The Bias of Human Rights Watch

[Judi Lynn]

March 14, 2013
Promoting Injustice

The Bias of Human Rights Watch

by GARRY LEECH
Sydney, Nova Scotia.

Over the past thirty years, Human Rights Watch has become one of the most recognized non-governmental organizations in the world due to its global promotion of human rights. But despite its claims to be an advocate of international human rights law, the reports issued by Human Rights Watch over the past decade have increasingly exhibited a bias towards certain rights over others. More precisely, Human Rights Watch repeatedly focuses on political and civil rights while ignoring social and economic rights. As a result, it routinely judges nations throughout the world in a manner that furthers capitalist values and discredits governments seeking socialist alternatives. It is this bias that lies at the root of Human Rights Watch’s scathing attacks on the government of Venezuela its recently deceased president Hugo Chávez. This bias was also evident in comments made in 2012 by Ken Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, when he declared that Venezuela is “the most abusive” nation in Latin America.

According to Human Rights Watch’s mission statement, “Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world” and in order to achieve that objective “We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law.” The international human rights law referred to by Human Rights Watch is rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1948. The Declaration encompasses political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights.

Capitalist nations, particularly the United States, have never been comfortable with the articles of the UN Declaration that require governments to guarantee the social and economic rights of their citizens. Among the social and economic rights that contravene capitalist values are the right to “food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services” (Article 25) as well as the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits” (Article 27). In a capitalist society, responsibility for obtaining food, clothing, housing and medical care rests with the individual not the state. Likewise, it is not the state’s responsibility to ensure that all citizens share equally in the benefits of scientific advancements developed by, for example, pharmaceutical corporations.

The United States does support those articles in the Declaration that promote civil and political rights. These rights ensure that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law” (Article 7) “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others” (Article 17); “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” (Article 18); and “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression” (Article 19). Basically, these are the individual rights that are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and that lie at the root of the liberal democratic concept of the “rule of law.” And while Human Rights Watch professes to defend the human rights enshrined in the UN Declaration, in reality, its work focuses exclusively on the civil and political rights recognized by the U.S. government.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/14/the-bias-of-human-rights-watch/

[Catherina]

1. Human Rights Watch report on Venezuela: An echo of US propaganda

They've been caught before, so many times, and corrected, criticized for it so many times. But they just keep plodding right along, totally blind to any truth when it comes to places like Haiti, Venezuela, Palestine, Ethiopia. When it's in the US interest to rock a government, HRW is only too willing to play along and suddenly start seeing again.

Here are those clowns at Human Rights Watch in action:

Tom Hayden
Posted February 1, 2009 | 09:17 PM (EST)

CIA Secret Rendition Policy Backed by Human Rights Groups?

It is confirmed that one of the loopholes in the president's anti-torture orders allows the continuance of rendition by the CIA, which consists of secretly snatching suspects off the street without any due process and "rendering" them to jails in other countries. Rendition is at the heart of the state secrecy apparatus, and should be of concern to any civil liberties, human rights, or democracy advocates.

But Human Rights Watch and, apparently, other human rights groups signed off on renditions in talks with the Obama administration, saying publicly that there is "a legitimate place" for the practice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/cia-secret-rendition-poli_b_162916.html

Echoing US establishment propaganda

For many familiar with the history of US intervention in Latin America, the systematic biases and falsifications in the HRW report come as no surprise given the organisation’s advisors and funding sources. These include: the Ford Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; and Time Warner. Some of HRW’s Americas Advisory Board members are closely linked to the notorious right-wing propaganda organisation, the National Endowment of Democracy.

As Edward Herman, David Peterson and George Szamuely conclude in their 2007 review of the role and biases of HRW (see http://www.electricpolitics.com/2007/02/human_rights_watch_in_service.html), HRW has too often served as “a virtual public relations arm of the [US] foreign policy establishment”.

http://links.org.au/node/656

More Than 100 Latin America Experts Question Human Rights Watch’s Venezuela Report
Experts Highlight Exaggerations and Inaccuracies in “Politically Motivated” Study

NEW YORK, NY - In an open letter to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch, over 100 experts on Latin America criticized the organization’s recent report on Venezuela, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, saying that it “does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility.” The signers include leading academic specialists from universities in the United States, including Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and a number of state universities, and academic institutions in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, México, the U.K., Venezuela and other countries. The letter cites Jose Miguel Vivanco, lead author of the report, saying “We did the report because we wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone…” , as evidence of its political agenda. The letter also criticizes the report for making unsubstantiated allegations, and that some of the sources that Human Rights Watch relied on in the report are not credible.

