|
|||||||
| Register | Blogs | FAQ | Forum Rules | VB Image Host | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Ethnopolitics Articles and texts on politics derived from ethnic conflicts and policies |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
Who is behind Human Rights Watch?by Paul Treanor
Reposted September 7, 2001 The backgrounds of the Board members of Human Rights Watch (HRW), Europe-Central Asia section, with an indication of HRW funding sources. HRW is founded on the idea that the values of the United States are universal, and that the US must impose them on the rest of the world. As the largest human-rights lobby, it is partly responsible for the increasingly expansionist US foreign policy. No US citizen, and no US organisation, has any right to impose US values on Europe. No concentration camps or mass graves can justify that imposition. But Human Rights Watch finds it self-evident, that the United States may legitimately restructure any society, where a mass grave is found. That is a dangerous belief for a superpower: European colonialism shows how easily a "civilising mission" produces its own atrocities. Sooner or later, more people will die in crusades to prevent a new Holocaust, than died in the Holocaust itself. For a century there has been a strong interventionist belief in the United States – although it competes with widespread isolationism. In the last 10 years attitudes have hardened: human-rights interventionism is becoming a consensus among the "foreign policy elite." Human Rights Watch itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGO's and academics. It is certainly not an association of "concerned private citizens." HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US. Cynically summarised, Human Rights Watch is a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department. HRW is an almost exclusively US-American organisation. Its version of human rights is the Anglo-American tradition. It is "mono-ethical" – recognising no legitimate ethical values outside its own. Attitudes to redistribution of wealth illustrate the limited nature of human rights ethics. In the Anglo-American human-rights tradition, seizure and redistribution of the property of the rich is unethical. The human-rights tradition recognises no inherent value in equality itself: human rights are not, and can never be, a substitute for a general morality. I do not believe that ethical values are culturally specific. However, it is true that one ethical tradition has become associated with the United States, with an emphasis on rights. That includes the universal rights set out in its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. In a sense the US was "designed" or "pre-programmed" as an interventionist power. Universal human rights, by their nature, tend to justify military intervention to protect them. Why are human rights linked to interventionism? Any modern society which wants to engage in a war of conquest would need an ideology of justification. If nation state is clearly the victim of an unprovoked attack by another state, then it can appeal to the idea of national self-defence. However, such unprovoked attacks are rare, and self-defence is inherently implausible for super-powers at war with small countries. A super-power can get involved in hostilities all over the planet, usually preceded by a complex chain of events. From its point of view, an ideology is needed to justify these wars, preferably all of them. Such an ideology should ideally meet some criteria. First, it should not be a simple appeal to self-interest. Simply stating "We own the world!" or "We are the master race, submit to us!" is not good propaganda. An appeal to higher values is preferable. Second, these higher values should be universal. This is why Islamism would probably fail as an interventionist ideology: it is specific to Islam. A geopolitical claim to intervene in support of Islamic values can be answered simply by saying: "We are not Muslims here." The doctrine of universal human rights is, by definition, universal and cross-cultural. Third, the ideology should appeal to the population of the super-power. In the United States, for historical reasons, rights doctrines have become part of its national culture. It would be pointless for a US President to justify a war by appealing to Islam, or royal legitimacy, because very few Americans hold these beliefs. Most Americans believe in rights theories: very few know that these theories are disputed. Fourth, if possible, the ideology should appeal to the "enemy" population. It should ideally be part of their values. This is very difficult, but the doctrine of human rights has itself succeeded in acquiring cross-cultural legitimacy. This does not mean it is inherently right, but simply that no non-western cultures have an answer to the doctrine. The government of China, for instance, fully accepts the concept of human rights, and claims to uphold them. So when it is accused of human rights violations, it can do nothing but deny. It will be perpetually on the defensive. Even if the US bombs Beijing in support of human rights, the Chinese regime would be incapable of simply saying "Human rights are wrong." This effect could be seen as the Holy Grail of war propaganda: if the enemy leadership is incapable of presenting an alternative value system, it will ultimately collapse. If the US was a devoutly Islamic country, what response would it offer to an invasion of Islamist purists? If they came to destroy Las Vegas