http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7625629.stm
Yesterday the Human Rights Watch crowd released a report on Venezuela entitled 'A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela' (report here). The government has reacted by expelling Jose Miguel Vivanco, HRW's Americas director and possibly his assistant.

It's been clear for a while that Venezuela has a political problem. Opponents of American policies have venerated Chavez, and perhaps overlooked some of his more sinister actions. But I think it will be difficult to defend this latest action, or to discredit the report. Even with all the recent expulsions I'm surprised at the government's rash actions on this one. The vague accusations of violating the constitution and laws, illegally interfering in the country's internal affairs and plotting from within sound uncomfortably similar to the accusations levelled at Bolivia's American ambassador, and in my opinion will discredit any justification there may have been for his expulsion.

[quote="cactus flower"]

905 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7625629.stm
Yesterday the Human Rights Watch crowd released a report on Venezuela entitled 'A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela' (report here). The government has reacted by expelling Jose Miguel Vivanco, HRW's Americas director and possibly his assistant.

It's been clear for a while that Venezuela has a political problem. Opponents of American policies have venerated Chavez, and perhaps overlooked some of his more sinister actions. But I think it will be difficult to defend this latest action, or to discredit the report. Even with all the recent expulsions I'm surprised at the government's rash actions on this one. The vague accusations of violating the constitution and laws, illegally interfering in the country's internal affairs and plotting from within sound uncomfortably similar to the accusations levelled at Bolivia's American ambassador, and in my opinion will discredit any justification there may have been for his expulsion.

Who are "Human Rights Watch" ?

I'll read the report 905, but haven't had time yet.

I'm not sure who you think "venerate" Chavez. There may well be some. My view of him would be similar to my view of Ghaddafi, Castro, or in his day, Saddam Hussein. All of these are if you like bourgeois leaders who have come to power and maintained power with the backing mainly of the poor and working classes, but also the army. Historically a lot of them relied on the Soviet Union to some extent to prevent overthrow by western powers.
They do a perpetual balancing act looking after the interests of the armed forces and the working class. They don't introduce a socialist or communist economy, but do nationalise resources and use part of that to give workers a better standard of living. Ultimately, they don't want to give the working class real power and may fear their own "supporters". The way that Saddam fought the war, pushing people out into impossible positions in which they were slaughtered, says a lot.

I'm not sure where Evo Morales fits in with this. From the last I heard, the class of workers, peasants and poor people that support him are very frustrated that he has not dealt with a "firm hand" with the right wing secessionists that they see as a threat to their living standards and future. He does not look as if he wants to ride that tiger, but if he does not rely on them, his position is very, very shaky. If he's not careful, he'll end up as another Allende.

When the US oppose these people, you might like to think that is to bring in a Happy Days US democracy with burgers for all. History shows that its more likely that they will have people slaughtered in the football stadium, ban the Trade Unions and drive people into abject poverty, while their friends abstract the mineral wealth from under them.

905 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7625629.stm
Yesterday the Human Rights Watch crowd released a report on Venezuela entitled 'A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela' (report here). The government has reacted by expelling Jose Miguel Vivanco, HRW's Americas director and possibly his assistant.

It's been clear for a while that Venezuela has a political problem. Opponents of American policies have venerated Chavez, and perhaps overlooked some of his more sinister actions. But I think it will be difficult to defend this latest action, or to discredit the report. Even with all the recent expulsions I'm surprised at the government's rash actions on this one. The vague accusations of violating the constitution and laws, illegally interfering in the country's internal affairs and plotting from within sound uncomfortably similar to the accusations levelled at Bolivia's American ambassador, and in my opinion will discredit any justification there may have been for his expulsion.

'HRW crowd' (and I accentuate the crowd!) is certainly the correct term 905!

As this would be the same all-American HRW which receives bounteous funds from the ---American "National Endowment from Democracy" (NED) and George Soros (Soros who funds various "Privatization Project"(s) in Eastern Europe and elsewhere)? The very same NED which funds opposition groups in Venezuela....
what a tangled web we weave...

The same HRW that has traditionally centered its criticism on leftwing governments and movements in Latin America and whose board is made up exclusively of a US elite?