“By publishing such a grossly flawed report, and acknowledging a political motivation in doing so, Mr. Vivanco has undermined the credibility of an important human rights organization,” the letter states.

The letter notes that numerous sources cited in the report – including opposition newspapers El Universal and El Nacional, opposition group Súmate, and a mentally unstable opposition blogger – have been known to fabricate information, making it “difficult for most readers to know which parts of the report are true and which aren’t.” The letter also argues that the Human Rights Watch report makes sweeping allegations based on scant evidence. For example, its allegation of discrimination in government services is based on just one person whose nephew claimed she was denied medicine from a government program.

The full text of the letter follows:

December 15, 2008
Human Rights Watch
350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor
New York, NY 10118-3299 USA

To the Board of Directors,

We write to call your attention to a report published by Human Rights Watch that does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility. The document, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, appears to be a politically motivated essay rather than a human rights report. Indeed, the lead author of the report, Jose Miguel Vivanco, stated as much when he told the press just a few days after its publication, “We did the report because we wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone…”

Clearly Mr. Vivanco is entitled to his views about Venezuela, but such statements run counter to the mission of Human Rights Watch and indeed any organization dedicated to the defense of human rights. By publishing such a grossly flawed report, and acknowledging a political motivation in doing so, Mr. Vivanco has undermined the credibility of an important human rights organization.

We do not make these charges lightly and we hope you will understand the seriousness of such grave errors in judgment. As scholars who specialize in Latin America, we rely on what are supposed to be independent, non-partisan organizations such as Human Rights Watch for factual information about human right abuses committed by governments and sometimes non-governmental actors. So do many other constituencies, including the press, government officials, and the public. It is a great loss to civil society when we can no longer trust a source such as Human Rights Watch to conduct an impartial investigation and draw conclusions based on verifiable facts.

The report makes sweeping allegations that are not backed up by supporting facts or in some cases even logical arguments. For example, the report’s most important and prominent allegation is that “discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency.” (p. 1) Yet the report does not show, or even attempt to show, that political discrimination either increased under the current government (as compared to past governments), or is more of a problem in Venezuela than in any other country in the world.

What is the evidence offered for such a broad generalization?

“In most cases, it was not possible to prove political discrimination—with rare
exceptions, citizens were given no grounds at all for the actions taken—yet many
were told informally that they were losing their jobs, contracts, or services for having
signed the referendum petition [to recall President Chávez]. For example, in one case reported to Human Rights Watch, a 98-year-old woman was denied medicines that she had long received from a state development agency because, as her family was told by the program secretary, she had signed the referendum petition.” (p.21) (Italics added).

Taking services first, the above paragraph refers to an allegation that one Venezuelan citizen was denied medicines for political reasons. Amazingly, this is the only alleged instance of discrimination in government services cited in the entire 230-page report. In other words, the Barrio Adentro program has provided health services to millions of poor Venezuelans each year since 2003, and the authors found one allegation (as reported to the authors in a phone conversation with the nephew of the alleged victim) of discrimination involving one person. On this basis the authors make the sweeping generalization that “Citizens who exercised their right to call for the referendum—invoking one of the new participatory mechanisms championed by Chávez during the drafting of the 1999 Constitution—were threatened with retaliation and blacklisted from some government jobs and services.” (p. 10, italics added).
This is outrageous and completely indefensible. We do not expect a report of this nature to adhere to rigorous academic standards, but there have to be some standards.

With regard to employment, there is no doubt that there were cases where individual government officials discriminated on the grounds of employees’ political beliefs. (There were also cases of discrimination and firing of pro-government employees in the private sector, which the report mentions in a parenthesis (p.10) and does not investigate). However, the report does not show that there was any organized or systematic effort to purge the government of anti-government employees. Indeed, as anyone who is familiar with the government of Venezuela knows, after nearly ten years since the election of President Hugo Chávez, the civil service is still loaded with employees who are against the government.