for being "un-Islamic" what could the US Government do? Offer pathetic denials, that's all. That is all the Chinese government can offer to international public opinion, when facing claims of human rights violations. Human rights are not the only possible option, for a general ideology of intervention. The "civilising mission" which justified 19-th century colonisation is another example. However, it is important to note that human rights can serve a geopolitical purpose, which is unrelated to their moral content. It is not possible to show that "human rights" exist, and most moral philosophers would not even try. It might not be a very important issue in ethics anyway – but it is important in politics and geopolitics. And that's what Human Rights Watch is about – not about ethics. For more on human rights as ideology, see "Why human rights are wrong." If the United States was inhabited by pacifist relativists, then probably it would not go to war so often. However, most US-Americans believe in the universality and superiority of their ethical tradition. Interventionist human-rights organisations are, in a sense, a logical result. Human Rights Watch is not formally an "association for the promotion of the American Way of Life" – but it tends to behave like one. Human Rights Watch operates a number of discriminatory exclusions, to maintain its character.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH Europe Committee, formerly 'Helsinki Steering Committee' or 'Helsinki Watch.' This is the Europe section of the Board of HRW, which is split into sections approximately by continent. The section was established in 1978: in the late 1970's human rights became the main issue in Cold War propaganda. The Soviet Union had made concessions at the Helsinki summit (1975), allowing human rights monitoring. Western governments encouraged "private" organisations to use this concession – as a means of pressuring the Soviet Union. Human Rights Watch began as a Cold War propaganda instrument. The committee is now called the Europe and Central Asia Division. It is still affiliated with the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, which co-ordinates the "Helsinki committees." The first version of this web page was compiled several years ago, and the committee's membership has changed, as noted below. For the exact current composition of the HRW Board and its subdivisions, check the web page HRW Board of Directors & Advisory Committees. Jonathan Fanton No longer Chair of the Committee – promoted to Chair of the HRW Board. An academic and foundation man. Former Vice President of the University of Chicago, in 1982 appointed as President of the New School for Social Research, now the New School University. He is active in building US academic contacts with eastern Europe, directed at the new pro-western elites, see the Transregional Center for Democratic Studies (TCDS) page. Peter Osnos, now Chair George Soros' publisher. He is Chief Executive of Public Affairs publishers. Alice H. Henkin, Vice Chair Director of the Justice and Society Program at the Aspen Institute, an elite think-tank. Note their report Honoring Human Rights: From Peace to Justice proposing United Nations mission strategies later used in Kosovo. Morton Abramowitz A link to the US Foreign Policy establishment, one of several at HRW. Abramowitz was U.S. Ambassador to Turkey (1989-91) and Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (1985-89), among other posts: see his personal details at the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR, where he is a Fellow. The CFR is the heart of interventionist US policy since 1921 (and hated by the isolationist right). He directed the CFR Balkan Economic Task Force, which published a report on "Reconstructing the Balkans". Barbara Finberg A donor of HRW, see the list below. A retired vice president with the Carnegie Corporation of New York, who donated $1 million to Stanford University. Felice Gaer Human rights specialist at the American Jewish Committee and chair of the Steering Committee for the 50th anniversary of the UN Human Rights Declaration, see this biography: "Ms.Gaer is Director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights. Author, speaker, and activist, she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Board of Directors of the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, a member of the International Human Rights Council at the Carter Center, ...Vice President of the International League for Human Rights." According to this JTA report, Gaer praised Madeleine Albright for her "outstanding human rights record." Felice Gaer was also a non-governmental member of the United States delegation to a United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, where (according to the Voice of America) she denounced Sudan, saying the the U.S. "cannot accept those who invoke Islam or other religions as justification for atrocious human rights abuses." However, more interesting is this speech at the Geneva meeting, where she suggested the UN should no longer investigate prison rapes in the US: "we would urge the Special Rapporteurs to focus their attention on countries where the situation is the most dire and the abuses the most severe." Michael Gellert Vice Chairman of the Board at Fanton's New School for Social Research. Investment manager and Trustee of the Carnegie Institute. Gellert is a director of Premier Parks Inc., owner of the Six Flags and Walibi theme park chains. Also a director of: High Speed Access Corp., Devon