Whenever I see a HRW report on Latin America I always think of the 'human rights' equivalent of Fox News!

some, perhaps, useful articles on this rarther biased source.
Hijacking Human Rights

Quote :

[s
Abusing the Principles of Human Rights

In an instructive article dealing with human rights abuses in China, Ralph McGehee (1999) draws attention to the links between HRW's Asia branch and the imperial ambitions of the NED and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He notes that: "US corporate-owned media, in league with government agencies, orchestrate media coverage to demonize states in conflict with corporate plans". He observed that in China's case many of those stories "seem to be generated by the 'privately funded' US-based Human Rights Watch/Asia" and that this:

"...reveal[s] the current US policy of using (rightly or wrongly) the theme of human rights violations to alter or overthrow non-US-favored governments. In those countries emerging from the once Soviet Bloc that is forming new governmental systems; or where emerging or Third World governments resist US influence or control, the US uses 'human rights violations,' as an excuse for political action operations. 'Human Rights' replaces 'Communist Conspiracy' as the justification for overthrowing governments."[3]
......

[...]

Quote :

The first full-length investigation of the people working behind the scenes at HRW was undertaken by Paul Treanor (2004), in which he methodically worked through the elite linkages of their Europe and Central Asia Advisory Committee. Treanor noted that:

"...human-rights interventionism became a consensus among the 'foreign policy elite' even before September 11. Human Rights Watch itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGO's and academics. It is certainly not an association of 'concerned private citizens'. HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US."[11]

Indeed, HRW was created in 1978 as the Helsinki Watch (which later became HRW's Europe and Central Asia Advisory Committee) "at the instigation of [ambassador-at-large for President Carter] Arthur Goldberg" with the start-up costs covered by a $400,000 from the Ford Foundation.[12] Furthermore, as Bruce Montgomery (2002) observes their establishment credentials were fortified by Robert L. Bernstein (the founder of HRW) who "began by recruiting the establishment elite to give the cause clout and visibility."[13] Kirsten Sellars (2002) also points out that:

"The Ford Foundation played a crucial part in the development of the human rights movement in the seventies and eighties. A graph based on The Foundation Grants Index shows that Ford provided the lion's share of US foundation grants for international human rights work in the years 1977 to 1991, especially in the first five years. (Kathryn Sikkink, 'Human Rights, Principled Issue-Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin America', International Organization, 47(3), Summer 1993, 421.) In particular, Ford was responsible for financially kick-starting many new human rights NGOs in the late seventies, including Helsinki Watch and the other Watch committees, the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, and the International Human Rights Law Group [now known as Global Rights. It also revived older groups such as the International League for Human Rights."[14]

For activists and researchers familiar with the Ford Foundation's elitist and anti-democratic history, this in itself should start alarm bells ringing as to the political motivations guiding the financial support which helped bring about HRW's existence.[15] This is because the Ford Foundation's backing of HRW is consistent with 'democratic' changes occurring within the US foreign policy elites thinking in the 1970s, which was beginning to recognise the importance of soft-power in promoting American hegemony. These changes were no doubt informed by the political experiences gained by the political elites running liberal philanthropic foundations (like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations'), which in 1984 eventually led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the United States Institute for Peace (USIP). Ironically, these groups carry out the same disruptive work that the CIA and USAID are well known for, yet under the protective rhetoric of democracy and peace.[16] However, the type of democracy promoted by these organisations is best referred to as low-intensity democracy, or polyarchy.

[......]

As the latter part of this study will illustrate, some of HRW's Americas Advisory Board are directly promoting the agenda of the NED-linked 'democracy' establishment, while many others are closely linked to its most influential proponents. For reasons of concision, however, the author has chosen to focus predominantly on the 'democratic' affiliations of HRW's Americas Advisory Board members, and so does not concentrate on each individual's links to what appear to be genuinely democratic organizations. This decision has been taken because the primary purpose of this essay is to draw attention to the close interlocks that exist between the human rights and the 'democracy promoting' communities. That many of the people working with HRW are also invited to work with progressive groups' is a given (especially considering the lack of attention paid to their activities), but this should surely also indicate the depth of the problem facing progressive activists who endeavour to promote a democracy based on participatory principles, not imperialism. (In most cases progressive links are not highlighted, although many of them can be found at SourceWatch.)

(links are included in the above article.)

Who is behind Human Rights Watch?

Quote :

In recent years attitudes hardened: human-rights interventionism became a consensus among the 'foreign policy elite' even before September 11. Human Rights Watch itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGO's and academics. It is certainly not an association of 'concerned private citizens'. HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US. Cynically summarised, Human Rights Watch arose as a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department.

