Human Rights Watch (HRW) made many media headlines this year -- but not for its human rights work. Revelations regarding an HRW fundraising trip in Saudi Arabia and HRW senior military analyst Marc Garlasco's obsessive collection of Nazi memorabilia caused many to question the moral standing of HRW. Although HRW officials publicly rebuff any accusations of wrongdoing, recent events at HRW suggest that the organization is heeding calls for reform.
During HRW's 2010 World Report press conference in Tel Aviv, Program Director Iain Levine focused on Israel's potential as a moral advocate on the issue of banning "blood diamonds" mined under abusive conditions in Zimbabwe. He also noted Israel's "positive movement" toward investigating Gaza war operations, especially as compared to Hamas' lack of initiative. While Levine repeated allegations about the "increasingly disastrous blockade of Gaza" and IDF misuse of white phosphorous, he also mentioned Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, brutal internal repression by Hamas under the cover of war, and the endemic lack of accountability for torture in the Palestinian Authority.
Soon after the press conference, HRW announced that James F. Hoge Jr. will replace Jane Olson as the chair of HRW's board. Hoge's many landmark essays as the longtime editor of Foreign Affairs include "Tiananmen Papers," about the Chinese leadership's decision to crush the 1989 protests. Could the appointment of Hoge signify a shift in HRW's obsessive attention on the Middle East? Perhaps, under Hoge, HRW will devote more of its resources to substantively addressing severe human rights abuses in China and other countries with chronic human rights issues.
In contrast to HRW's disproportionate criticism of Israel in 2009, the organization issued a more balanced press release following the publication of Hamas' response to the Goldstone Report: "Gaza: Hamas Report Whitewashes War Crimes" (January 28, 2010). "Hamas can spin the story and deny the evidence, but hundreds of rockets rained down on civilian areas in Israel where no military installations were located," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at HRW. This condemnation received wide media coverage.
Despite these encouraging signs, HRW continues to issue knee-jerk criticisms of Israel. It quickly condemned both Israel and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after Ban declared that Israel's investigation system for alleged violations of the Law of Armed Conflict is comparable to the systems in leading democratic nations. Senior researcher Fred Abrahams accused Ban of "avoid[ing] the issue," and HRW continued to call for an "independent investigation" (Israel: Military Investigations Fail Gaza Victims, February 7, 2010). Levine's praise of "positive movement" apparently was fleeting.
Also disheartening was HRW's defense of the New Israel Fund (NIF), which recently has come under fire for funding Israeli NGOs that contributed to the Goldstone report. When these NGOs and the NIF accused critics of silencing free expression and dissent, HRW leveraged the opportunity to attack its own critics in Israel. It falsely framed the attack on NIF as part of the larger threat against "civil society," overlooking the widespread criticism of the NIF from Israeli society at large. HRW's response to criticism indicates that dissent is permissible except when it is directed at its colleagues.
To be sure, other prominent human rights organizations also stumble on issues of moral relativism. Amnesty International recently suspended a senior official after she criticized the organization for allying itself with Taliban supporter Moazzam Begg. Faced with the inherent contradiction between Taliban support and human rights defense, Amnesty simultaneously launched an "internal inquiry" and defended its collaboration with Begg on the grounds that he is a "compelling speaker." Ironically, HRW also suspended Garlasco after his Nazi memorabilia fetish was exposed, although the results of HRW's "internal investigation" on this matter have not been made public.
Perhaps organizations such as Amnesty and HRW fear that admitting mistakes will blemish their hallowed reputations. They therefore adhere to the "human rights abusers are attacking human rights messengers" story line. While it is encouraging that HRW seems to be working to restore the balance called for by founder Robert Bernstein, escalating global human rights abuses call for unwavering defenders of universal moral truths. If it is to play a relevant and effective role in today's world, HRW must be willing to take an unbiased, principled stand.
Frayda Leibtag is a researcher at NGO Monitor.
