Latin America
Related: About this forumThe Revolving Door at Human Rights Watch
Weekend Edition July 11-13, 2014
An Open Letter to Kenneth Roth
The Revolving Door at Human Rights Watch
by MAIREAD MAGUIRE, ADOLFO PEREZ ESQUIVEL, RICHARD FALK, HANS von SPONECK & KEANE BHATT
Dear Kenneth Roth,
While we welcome your stated commitment to Human Rights Watchs independence and credibility, we are dismayed by your rejection of our common-sense suggestion for strengthening them: bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as HRW staff, advisors or board membersor, at a bare minimum, mandate lengthy cooling-off periods before and after any associate moves between HRW and the foreign-policy divisions of the U.S. government.
Before addressing your letters objections to the three instances of HRWs advocacy that suggest a conflict of interest, we would like to reiterate that they were limited to only recent history, and that other cases could have been raised as well. One obvious example of HRWs failure to appropriately criticize U.S. crimes occurred after the 2004 coup détat against the democratically elected government of Haiti. The U.S. government essentially kidnapped Haitis president; thousands of people were killed under the ensuing coup regime; and deposed officials of the constitutional government were jailed.
In the face of what were likely the worst human rights abuses of any country in the Western hemisphere at the time, HRW barely lifted a finger. HRW never hosted a press conference criticizing the coup or post-coup atrocities. In contrast to HRWs appeals to the Organization of American States Inter-American Democratic Charter for Venezuela and Cuba, HRW never publicly invoked the Charter in the case of Haiti, even as Articles 20 and 21 afforded multilateral measures in the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime. HRW never placed an op-ed about the overthrow in a prominent newspaper. (In 2004 The New York Times alone published at least five HRW opinion pieces and four HRW letters on other subjects.) It is reasonable for outside observers to question whether this lack of response from HRW to such large-scale human rights violations had anything to do with U.S. foreign-policy priorities.
The very existence of such questions regarding HRWs advocacy should be reason enough to impose sharp restrictions on HRWs close ties to the U.S. government. Given the impact of global perceptions on HRWs ability to carry out its work, simply the appearance of impropriety can impede HRWs effectiveness. Closing HRWs revolving door would be an important first step to allaying or preempting concerns that HRWs priorities are compromised.
More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/11/the-revolving-door-at-human-rights-watch/
bemildred
(90,061 posts)when US "interests" as defined by the State Dept. are at stake, Latin America in particular. Speaking truth to power is not what they do.