Human Rights Watch

200px

Human Rights Watch is a U.S.-based international non-governmental organization that conducts research on human rights. Its headquarters are in New York City.

Human Rights Watch produces research reports on perceived human rights violations. This is intended to draw international attention to abuses and to put pressure on governments and international organizations to reform. Researchers conduct fact-finding missions to investigate suspect situations and generate coverage in local and international media. Issues raised by the organization in its reports include social and gender discrimination, torture, military use of children, government corruption, and abuses in criminal justice systems. Human Rights Watch documents and reports perceived violations of the laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian law.

The organization was founded under the name Helsinki Watch in 1978 to monitor the former Soviet Union's compliance with the Helsinki Accords. As the organization grew, it formed other "watch committees" to cover other regions of the world. In 1988, all of the committees were united under one umbrella to form Human Rights Watch. One of the original founders and a president of the organization was Robert L. Bernstein.

Human Rights Watch was one of six international NGOs that founded the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers in 1998. It is also the co-chair of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, a global coalition of civil society groups that successfully lobbied to introduce the Ottawa Convention, a treaty that prohibits the use of anti-personnel landmines.

Each year, Human Rights Watch gives grants to writers worldwide who are in financial need and who they consider to have been victims of persecution. The Hellman/Hammett grants are financed by the estate of the playwright Lillian Hellman in funds set up in her name and that of her long-time companion, the novelist Dashiell Hammett. In addition to providing financial assistance, the Hellman/Hammett grants attempt to raise awareness of censorship[link].

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty, and restrictions to abortion and contraceptives. It supports gay rights, freedom of religion, and the press.

Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of non-governmental organizations that monitor censorship worldwide.

Recent

Human Rights Watch made recent headlines by criticizing the Jordanian government for arresting elected officials who praised Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, at ceremonies held in response to his death. Human Rights Watch also spoke out against the mass killings and government-imposed famines during the last decade of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's rule.[link]

Publications

Human Rights Watch publishes reports on several topics [link] and compiles annual reports ("World Report") presenting an overview of the worldwide state of human rights.

Criticism

Human Rights Watch has been criticized by various human rights activists, non-governmental organizations, politicians, and media as having an anti-Semitic or anti-Israel bias. This includes the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, the Anti-Defamation League, Honest Reporting, NGO Monitor, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Abraham Cooper, Anne Bayefsky, Gerald Steinberg, Isi Leibler, Shimon Peres, Elihai Braun, and Ana Palacio.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America ran an article on their website in 2005 titled “What is Human Rights Watch's Agenda?” In this article CAMERA stated that Human Rights Watch is “A self-appointed arbiter of human rights abuses around the world” and that, “This would be a noble and worthy mission if it were carried out objectively, without regard to political or ideological agenda. Regrettably, this is not the case.”[link] CAMERA has also stated, “AI and another "voice of international appeasement" — Human Rights Watch — have consistently directed their righteous ire at Israel, sparing the real human rights abusers.”[link]

In a 2006 communiqué Honest Reporting wrote, “Human Rights Watch, along with many other organizations which claim to focus solely on human rights without a political agenda, have hardly proven themselves to be an "unbiased" source.” Furthermore, the communiqué asserted, “HRW is not held accountable to anybody but its own staff” and, “The organization's bias against Israel is hardly new.”[link]

The Anti-Defamation League, in response to coverage of the Jenin Massacre, stated that Human Rights Watch was among the groups that, “Pre-judged Israel's behavior.” The Anti-Defamation League also wrote, “Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged Israel with violations of international law and war crimes. Neither discussed the international law violations involved in arming a refugee camp, or demanded the United Nations be held in any way accountable for its lack of oversight in the camp. While Human Rights Watch acknowledged in a May 3 report that there was no evidence of a massacre and that Palestinian gunmen had contributed to endangering Palestinian civilians, they continued to emphasize that there was prima facie evidence Israel committed war crimes.”[link]

The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council concluded an anti-Israel bias in the 2002 article titled, “Israel’s critics and their war with the truth.” Regarding an apparent double standard, this article questioned, “It is hard to explain why victims of slavery and slaughter are virtually ignored by American progressives. How can it be that there is no storm of indignation at Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, which, though they rushed to Jenin to investigate false reports of Jews massacring Arabs, care so much less about Arab-occupied Juba, South Sudan's black capital? How can it be that they have not raised the roof about Khartoum's black slaves?”[link]

An NGO Monitor Summary in 2006 commented, “While NGO Monitor's analysis shows a significant reduction in Human Rights Watch's disproportionate focus on Israel in 2005, compared with 2004, clear evidence of systematic political bias remains.” NGO Monitor added, “Many HRW publications continue to reflect what can be described as gratuitous political attacks against Israel, often based on unverified media reports, and reflecting a hostile political agenda. Similarly, as found in NGO Monitor's 2004 report, HRW's use of language to condemn Israel is highly politicized, especially when compared to reports on other countries in the Middle East, such as Iran, Egypt, Syria, and Libya, and continues to deny Israel the right to self-defense under international law.”[link] A quantitative study carried out by NGO Monitor asserted an anti-Israel bias as well.[link]