Energy Corporation, Humana Inc.. Paul Goble Director of Communications and political commentator at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Cold War propaganda transmitters that survived the end of the Cold War. From their website: "Free Europe, Inc., was established in 1949 as non-profit, private corporations to broadcast news and current affairs programs to Eastern European countries behind the Iron Curtain. The Radio Liberty Committee, Inc., was created two years later along the same lines to broadcast to the nations inside the Soviet Union. Both were funded principally by the U.S. Congress, through the Central Intelligence Agency, but they also received some private donations as well. The two corporations were merged into a single RFE/RL, Inc. in 1975." It is still funded by the US Government, through Congressional appropriation. Bill Green Is no longer on the committee. Former Republican member of Congress, a trustee of the New School for Social Research (where Fanton is President), with many other public and business posts: see the biography at the American Assembly, an academic/political think-tank. Mark von Hagen New on the Committee. Director of the Harriman Institute – an International Relations institute of Columbia University in New York. A Soviet and post-Soviet specialist, with a long list of publications, see his profile at the institute website. Stanley Hoffman A pro-interventionist theorist (of course that means US intervention, not a Taliban invasion of the US). Professor at Harvard, see his biography. Note that his colleagues include Daniel Goldhagen, who openly advocated occupation of Serbia, to impose a US-style democracy: see A New Serbia. Robert James Also on the Board of Human Rights in China, another Soros-funded organisation. Kati Marton New on the Committee. President of the Committee to Protect Journalists. However this "protection" did not extend to journalists killed by NATO bombing of the Belgrade TV studios: she declined to condemn it. This may, perhaps, have something to do with not embarrassing her husband: Richard C. Holbrooke, former Special Envoy to Yugoslavia, and US Ambassador to the United Nations. For an idea of the social world behind Human Rights Watch, and a glimpse of of how US foreign policy is made, see this article about their cocktail parties... Prema Mathai-Davis The token non-westerner, an Indian immigrant. She is, however, also CEO of the YWCA (Young Womens Christian Association), which is as American as can be. Jack Matlock Is no longer on the committee. US Ambassador to the Soviet Union during its collapse, 1987-1991. Author of Autopsy On An Empire: The American Ambassador's Account of the Collapse of the Soviet Union (Random House, 1995). Herbert Okun Career diplomat, former Special Advisor on Yugoslavia to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Deputy Co-Chairman of the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia. Member of the Board of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security (LAWS) and its affiliate the Committee for National Security (CNS) which gives this biography: Jane Olson A member of the Executive Committee of HRW Southern California, and until 2000 its co-chair, see this biography. One of the few who are simply human rights activists, although her views are clearly 100% acceptable to the US Government. She was appointed a member of the U.S. delegation to the 1991 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in Moscow. The biography vaguely notes that she "...served on many delegations to the former USSR and Yugoslavia." Barnett Rubin Academic and Soros-institutes advisor. Director of the "Center for Preventive Action" at the Council on Foreign Relations. The center is funded by the US Government through USIP, and by the Carnegie Corporation as part of their program Preventing Deadly Conflict. "Preventive Action" means intervention. Leon Sigal NOTE: I can find no website matching this info on "Leon Sigal" to HRW. I assume it is the same person, although I do not understand why an expert on Asian issues is on the board for the European division of HRW. Malcolm Smith No online information available. George Soros From the Public Affairs site, the biography of George Soros, financier of HRW and of numerous organisations in eastern Europe with pro-American, pro-market policies. Donald J. Sutherland Not the actor. Also on the advisory board of the World Policy Institute. Ruti Teitel Professor of Constitutional Law at the New York Law School, see his biography. In the last few years he has specialised in the Constitutions of eastern European countries, and advised on the new Ukrainian constitution. William D. Zabel George Soros' legal advisor, on foundation and charity law. An estate and family financial lawyer for the rich at Schulte, Roth, and Zabel. His biography lists his involvement with these Soros Foundations: "Newly Independent States and the Baltic Republics, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Central European University and Open Society Fund." See this biographical article originally from the National Law Journal: "When fate knocks, rich ring for Zabel." Warren Zimmermann US Ambassador to Yugoslavia during its break-up, author of Origins of Catastrophe: Yugoslavia and Its Destroyers. A Cold-War career diplomat, long active in US human rights campaigns against eastern Europe. See this site for an extreme pro-Bosniac assessment of his book by Branka Magas, alleging he appeased Milosevic: "In the event, by pursuing Yugoslavia's unity rather than supporting Slovenia and Croatia in their demands for either the country's confederal transformation or its peaceful dissolution, the United States helped ensure its violent break-up." (I think it is logically consistent with US values and interests, that the US supported one policy around 1990 and another in Kosovo. The real problem is that so many people in Europe expect the US to design their states and write their Constitutions. It is because of this attitude, that people like Zimmermann, and organisations like HRW, can flourish.) Zimmermann is now a professor of Diplomacy at Columbia University. If you think the "amoral diplomat" is a stereotype, look at his Contemporary Diplomacy course. This is his assignment for the young future diplomats: Also new on the Committee (from the 2001 list) are:
