Notes on Human Rights Watch

Notes on Human Rights Watch
Macdonald Stainsby

I open the website of Human Rights Watch this afternoon and find the 
following article in the Africa section:

http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/nigeria120403.htm

	It is too deeply woven with imperialist ideology to simply take apart when 
a line appears that is in favour of Western imperial interests.

	How about the "Human Rights" and International law *implications* that are 
peppered into every Kipling-esque offering. It is not so much what is said 
but rather how things are framed. The ideology of HRW, much like the major 
bourgeois media, as has often been said, is like the pane of glass you 
don't see, but which really determines the appearance of what you are 
looking at.

	International law, since WWII, is not at all ambiguous. The first examples 
of precedents for todays law were the Nuremberg trials. There, the court 
detailed, the greatest threat one could put upon the rights of the world 
was to launch illegal aggressive war. But is this still even mentioned? 
After all, it was these charges-- against the peace of humankind-- that saw 
the Nazis get hanged (or swallow capsules).

	The front page has a 'special section' on Iraq. Seems promising, too. A 
picture of an Iraqi woman beside the title: "Off Target: The conduct of the 
war and civilian casualties in Iraq". Then the list of articles includes 
demanding a fair trial for Saddam; civilian deaths were preventable; the 
creation of the war crimes tribunal is not being done properly; and Q & A 
on Iraq. This last one starts with what should be sufficient to dismiss it:

Question: What are the basic principles of international humanitarian law 
underlying military occupation?

International humanitarian law provides that once an occupying power has 
assumed authority over a territory, it is obliged to restore and maintain, 
as far as possible, public order and safety.
---
No, what International Law provides is not a human rights veneer for 
complaining about the form that the occupation takes, but rather the 
dismissal of the Occupation period, as a violation of the most elementary 
human rights: self-determination and popular sovereignty.

	There is no international law that upholds the American presence or the 
legitimacy of it for anyone. For that, Human Rights Watch is needed. Again, 
what is not said is the real issue: Fair trial for Saddam Hussein? Okay. 
Arrest Bush and Blair as well. The law is very clear and could indict any 
coalition member without even trying. You don't need a law degree nor 
special rulings: just the face of it ought to be clear. By not raising this 
even peripherally, it is assumed this is 'ridiculous' or ideological. It 
reinforces, excuse the academic banter, the imperialist ideological 
paradigm. Subvert, First World liberals! Subvert!

	Civilian deaths were preventable? So the bombing now needs, what: a 
departmental review? This is like taking issue not with the invasion of 
Poland or France per se, but rather simply the brutality of the Blitzkrieg. 
Such a discussion would make the entire article appear like not 
condemnation, but rather advice to the coalition. It establishes a seeming 
coziness with the brutal (and murderous) occupiers that should make any 
human rights analysis (or analyst) queasy.

	The article on Africa's recently held Commonwealth meetings was brutal as 
well. Again, it is what is not said that really needs to be flushed and 
fleshed out. This article was written in Australia for _The Australian_ by 
Rory Mungoven, global advocacy director for Human Rights Watch in New York. 
It opens with this gem:

"When John Howard goes to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 
Abuja today, he will at least be spared having to deal with some of the 
Commonwealth's more embarrassing relatives."

The sheer racism of this, never mind the imperialist ideology it is shot 
through are what is truly embarrassing. Of course, those that are so nasty 
to HRW's Mungoven are Robert Mugabe and Pervez Musharraf. That this is 
addressed to how Howard-- a Prime Minister who is only second to Tony Blair 
in supplying military help to the illegal invasion of Iraq-- is not called 
on this, but instead is seen as the *upholder of human rights* is not 
something that can be overlooked. The greatest war criminals of this short 
millennium are touted as their defenders.

	The article is about the leader of Nigeria, President Olusegun Obasanjo. 
He  has granted asylum to Charles Taylor of Liberia, and apparently ran 
less than squeaky clean elections in 1999. Never mind suspicions about why 
Nigeria and why now (talking about oil in these discussions does get 
repetitive). Apparently, leading a campaign into Iraq that removes popular 
sovereignty, kills upwards of ten thousand from bombs and guns and hundreds 
of thousands more though blockades and intermittent bombings for twelve 
years in non-sanctioned 'no fly zones', denying medicines, and ultimately 
taking control of the oil of the people in order to suit the needs of 
Empire? What does a human rights advocate do about all of this? We must 
express our deep felt hope that these white men from colonial states will 
uphold 'international humanitarian law'.