Human Rights Watch in Service to the War Party: Including A Review of "Weighing the Evidence: Lessons from the Slobodan Milosevic Trial"

Human Rights and Media Manipulation From Pinochet to ‘Human Rights’ in China

Quote :

‘Democratic’ Directors

Human Rights in China (HRIC) work appears to be closely related to that undertaken by it’s better known counterpart, Human Rights Watch, as Robert L. Bernstein, the founder and former chair of Human Rights Watch is currently the chair of HRIC’s board of directors (he is also a member of the national council of the ‘democratic’ Human Rights First). Not surprisingly Human Rights Watch and HRIC regularly work together to publish human rights reports, which is fitting as extremely close ties exist between Human Rights Watch and the global democracy manipulators (like the NED).(For further details see, Hijacking Human Rights: A Critical Examination of Human Rights Watch’s Americas Branch and their Links to the ‘Democracy’ Establishment.)

Thanks for that, Pax. Human Rights Watch's role in Georgia was notable. Georgian tanks were fired into basements in Tskinvali, in which civilians were taking shelter, and HRW managed to report that the South Ossetians were using tanks against Georgian civilians. They were constantly quoted by apologists for Saakashvili.

However they do also produce occasional critiques of the US. Is that just a devilish cunning cover?

I've always thought Human Rights watch should go and base themselves in Switzerland or something. It would gain more credibility as an independent observer if it did.

That said it is an organisation which is constantly criticised from both sides so it must be doing something right.

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks for that, Pax. Human Rights Watch's role in Georgia was notable. Georgian tanks were fired into basements in Tskinvali, in which civilians were taking shelter, and HRW managed to report that the South Ossetians were using tanks against Georgian civilians. They were constantly quoted by apologists for Saakashvili.

However they do also produce occasional critiques of the US. Is that just a devilish cunning cover?

Sure they critique the US internally but they take a very biased line wrt American foreign policy, particularly with respect to Eastern Europe and Latin America (and only a brief reading of their history would show why...). I would agree with the HRW's US internal critique but they certainly don't analyse the economic underpinnings of any human rights abuses*. Outside of the Cold war, perhaps, it's more of an intrinsic bias stemming from the people involved at a high level (wealthy elite Democrats who are naturally pro-free-market and privatisation and others with links to the State Department etc) rather than a conscious, nay devilish, cover?


* for want of a better reference, Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' briefly mentions the this and in a historical perspective.

Pax wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks for that, Pax. Human Rights Watch's role in Georgia was notable. Georgian tanks were fired into basements in Tskinvali, in which civilians were taking shelter, and HRW managed to report that the South Ossetians were using tanks against Georgian civilians. They were constantly quoted by apologists for Saakashvili.

However they do also produce occasional critiques of the US. Is that just a devilish cunning cover?

Sure they critique the US internally but they take a very biased line wrt American foreign policy, particularly with respect to Eastern Europe and Latin America (and only a brief reading of their history would show why...). I would agree with the HRW's US internal critique but they certainly don't analyse the economic underpinnings of any human rights abuses*. Outside of the Cold war, perhaps, it's more of an intrinsic bias stemming from the people involved at a high level (wealthy elite Democrats who are naturally pro-free-market and privatisation and others with links to the State Department etc) rather than a conscious, nay devilish, cover?


* for want of a better reference, Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' briefly mentions the this and in a historical perspective.

Here is a 2004 critique of the "European branch".
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html

The possibility is that there are both concious and unconcious biases. They certainly seem to be enormously well resourced, given the numbers of offices and personel. It is striking ideologically that "human rights" don't seem in their book to include economic rights.

Sorry to be only getting back to this now, but my earlier post mysteriously disapeared.

I fear we are playiong the man rather than the ball here. Has anyone any criticism of the report itself? I know little about HRW but trusting as I am, I'm prepared to trust them over Chavez.

They have faced plenty of accusations of bias as this wiki link suggests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch

There are plenty of accusations of being anti-American and anti-Israeli.

905 wrote:

Sorry to be only getting back to this now, but my earlier post mysteriously disapeared.

I fear we are playiong the man rather than the ball here. Has anyone any criticism of the report itself? I know little about HRW but trusting as I am, I'm prepared to trust them over Chavez.

