Human Rights Watch Protects the Arab Tyrants by Gerald M

Human Rights Watch Protects the Arab Tyrants by Gerald M. Steinberg n October 2011, as the Libyan uprising neared its end with the death of Mu’ammar al-Qaddafi, Human Rights Watch (HRW)—a highly influential global organization I claiming to promote universal moral principles–published a statement condemning Western governments for their “apparent eagerness to embrace Qaddafi because of his support on counterterrorism, as well as lucrative business opportunities” that, according to HRW, “tempered their criticism of his human rights record in recent years.”1 What this statement conspicuously failed to note is that HRW had been an active participant in this eager embrace of the Qaddafi regime. Led by Executive Director Kenneth Roth and Sarah Leah Whitson, director of its Middle East and North Africa division, HRW has an overall dismal record with regard to “naming and shaming” Arab dictatorships. Over the years, it has devoted few resources to opposing the daily human rights violations that are characteristic of these regimes and has even built alliances with some. In 2009, for example, Whitson visited Saudi Arabia, where, instead of speaking out against attacks on women, minorities, and others, she sought funds to expand HRW’s role in the campaign to market the U.N.’s Goldstone report which falsely accused Israel of committing war crimes.2 HRW is a financially flush but morally bankrupt organization. With an annual budget of approximately $50 million, it is a highly visible institution with direct access to the international media, diplomats, political leaders, and United Nations bodies. Yet its docu- mented and quantifiable behavior with regard to the Middle East demonstrates a deter- mined effort to avert its eyes from the worst human rights abuses while focusing on post- colonial ideologues’ favorite whipping boy,3 Israel—the only democracy in the region. 1 “Libya: New Era Needs Focus on Rights,” Human Rights Watch (hereafter, HRW), Washington, D.C., Oct. 20, 2011. 2 “HRW Raises Funds in Saudi Arabia by Demonizing Israel,” Gerald M. Steinberg is professor of political Digest, NGO Monitor, Jerusalem, May 2009; David Bernstein, “Human Rights Watch Goes to Saudi Arabia,” The Wall Street studies, the founder of the Program on Conflict Journal, July 15, 2009. Management and Negotiation at Bar Ilan Uni- 3 Sarah Mandel, Experts or Ideologues: A Systematic Analysis of Human Rights Watch’s Focus on Israel, NGO Monitor, versity, and president of NGO Monitor. The au- Sept. 2009; Robert L. Bernstein, “Human Rights in the Middle thor gratefully acknowledges the assistance and East,” presentation, The Shirley and Leonard Goldstein Lecture on Human Rights, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Nov. 10, suggestions of Gidon Shaviv, Anne Herzberg, 2010; Robert L. Bernstein, “Rights Watchdog, Lost in the and Joshua Bacon. Mideast,” The New York Times, Oct. 20, 2009. Steinberg: Human Rights Watch / 49 was supported by the nongovernmental organi- HRW’S POLITICAL IMPACT zation (NGO) network active in the U.N., includ- AND THE “HALO EFFECT” ing HRW. Roth, as the head of HRW, indirectly acknowledged this neglect and sought to jus- The warped agenda that focuses dispropor- tify the selective targeting and double standards tionately on the Jewish state was the basis for as “higher expectations” for democracies.6 criticism voiced by HRW’s founder Robert Furthermore, in forming the Middle East and Bernstein in 2009 regarding the organization’s North Africa (MENA) division in the 1990s, Roth failure to direct resources to the practices of to- brought in Joe Stork and then Sarah Leah talitarian Arab regimes.4 Detailed documentation Whitson, both of whom had records reflecting and global campaigns on these countries would ideologically based activism, a warped romanti- have required hard work, cism toward violent Arab strongmen, and double including obtaining ac- standards regarding human rights.7 HRW also HRW’s Middle cess for researchers as has had links with Richard Falk, a “9/11 truther” well as responding to (claiming that the U.S. government was involved East agenda threats to their lives and in planning or executing these mass terror at- reflects a personal safety. Israel, tacks) and fierce opponent of international ac- starry-eyed by contrast, was “low tion against the Qaddafi regime.8 Until recently, 5 perception of hanging fruit.” Access, Falk was a member of HRW’s prestigious Santa safety, and working con- Barbara (California) Committee, and the organiza- political Islam. ditions in Tel Aviv and tion supported his campaigns.9 However, in De- Jerusalem are far more cember 2012, U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki- comfortable for Western human rights activists Moon, British prime minister David Cameron, and (and for journalists and diplomats) than Dam- U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice con- ascus, Tripoli, Gaza, or Baghdad. The focus on demned Falk for his anti-Semitic statements, Israel is also part of the wider post-colonial ide- prompting his forced resignation from