The report does not demonstrate whether the firings that occurred, in both the public and private sector, were simply the result of individual actions in a highly polarized society in which the opposition spent at least four years (according to opposition leader Teodoro Petkoff) trying to dislodge the government though a military overthrow. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that many government officials would, in such a climate, be apprehensive about employing people who are against the government. The report does not consider this possible cause of observed discrimination. Of course this would not justify such discrimination, but neither would it support the sweeping allegations of this report, which attempts to argue that the government is using its control over employment in the public sector in order to repress political opposition.

Indeed, the report’s most serious allegation of discrimination in employment concerns a case where discrimination was not based on political partisanship, but in regards to unlawful subversion that no government would, nor should tolerate: “In the aftermath of the oil strike, PDVSA purged its ranks of thousands of workers who participated in the strike.” (p.29). But as anyone who was in Venezuela at the time can attest, this was quite openly a strike to topple the government, which the opposition had succeeded in doing less than eight months earlier. The oil strike devastated the economy – which lost 24 percent of GDP in the resulting recession — and came close to achieving its goal a second time.

The report implies that public employees, in this case oil workers should have the right to strike for the overthrow of an elected government; we do not support that view. It is especially dubious when that group of employees makes up less than one percent of the labor force, and is using its control over a strategic resource – oil revenues made up nearly half of government revenues and 80 percent of export earnings — to cripple the economy and thereby reverse the result of democratic elections. The view that such a strike is “a legitimate strike” is not, to our knowledge, held by any democratic government in the world.

But most importantly with regard to the credibility of the HRW report, it is profoundly misleading for the authors to argue that “political discrimination is a defining feature” of a government that is not willing to risk the continuing employment of people who have carried out such a strike.

The report’s overwhelming reliance for factual material on opposition sources of dubious reliability also undermines its credibility and makes it difficult for most readers to know which parts of the report are true and which aren’t. The most cited source with regard to political discrimination is the newspaper El Universal. This is not only a stridently opposition newspaper, it has also, for the years during which it is cited, repeatedly fabricated news stories. For example, in a typical fabrication of the type deployed to libel government officials, El Universal reported that then Interior Minister Jesse Chacón had purchased a painting for $140,000. This turned out to be completely false. There are many examples of fabrications in El Universal, as well as other opposition sources cited by the report.

We find it troubling that a report on Human Rights depends heavily on unreliable sources. Would a report on human rights in the United States be taken seriously if it relied so heavily on Fox News, or even worse The National Enquirer? Indeed, this report ventures even further into the zone of unreliable sources and cites a mentally unstable opposition blogger as a source. (p. 20, footnote 30). This is a person who indulges not only in routine fabrications and advocates the violent overthrow of the government, but also has publicly fantasized about killing his political enemies and dumping the bodies from helicopters into the slums, and torturing others by “pouring melted silver into their eyes.”

A disturbing thing about the report’s reliance on these sources is that it indicates a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, or perhaps worse, a deep political prejudice that allows the authors to see most of these sources as unproblematic. Indeed, there is only one passing indication that the newspapers El Universal and El Nacional, are opposition newspapers, and it is a reference to the past , which the reader might therefore reasonably judge to be irrelevant. On the other hand, the report refers to the newspaper Últimas Noticias as “largely sympathetic to Chávez and his government” and “a generally pro-government tabloid.” (p.70, p.89) This is a newspaper that prints articles that are harshly critical of the government on a daily basis, and according to polling data in Venezuela is seen as vastly more independent than any other major newspapers. The authors’ view of the Venezuelan media seems to mirror the view of the right-wing Venezuelan opposition, or the U.S. Right’s view of the “liberal media” in the United States.

Such profound prejudice, in which events are interpreted overwhelmingly through the lens of Venezuela’s right-wing opposition, is apparent throughout the document: for example when the authors describe groups that helped organize and supported the April 2002 coup as “new organizations dedicated to the defense of democracy and the rule of law.” (p. 203).

But the worst thing about the report’s reliance on opposition sources like El Universal, El Nacional, or Súmate, is that these sources have engaged in enough fabrications as to make them unreliable sources for factual material.

