[Peace-discussion] Human Rights Watch in Service to the War Party

[lazyangels@sbcglobal.net]

For the complete article go to=20
<http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3D12200&sectionID=3D=
80>

Human Rights Watch in Service to the War Party: Including A Review of=20
=93Weighing the Evidence: Lessons from the Slobodan Milosevic Trial=94=20
(Human Rights Watch, December, 2006)
by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson and George Szamuely; February 25, =

2007

Part 1: Introduction: The Role and Biases of Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch (HRW) came into existence in 1978 as the U.S.=20
Helsinki Watch Committee. Early documents affirmed that its purpose was=20
to =93monitor domestic and international compliance with the human rights=
=20
provisions of the Helsinki Final Act.=94[1] But though a private=20
U.S.-based organization whose vice chairman once stated =93You can't=20
complain about other countries unless you put your own house in=20
order,=94[2] its main focus was on Moscow. Thus its literature also=20
affirmed that founding the Committee =93was intended as a gesture of mora=
l=20
support for the activities of the beleaguered Helsinki monitors in the=20
Soviet bloc,=94 and its early work was well geared to advance the U.S.=20
government's policy of weakening the Soviet Union and loosening its ties =

to Eastern Europe.[3] While the organization has broadened its horizons=20
and grown enormously since its $400,000 seed money from the Ford=20
Foundation, it has never sloughed off its close link to the Western=20
establishment, as evidenced by its leadership=92s affiliations,[4] its=20
funding,[5] and its role over the years. Because of its institutional=20
commitment to human rights and its broad purview, however, HRW has done=20
a great deal of valuable work, as for example in helping to document the =

character and effects of the Reagan era wars across Central America,=20
where its Americas Watch reports on the U.S. support for the Nicaragua=20
Contras, the Salvadoran army and death squads, and Guatemalan state=20
terror were eye-opening and led to intense hostility on the part of the=20
Reaganites and Wall Street Journal editors.[6]

But despite these and countless other constructive efforts, the=20
organization has at critical times and in critical theaters thrown its=20
support behind the U.S. government=92s agenda, sometimes even serving as =
a=20
virtual public relations arm of the foreign policy establishment. Since=20
the early 1990s this tendency has been especially marked in the=20
organization=92s focus on and treatment of some of the major contests in =

which the U.S. government itself has been engaged=97perhaps none more=20
clearly than Iraq and the Balkans. Here, its deep bias is=20
well-illustrated in a March 2002 op-ed by HRW=92s executive director,=20
Kenneth Roth, published in the Wall Street Journal under the title=20
=93Indict Saddam.=94[7] The first thing to note about this commentary is =
its=20
timing. It was published at a time when the United States and Britain=20
were clearly planning an assault on Iraq with a =93shock and awe=94 bombi=
ng=20
campaign and ground invasion in violation of the UN Charter. But Roth=20
doesn=92t warn against launching an unprovoked war=97though wars of=20
aggression had been judged by the Nuremberg Tribunal to be the =93supreme=
=20
international crime=94 that =93contains within itself the accumulated evi=
l=20
of the whole.=94[8] On the contrary, Roth's focus was on Saddam=92s crime=
s,=20
and provided a valuable public relations gift to U.S. and British=20
leaders, diverting attention from and putting an apologetic gloss on=20
their prospective supreme international crime.

For the complete article go to=20
<http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3D12200&sectionID=3D=
80>