Anne Bayefsky concluded that there was an anti-Semitic agenda at Human Rights Watch based on her observations at the 2001 World Conference against Racism. Bayefsky wrote, “When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do ¬ notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth's umbrage at criticism.” As a participant at the World Conference against Racism, Anne Bayefsky also commented on how she was excluded from the meeting due to her participation with The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, “As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend.”[link]

Abraham Cooper, another participant at the 2001 World Conference against Racism, reiterated Anne Bayefsky’s conclusions when he wrote, “Contrary to the May 27 letter by the executive directors of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International U.S.A., Anne Bayefsky (Ending Bias in the Human Rights System, Op-Ed, May 22) was correct to criticize those two groups for their roles at the United Nations conference against racism in Durban, South Africa, last year.” Cooper added regarding the forum document, “The concerns of one group of victims -- the Jewish people -- were left off that document, with the silent acquiescence of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.” Abraham Cooper also recounted, “Like many other Jewish delegates at the conference, I was subjected to physical intimidation and threats.”[link]

Gerald Steinberg is one of the more vociferous critics of Human Rights Watch. In a 2006 National Review article titled “Human-Rights Schizophrenia” Steinberg wrote, “During the height of the terror attacks against Israel, HRW focused one-third of its entire Middle East effort on condemnations directed at Israel. This went far beyond legitimate criticism, and suggested an obsession.” Steinberg asserted further, “The most infuriating instance of HRW’s bias came in 2004, when Roth went to the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to promote “Razing Rafah,” a one sided denunciation of Israeli policy. Its contents were based primarily on unsubstantiated reports of Palestinians, selected journalists, and so-called experts on tunneling.” He concluded with, “So either it is I, along with other critics of HRW, who blindly oppose legitimate criticism of Israel (it might be dismissed as part of a neoconservative ideology), or it is Roth and HRW who apply different and unique criteria that single out Israel unfairly. The evidence shows that it is the latter.” [link]

Isi Leibler, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, stated that Human Rights Watch is among the groups that, “Have long track records of bias and employing double standards in relation to Israel.”[link]

Elihai Braun wrote an entry for the Jewish Virtual Library regarding the 2001 World Conference against Racism. While not explicitly criticizing Human Rights Watch, Braun claimed that it was among the groups that endorsed a resolution containing anti-Jewish terms. Braun wrote, “Major human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Lawyers for Human Rights, and Physicians for Human Rights also expressed criticism of the anti-Jewish language of the NGO resolution, but raised their concerns two days after the conclusion of the NGO conference. Overall, they endorsed the resolution.”[link]

In an address to the Anti-Defamation League, a former Foreign Minister of Spain, Ana Palacio, asserted that Human Rights Watch ignored anti-Semitism as an issue of importance over other human rights issues, such as gay or refugee rights. In this address she stated, “Disinterested NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism.”[link]

Response

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of HRW, published a response to criticism from Israel's supporters on April 1, 2004 in The Jerusalem Post, ["The Truth Hurts"]. Roth defends HRW's allegations that Israel breaks humanitarian law, referring to "assassinating suspects when they could be arrested, punishing families for the acts of one of their members, employing abusive interrogation techniques, imposing punitive restrictions on the Palestinian population that go well beyond security requirements, building a security barrier not on the Green Line but with deep incursions into the West Bank to protect settlements that themselves violate the Geneva Conventions".

Roth responds to Gerald Steinberg's accusation that HRW "was present in Durban when the NGO community hijacked a UN conference on racism to promote its own racist anti-Zionist agenda.", pointing out that "Human Rights Watch publicly disassociated itself from the NGO's manifesto because of its unfounded attacks on Israel". Roth denies Steinberg's allegations of only one exception to '"consistent silence" in the face of Palestinian suicide bombing', pointing to 11 condemnations available to see on HRW's website, and similarly denies his charge of "protecting Middle Eastern tyrants".

Likewise, in response to Saul Singer's claim that HRW did not report on Saddam's 1988 genocide against the Kurds, Roth points to publications on Saddam's atrocities available on the website; publications, he says, that the Israeli press covered prominently.

See also

• Amnesty International
• Democracy Watch (International)
• Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
• Human rights abuse
• International Freedom of Expression Exchange
• Freedom House

External links

HRW website

• [Human Rights Watch] (official website)
• [Human Rights Watch World Report 2006]
• [Press info on Human Rights Watch World Report 2006]

Negative viewpoints

• [Who is behind Human Rights Watch] (Paul Treanor)
• [Haiti and Human Rights Watch] (Joe Emersberger, ZNet)

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.