In its discussion of the media, the report also paints a grossly exaggerated picture of reality, while presenting some valid criticisms of existing law and practice. It is acknowledged in footnotes buried deep within the text that the opposition still dominates both broadcast and print media (footnote 184, p.74; footnote 181, p.73). Yet the government is reproached for “having significantly shifted the balance of the media in the government’s favor” by creating pro-government TV stations since the 2002 coup, when “Chávez faced an almost entirely hostile private media.” This is an odd position for a human rights organization to take. While it would be nice if the government could create TV stations that had no bias whatsoever, isn’t it better to have some competition in the media – from left-leaning, pro-government stations – than to have a right-wing, anti-democratic, private monopoly? Especially when that right-wing monopoly had, as never before in world history, organized a military coup against a democratically elected government and led a devastating oil strike that nearly toppled the government a second time? Do the authors consider this type of media monopoly to be more protective of human rights than a media that is still dominated by the opposition but also presents some other sources of information?

The report refers repeatedly to the danger of “self-censorship,” but does not provide any examples of this actually happening. This is a major weakness in its argument, since it is not that difficult to find examples of self-censorship in response to government pressure in, for example, the U.S. media.

In the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, the Sinclair Broadcast Group of Maryland, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the U.S., planned to show a documentary that accused candidate John Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War. The company ordered its 62 stations to show the film during prime-time hours just two weeks before the election. Nineteen Democratic senators sent a letter to the U.S. F.C.C. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200410/101504.html calling for an investigation into this proposed intervention by Sinclair in the campaign, and some made public statements that Sinclair’s broadcast license could be in jeopardy if it carried through with its plans. As a result of this pressure, Sinclair backed down and did not broadcast the film.

This example is directly relevant to the HRW report on Venezuela, because it shows that, in order to have a broadcast license in the United States and other democratic countries, the licensee is expected to follow certain rules and not to become a major political actor, e.g. by intervening in elections. As Vivanco himself has noted, “lack of renewal of the contract [broadcast license], per se, is not a free speech issue.” Yet this report cites the denial of RCTV’s broadcast license renewal as a simple, and indeed its primary, example of the Venezuelan government’s alleged attack on free speech. It does not seem to matter to the authors that the station had participated in a military coup and other attempts to topple the government and would not receive a broadcast license in any democratic country.

The report even uses innuendo to imply that the government is to blame for attacks on journalists, which have occurred against both opposition and pro-government journalists. The authors state that the opposition TV station Globovisión “has received warning letters from CONATEL because of the political tone of its reporting, it has been frequently refused entry to government press conferences, and its reporters and cameramen have been physically attacked and threatened by Chávez supporters.” (p. 117) The authors provide no evidence that the government in any way condoned or supported such alleged attacks.

The major media in Venezuela to this day are practically unmatched in this hemisphere, and indeed most of the world, for their vehement, unfettered, and even vicious, libelous, and violence inciting attacks on the government . While the HRW report presents a number of valid criticisms of existing law and a few cases of unwarranted intervention by government officials, it serves no legitimate purpose to hide or distort the actual state of Venezuela’s media.

The same can be said for the rest of the report, including its treatment of the judiciary. HRW has an obligation to criticize any laws or practices of the Venezuelan government that it sees as endangering human rights, and we welcome the valid criticisms that it raises in its report. But Mr. Vivanco has gravely undermined the credibility of Human Rights Watch by producing a report that, by his own admission, is politically motivated, as well as grossly exaggerated, based on unreliable sources, and advertises broad and sweeping allegations that are unsupported by the evidence.

We therefore request that HRW retract and revise its report so as to produce a credible document. Mr. Vivanco should also retract his remarks as to the political motivation for the report.

We would be glad to meet with you to discuss this issue further, and would welcome a debate with Mr. Vivanco in any public forum of his choosing, should he be willing to defend his report in public.

We hope you will consider these requests with the seriousness they deserve. Our letter is not meant as a justification for the Venezuelan government’s decision to expel the authors of the HRW report from the country. Human rights are too important to be used as a political football, as has so often been the case when Washington singles out another government as an enemy state. This is why we depend on civil society organizations for independent, non-partisan, non-political reporting and investigation.
In the spirit of sharing our concerns with our Spanish-speaking colleagues, we are having this letter translated to be circulated in Latin America.