the Cali- ology, which prefers targeting Western demo- fornia committee and disassociation from HRW.10 cratic societies for their supposed failings. In an understated critique, Catherine But HRW is not simply passive with respect Fitzpatrick, a HRW staff member for ten years, to authoritarian Middle Eastern countries. The observed that the organization’s actions in the organization’s very limited criticism and actual Middle East are taken cooperation with closed Arab regimes has added to the protection that they receive (or extort) in a highly politicized manner, not recogniz- from other watchdog international organizations. ing the essential political act of picking and choosing cases and priorities, and engaging The agenda of the U.N. Human Rights Council with or rejecting this or that regime. Human (or Commission prior to 2006), for example, has rights are universal, and this universality dic- been manipulated by the powerful Organization tates that all countries be equally subject to of the Islamic Conference (OIC) with its rotating scrutiny … Human rights groups would do membership often including these dictatorships. The OIC members have had no interest in draw- ing attention to or investigating their own violations. At the same time, their highly biased agenda 6 Hilary Leila Kreiger, “We Don’t Do Comparisons,” The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 11, 2004. 7 Mandel, Experts or Ideologues. 8 Richard Falk, “Gaddafi, Moral Interventionism, Libya, and the Arab Revolutionary Movement,” Today’s Zaman (Istanbul), 4 Bernstein, “Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast”; idem, Mar. 20, 2011. “Human Rights in the Middle East.” 9 “Israel: Reverse Expulsion Human Rights Rapporteur,” HRW, 5 Ben Birnbaum, “Minority Report,” The New Republic, Apr. Dec. 17, 2008. 27, 2010. 10 The Forward (New York), Dec. 19, 2012. 50 / MIDDLE EAST QUARTERLY SUMMER 2013 better to “go where the violations are” instead of endlessly balancing the saddle bags—which in the case of HRW has often meant especially focusing on Is- rael because it can.11 HRW’s Middle East agenda also reflects a highly ideological foundation and starry-eyed perception of political Islam, which departs from the universal principles of human rights and grants exemptions to favorites.12 For example, in his introduction to the 2012 World Report, HRW executive director Roth called on the leaders of demo- cratic countries to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and Egypt since they “merit presumptive support.”13 In response, the heads of seven- Because it is a highly respected human rights teen human rights groups published a organization, Human Rights Watch’s reports are often public letter highly critical of Roth: immediately accepted and repeated without a perceived need for independent verification. Yet its you are not a state; you are the head of an international human rights orga- semipermanent circle of leaders, executive director nization whose role is to report on Ken Roth (bottom left), Sarah Leah Whitson (top left), human rights violations, an honorable director of the Middle East and North Africa division, and necessary task which your essay and Joe Stork (right), division deputy director, largely neglects. You say, “It is im- evince a double standard regarding human rights portant to nurture the rights-respect- abuses by Middle Eastern autocrats. ing elements of political Islam while standing firm against repression in its name,” but you fail to call for the most basic guarantee of rights—the separation of religion from the state. You … are so uncon- ally going to set the bar that low? This is the cerned with the rights of women, gays, and voice of an apologist, not a senior human rights 14 religious minorities that you mention them advocate. only once, as follows: “Many Islamic parties have indeed embraced disturbing positions Gita Sahgal, who had previously headed that would subjugate the rights of women and Amnesty International’s gender rights unit until restrict religious, personal, and political free- forced out for criticizing the organization’s policy doms. But so have many of the autocratic of accommodation with Moazzam Begg (ac- regimes that the West props up.” Are we re- cused by the U.S. government of being a “sym- pathizer, a recruiter, and a financier” of al-Qaeda as well as promoting a positive view of the 11 Catherine Fitzpatrick, “Women and Islam: A Debate with Human Rights Watch,” The New York Review of Books Blog, Feb. 23, 2012. 12 Mandel, Experts or Ideologues. 14 Fitzpatrick, “Women and Islam: A Debate with Human 13 World Report 2012, HRW, pp. 13-4. Rights Watch.” Steinberg: Human Rights Watch / 51 Taliban and Islamic fundamentalism15), wrote in taled (see Chart 2, page 54). Due to the high a separate response to Roth and HRW: resource commitment required for major reports and the value assigned to them by HRW as re- In both his essay and this response, HRW flected in their accompanying press conferences blurs the boundaries between support for and publicity campaigns, these documents are a governments and human rights advocacy.

Load more