They have faced plenty of accusations of bias as this wiki link suggests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch

There are plenty of accusations of being anti-American and anti-Israeli.

Hi 905 - there was a crash of the forumakers system on Sunday and all the threads from Sunday evening to Monday were lost on all their fora - there was wailing and gnashing of teeth

There is a thread here on Disappearing Machine Nation that explains it. Everything seems ok now but it was an unnerving experience.

It seems to me that Human Rights Watch has a US Liberal Democrat agenda and standpoint. It also seems highly likely that there are at least a few likely lads sprinkled though their personel. I haven't seen evidence of it being a "front" organisation for anybody, at least not yet. They do criticise the US for transgressing on Human Rights regularly. I don't personally think they are capable of stepping outside a US-centric world view and relating to what it is like trying to maintain an independent State from the US. I also don't think they see poverty as a human rights issue, as many do. I wonder if they are monitoring the number of people in the US thrown out of their homes. All in all, in their international activities it is likely that sometimes they get it right and sometimes wrong. I think they were wrong in the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict - they were amongst first on the scene there and failed to get a balanced picture out.

Chavez is not a saint, but the reason he is demonised imo is that he ensures that national resources benefit the wider population and not just a few CEOs.

They ignore economic rights, so you ignore the many rights they do uphold? Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Chavez faces plenty of criticism that doesn't arise from an American right-wing agenda. Mugabe was once the darling of the world too.

905 wrote:

They ignore economic rights, so you ignore the many rights they do uphold? Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Chavez faces plenty of criticism that doesn't arise from an American right-wing agenda. Mugabe was once the darling of the world too.

No, I don't ignore rights. All I would say about HRW is that their performance is uneven, and I would not immediately accept any report of theirs without question - I would look for a few other views to cross check. I would be very interested to see a left wing critique of Chavez. Chavez is not a communist, I suppose you could describe him as a bonapartist type of leader. Did you have a look at the Morales interview? It is a completely different attitude, coming from agriculture and the indigenous people. It would not take us to Mars, but personally I think we could do with a few more like that in the overall mix.

I don't see why you need a left-wing critique of Chavez. My main criticism would be of his attitude to power. Left/right dichotomies are largely irrelevant to dictatorial tendencies.

Morales seems much better than the charismatic Chavez. I don't trust charisma in leaders. But poor Morales is stuck in a torrid political climate, with excessive anti-Americanism on one side and its polar opposite on the other. He leans to the left and gets sucked into this conflict between the Bush and Chavez. I think both the Americans want him sucked in, because they can legitimately oppose his policies, and Chavez wants him sucked in because he is a natural ally. The question is, does Morales want to be sucked in? It does his policies no good at all.

Anyway, I feel Morales is more a topic for the other thread on him kicking out the American ambassador.

905 wrote:

I don't see why you need a left-wing critique of Chavez. My main criticism would be of his attitude to power. Left/right dichotomies are largely irrelevant to dictatorial tendencies.

Morales seems much better than the charismatic Chavez. I don't trust charisma in leaders. But poor Morales is stuck in a torrid political climate, with excessive anti-Americanism on one side and its polar opposite on the other. He leans to the left and gets sucked into this conflict between the Bush and Chavez. I think both the Americans want him sucked in, because they can legitimately oppose his policies, and Chavez wants him sucked in because he is a natural ally. The question is, does Morales want to be sucked in? It does his policies no good at all.

Anyway, I feel Morales is more a topic for the other thread on him kicking out the American ambassador.

Quote :

Chavez faces plenty of criticism that doesn't arise from an American right-wing agenda.

I was responding to your earlier remark. I have to say that the vast amount of criticism of Chavez that I've seen has come from the US right or its spokesmen. Their criticism is without much interest because of their clearly predatory agenda and history of coups in Latin America. This leaves me knowing less about him than I'd like. I notice that there is a much tighter bonding coming about in Latin America now with the new Paraguayan head of state and others relying on UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations, to make it easier to resist US pressures.

http://www.comunidadandina.org/INGLES/csn/treaty.htm

The HRW are back in the news, still relishing their role as the Fox News of human rights groups. Oh wait no, they're criticising Colombia's right-wing government. How 'bout that?

Here's the report: Breaking the Grip? Obstacles to Justice for Paramilitary Mafias in Colombia

In fairness, if the Irish Times report is anything to go by (link here) they go a lot easier on Uribe than they did on Chavez.