Human rights? Why do we have to talk about it? Human have to have rights just like that, not to be granted by someone making people feel like they have gained something they are entitled to have.

FYI, interesting discursus on self deception here (between minutes 9-15).

    Friends: This photo currently graces the homepage of the
    Carr Center for Human Rights Policy (Harvard).
    From left to right, they are: Sarah Sewall, the Center's director
    as well as the director of the related Program on National
    Security and Human Rights; Richard Holbrooke, a
    former ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton; and
    Samantha Power, the Center's former director, now the
    Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public
    Policy (Harvard), and a top Lieutenant in the Humanitarian Brigades. 

    Try looking at this photo as if it were an artifact that we just
    unearthed during some anthropological dig.  The photo thus represents not three people with a shared concern about human rights appearing together at a public forum to discuss issues related to this theme.  Rather, what this artifact from Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, the belly of American Power, really shows us is one instance of the classic, age-old relationship between intellectuals and the state -- or between the idea producers, on the one hand, and the governing institution and its agents, on the other.  In close proximity to the agent of the State (governing power and authority, seated in the very center), the idea producers look on approvingly and admiringly, taking their cues.  The Agent of the State with its means of great violence, flanked by the agents of legitimation. -- This is what the photographic image reproduced above really represents.  Don't let appearances fool you.

(Quick aside: One item by this crew to be strongly recommended is "Modernizing U.S. Counterinsurgency Practice," Sarah Sewall, Military Review, Sept./Oct., 2006. -- The fundamental question, of course, is what relationship "human rights" could possibly bear to the U.S. military's crush-the-resistance theories and practices?  In my opinion, at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, the answer is to provide an ideological cover for something completely different.)  

(Another quick aside: If you've got five minutes to spare, I suggest that you read a recent commentary by the Jeanne d'Arc of the Humanitarian Brigades in the States, Samantha Power ("How to stop genocide in Iraq," Los Angeles Times, March 5).

Therein, this incredible passage leaps off the page:

[I]f this political pressure fails and U.S. forces remain unable to stave off an ever-widening civil war, the U.S. should go further and announce its willingness to assist in the voluntary transport and relocation of Iraqi civilians in peril. If Iraqis tell us that they would feel safer in religiously homogenous neighborhoods, and we lack the means to protect them where they are, we should support and protect them in their voluntary, peaceful evacuation — a means, one might say, to preempt genocide in advance of our departure.

There were other gems, too.  As when this master cynic advocated "offering belated U.S. support to the International Criminal Court, the only credible, independent body with the jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity and genocide." --

Of course, Power meant the prosecution of U.S. enemies by the ICC -- not the prosecution of the states that invaded Iraq. Needless to say.)

(A third quick aside: Don't miss "Richard Holbrooke, Samantha Power, and the 'Worthy-Genocide' Establishment" (Kafka Era Studies Number 5), Edward S. Herman, ZNet, March 24, 2007.) 

SK:

Thank you for sharing these very precise observations.  Similarly, I myself have noticed a lot of good work at Human Rights Watch going unpublicized (and completely ignored by the news media), and a lot of dubious work (of the kind on which we focus in our lengthy analysis) trumpeted all over the place -- including the invaluable mass-amplification that it receives throughout the news media.

Another side of this, of course, is the way that even the important work winds up incorporating some of the most asinine sops to the political establishment.  Thus, for example, in recent days HRW released Ghost Prisoner: Two Years in Secret CIA Detention (February, 2007).  In keeping with HRW's overall approach to the conduct of the U.S. Government, lead author Joanne Mariner has been asserting at every turn that:

"The CIA program—and the civilian leaders who created it—have inflicted tremendous harm on the reputation, moral standing, and integrity of the United States. It is time, now, to repudiate that program, and to take steps to repair the damage it has caused."  (Ghost Prisoner: Two Years in Secret CIA Detention, Human Rights Watch, February, 2007, p. 43.)

“The CIA program—and the civilian leaders who created it—have inflicted tremendous harm on the reputation, moral standing, and integrity of the United States,” Mariner said. “It's time for President Bush to repudiate this program, and to take steps to repair the damage it has done.” ("US: Secret CIA Prisoners Still Missing," Human Rights Watch Press Release, February 27, 2007.)

"As you may know, the CIA's detention program has inflicted great harm on the reputation, moral standing, and integrity of the United States. By revealing information about the fate and whereabouts of people formerly held in CIA custody, you could begin to repair the damage this abusive program has caused." (Letter to President Bush, Human Rights Watch, February 26, 2007, p. 4.) 

Additional comments are unnecessary.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA
 

I am not surprised when I learn that most of the so-called think tanks and foundations do the exact opposite of their stated goals, both in name and mission statements.

I was horrified to learn that Mother Teresa had collected hundreds of millions of dollars from people who had been gulled to believe she was establishing medical care for the very poor, when she actually never so much as gave an asprin to one of the dying poor, whose pain she fed off like some vampire.

If a politician says something I expect the opposite to be true.

When I read an article, I immediately look up the author, if I am not thoroughly familiar with him/her, to see who they are and what their background is. Why are they saying whatever they are saying.

My son, who is an intelligent man, says to me, in a discussion of AN INCONVIENIENT TRUTH, that there is another side of the story, there are scientists who think Gore is out of his mind. I want to know who they are, he does not know. EXXON IS VERY SUCCESSFUL.

HE ALSO SAYS, THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN RICH AND POOR!

AND, IF SOMEONE IS TO CARRY A BIG STICK, IT IS BETTER FOR IT TO BE THE USA.

WHERE DOES THIS TRIPE COME FROM AND 

 HOW MUCH OF THIS BS CAN WE ABSORB? 

 

Friends:

"The new ICC, created by Britain, also seems to operate on the basis that white men do not commit war crimes: its prosecutors are currently investigating two local wars in Africa while turning a blind eye to Iraq." -- John Laughland, "Lies of the Vigilantes," The Guardian, February 28, 2007.

Simply compare "ICC Prosecutor Identifies First Darfur Suspects," Human Rights Watch Press Release, February 27, 2007.

Case closed.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

One method often employed by HRW's decision makers to deflect criticism of favored states is to bury criticism (often quite informative and with minimal bias, if any) inside tomes or reports that are read by probably a few hundred people (mostly grist to obscure academic mills), and to provide helpful sound bite "conclusions" and advice in mass media whose reach has real political impact. A side benfit of this approach is to allow thin skinned acoloytes of the right to work themselves into a lather over the content of above mentioned reports and thus provide an alibi for the high ups of same NGOs to point at as good faith evidence for their even-handedness.

HWR has been criticized for YEARS for ignoring many while criticizing the few. It's very interesting that only now it is drawing the ire of the left - some would say its core base of support.

  http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=12200&sectionID=80

 Terrific Article. A superb takedown of HRW. This is the best critique of HRW I have ever come across. I wonder what Abrahams, Roth,Sara Darehshori would say to such a critique. I think even they don't believe they are cat's paws of Liberal Wing of Imperialism. Actually they are the Liberal Wing of Imperialism. They probably think of themselves as noble.

  Too many people on the left think HRW is a good organization.   

FYI, an interesting book that scrutinizes the claim to objectivity by a related subspecies of "experts in legitimation".