	Today, anywhere in the world, when a group like HRW starts talking about 
'human rights', it is important to try one little trick. It will get you 
through 95% of those articles with a better understanding then if it is 
taken without deep, deep cynicism. Try substituting 'property rights' for 
human rights. Then it becomes easy to see why Blair is 'democratic' and 
Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are lumped together, no matter 
how different they might be from one another. The same, of course, was true 
of Slobodan Milosevic. And today, the government of Yugoslavia has just 
started (in full imperialist occupation) to life what amounted to martial 
law after Zoran Djindic --the expert pro-West anti-communist privatizer 
appointed prime minister-- was assassinated. Where is the screaming and 
howling from HRW about that? Only a few months ago, the Libyan 
revolutionary leadership announced that it was abandoning the socialist 
aspects of their revolution. Lo and behold, Qaddafi then is 'coming in from 
the cold' only months later. Weapons of mass destruction? How about 
diversions of mass deception.

	Look to see either AI or HRW to put forward Moammar Qaddafi for this years 
Nobel Peace Prize. You get commended by imperialism for surrendering to 
imperialism. That is why Arafat was given the Nobel Peace prize for his 
work in establishing the Oslo settlement process (pun intended). When he 
was only willing to go 95% over to the side of the imperialist occupation, 
he was re-branded a terrorist. And HRW? I would need to write for several 
pages to list the things that go unsaid when one finally tracks down 
anything regarding the situation in Palestine. There is nothing pointing 
out that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is illegal; that the 
refugees must be repatriated under international law and pertinent UN 
resolutions; the wholesale theft of land is omitted; the wholesale theft of 
water is not mentioned; the assassination of 'militants' is never 
mentioned; the entire conflict itself is not even mentioned on the front 
page of their 'regional' link to the Middle East, in fact. One would get 
the impression that they are worried about the embarrassment that such 
coverage might cause: exposing their absolutely breathtaking 
pro-imperialism (the whole section is devoted to asking America to 
illegally occupy Iraq less brutally) and pro-Zionism (saying nothing means 
saying yes).

And back to the article on Africa and the commonwealth countries. What does 
the venerable Rory Mungoven suggest we do about the human rights violators 
in the commonwealth?

He starts his closing paragraph (a call for sanctions and isolation of 
Obasanjo) with this statement, now growing beyond irony into mere farce:

"Howard, Tony Blair and other Commonwealth leaders should speak out on 
these issues or risk being accused of double standards, which would 
undermine the effectiveness of their interventions on Zimbabwe and 
Pakistan, and the Commonwealth's commitment to human rights itself."

Effectiveness of their interventions? Double standards? Commitment to human 
rights itself? No kidding. Need I spell this out?

	Imperialism has had growing trouble convincing people around the world 
since September 11 that they are really humanitarian based imperialism. 
Bill Clinton, with limited success, sold such an image with his slaughter 
of peoples in the Balkans. That has been tattered almost out of reach with 
the swagger and trigger happy unilateral regime in Washington DC. 
Imperialism needs to have a veneer of pro-human rights language, a 
humanitarian concern for the everyman (and woman, especially in the Middle 
East). That ideological control over the minds of the oppressed, as Steven 
Biko said, is the greatest weapon in the hand of the oppressor. After 9-11, 
the humanitarian impulse was harder and harder to sell, but thank goodness 
groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch will work overtime 
to rescue their image, encourage people to believe in the legitimacy of 
their war criminals in charge.

	One might be tempted to say that without human rights discourse, the world 
at large would be forced to discuss the benefits and merits of militarism, 
racism and imperialism instead. HRW is absolutely essential in helping the 
modern Empire in protecting itself ideologically. Or, to use the language 
of pro-sports: they are not only on the team, HRW and AI are among the most 
valuable players game in and game out. They give it their all, and it's all 
the little things they do that can't be measured, but make them among 
imperialisms most valued assets.

-- 
Macdonald Stainsby
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
In the contradiction lies the hope
		--Brecht.


_______________________________________________
Rad-Green mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green