The Human Rights Watch "Council" is primarily a fund-raising group. However, its members no doubt expect some influence on HRW policy, for their $5 000 minimum donation. The Council describes itself as "...an international membership organization that seeks to increase awareness of human rights issues and support for Human Rights Watch." The interesting thing about the Council is that it shows how much HRW is not international. It is Anglo-American, to the point of caricature. The Council is sub-divided onto four "regional committees." You might expect a division by continents (the Americas, Africa, Europe and Asia-Pacific). But instead the "regions" of the HRW global community are New York, Northern California, Southern California, and London. There is also a "Committee At-Large" but it does not appear to organise any activities. The Council members are not publicly listed, but its regional limitations are clear. Although Human Rights Watch claims to act in the name of universal values, it is an organisation with a narrow social and geographical base. If HRW Council members were truly concerned about the welfare of Africans, Tibetans or eastern Europeans, then they would at least offer them an equal chance to influence the organisation. Instead, geographical location and the high cost restrict Council Membership to the US and British upper-middle-class. HRW Donors Taken from an older version of the HRW website, this 1995 list is apparently the latest available online. HRW is not legally obliged to disclose who donates money. About half of its funds come from foundations, and half from individual donors. In its latest financial statement, HRW claims that it "accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly." However, that is not true with respect to the 1995 list. The Dutch Novib is a government-funded aid organisation. Oxfam also gets funds from the British government, and the European Union, see their annual report. Possibly they are still contributing, but Human Rights Watch is apparently not prepared to disclose present sources of funding. DONORS OF $100,000 OR MORE Dorothy and Lewis Cullman The Aaron Diamond Foundation Irene Diamond The Ford Foundation The Lillian Hellman & Dashiell Hammett Fund Estate of Anne Johnson The J. M. Kaplan Fund The Fanny and Leo Koerner Charitable Trust The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation The John Merck Fund The Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation Novib, The Dutch Organization for Development Corporation, The Overbrook Foundation Oxfam Donald Pels The Ruben and Elisabeth Rausing Trust The Rockefeller Foundation Marion and Herbert Sandler, The Sandler Family Supporting Foundation Susan and George Soros Shelby White and Leon Levy DONORS OF $25,000 – $99,999 The Arca Foundation Helen and Robert Bernstein Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Bronfman, Jr. Nikki and David Brown Carnegie Corporation of New York Compton Foundation, Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Davis The Dr. Seuss Foundation Fiona and Stanley Druckenmiller Jack Edelman Epstein Philanthropies Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de L'Homme Barbara Finberg General Service Foundation Abby Gilmore and Arthur Freierman Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund Katherine Graham, The Washington Post Company Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation Hudson News Independence Foundation The Isenberg Family Charitable Trust The Henry M. Jackson Foundation Robert and Ardis James Jesuit Refugee Service Nancy and Jerome Kohlberg Lyn and Norman Lear Joshua Mailman Medico International Moriah Fund, Inc. Ruth Mott Fund Kathleen Peratis and Richard Frank Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Ploughshares Fund Public Welfare Foundation, Inc. Anita and Gordon Roddick Edna and Richard Salomon Lorraine and Sid Sheinberg Margaret R. Spanel Time Warner Inc. U.S. Jesuit Conference Warner Brothers, Inc. Edie and Lew Wasserman Maureen White and Steven Rattner Malcolm Wiener and Carolyn Seely Wiener The Winston Foundation for World Peace
__________________
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| None |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What about OUR human rights? | Aptrgangr | Politics & Institutions | 0 | Saturday, October 6th, 2007 03:09 |
| Gregg: The Crisis of Human Rights | Sergius | Politics | 0 | Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007 23:32 |
| J.A. Gentry: The Cancer of Human Rights | Sergius | Politics | 0 | Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007 23:31 |
| An arab view on animals rights vs human rights | Savage | Europe In The News | 6 | Monday, July 3rd, 2006 16:32 |