Human Rights Watch - A Balanced Approach

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Brooklyn, New York, United States of America (Free-Press-Release.com) September 20, 2011 -- I came across an interesting article the other day in the New York Times written by, Robert L. Bernstien, the founder and former chairman of the Non-Governmental Organization ‘Human Rights Watch’ where he brings up some interesting points while speaking out as a critic of the very organization he originally founded.

In the article he points out that Human Rights Watch has historically always recognized that open, democratic societies have their own set of faults and can commit abuses, but that they also have the ability to correct those, whether it be through public debate or other mechanisms which might encourage reform. He also sites this as the main reason HRW sought to draw a clear line between democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights.

In 1998, when he stepped aside as chairman after 20 years, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, with most of them being recognized as closed societies, however, he points out that in recent times the organization, with increasing frequency, has cast aside this important distinction between open and closed societies and he points to the Middle East as a prime example.

It is commonly accepted that the region is home to many authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records, however, in terms of condemnations from the organization, they have written more on Israel for violations of international law than for all of the other countries in the region combined. In fact, NGOwatch.com states that as of October 2009 HRW have published 87 criticisms since 2006 on conduct against the Palestinians and Hezbollah, versus just 8 criticisms of Palestinian Groups and 4 of Hezbollah for attacks on Israel.

The comparison he draws is that of a country with more than 80 human rights organizations, a free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, multiple political parties and so on, versus groups, which are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention to not only destroy Israel, but to murder Jews everywhere.

Hardly a balanced approach, Mr. Bernstein argues that HRW seems more concerned with how conflicts are fought rather than the motivations behind them.

Another strong criticism he mentions, along with many other NGO Watch Groups, is that of HRW’s ability, and/or, desire to conduct genuine research into how any of these laws have been violated. Mr. Bernstien insists that HRW has no access to the battlefield or military or political leaders who make the strategic decisions, so it is nearly impossible for them to make any definitive judgment about war crimes.

Perhaps unintentionally, but the main point that comes across to me from Mr. Bernstein’s article is that not only have Human Rights Watch damaged their credibility and global influence, but more importantly, if they are playing one side here over the other, then who is to say that they are not carrying out this type of bias elsewhere in the world.

You can find the full New York Times article by Mr. Bernstein here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html

Human Rights Watch     israel     NGO s