nobel-peace-laureates-slam-human-rights-watchs-refusal-cut-ties-us-government?paging=off