Sincerely,
1. Rodolfo Acuña, Professor, Chicano/a Studies, California State University, Northridge
2. Federico Álvarez, Professor Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
3. Tim Anderson, Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, University of Sydney, Australia
4. Miguel Angel Herrera, Historia, Universidad de Costa Rica
5. Robert Austin, Ph.D, Honorary Fellow, School of Historical Studies, University of Melbourne
6. Márgara Averbach, Professor of Literatura, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
7. William Aviles, Associate Professor, Political Science University of Nebraska, Kearney
8. Mario Ayala, Programa de Historia Oral, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires
9. David Barkin, Profesor de Economía, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco
10. .Carlos Beas, Activista Movimiento Indígena, Oaxaca-MEXICO
11.. Alejandro Alvarez Béjar, Professor Economics Universidad Autónoma Nacional de México
12. Donald W, Bray, Professor Emeritus, California State University, Los Angeles
13. Marjorie Woodford Bray, Professor, Latin American Studies, California State University, Los Angeles
14. Charles Bergquist, Professor of History, University of Washington
15. Atilio A. Boron Director del PLED, Programa Latinoamericano de Educación a Distancia en Ciencias Sociales, Buenos Aires, Argentina
16. Chesa Boudin, Yale Law School
17. Clara Mantini Briggs, Associate Researcher, Demography, University of California, Berkeley
18. Charles Briggs, Professor Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley
19. Julia Buxton, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for International Cooperation and Security, Department of Peace Studies, Bradford University
20. Maria Emilia Caballero, Comitè ´68 Pro Libertades Democràticas en Mèxico
21. Marisol de la Cadena, Associate Professor of Anthropology, UC-Davis, CA
22. José Calderon, Professor Sociology and Chicano/a Studies, Pitzer College
23. Hernán Camarero, Professor, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
24. Cristina Castello, Poeta y Periodista, Buenos Aires, Argentina
25. Ana Esther Ceceña, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, UNAM
Observatorio Latinoamericano de Geopolítica
26. Eleonora Quijada Cervoni, School of Language Studies, The Australian National University
27. Julie A. Charlip, Professor, Department of History, Whitman College
28. Norma Stoltz Chinchilla, Professor of Sociology and Women’s Studies, California State University Long Beach
29. Christopher Clement, Visiting Professor Politics, Pomona College
30. Ron Chilcote, Professor Economics, University of California Riverside
31. Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
32. Antonia Darder, Professor Educational Policy and Latino Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
33. Michael Derham, University of Northumbria, School of Arts and Social Sciences
34. Mônica Dias Martins, Professor Political Science, State University of Ceara, Brazil
35. Héctor Díaz-Polanco, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en
Antropología (CIESAS)
36.Luis Duno, Associate Professor of Hispanic Studies, Rice University, Houston, TX
37. Steve Ellner, Professor Political Science, University of Oriente, Venezuela
38. Arturo Escobar, Kenan Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, UNC-Chapel Hill, NC
39. Raul Fernandez, Professor, School of Social Science, University of California Irvine
40. Sujatha Fernandes, Queens College, City University of New York
41. Bill Fletcher, Jr., Executive Editor, BlackCommentator.com
42. Gabrielle Foreman, Visiting Distinguished Professor of Africana Studies, Bowdoin College
43. Cindy Forster, Associate Professor History, Scripps College
44. Félix Hernàndez Gamundi, Comitè ´68 Pro Libertades Democràticas en Mèxico
45. Raúl Alvarez Garìn, Comitè ´68 Pro Libertades Democràticas en Mèxico
46. José Francisco Gallardo Rodríguez, General Brigadier y Doctor en Administración Pública
47. Marco A. Gandásegui, (h) Professor, University of Panama
48. Lesley Gill, Professor and Chair of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
49. Magdalena Gómez, Columnist, La Jornada
50. Gilbert Gonzalez, Professor School of Social Science, University of California, Irvine
51. Armando Gonzalez-Caban, Latin American Perspective
52. Jeffrey Gould, Professor of History, Indiana University.
53. Greg Grandin, Professor of History, Director of Graduate Studies, New York University
54. Angel Guerra, Journalist, La Jornada
55. Maria Guerra, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
56. Peter Hallward, Professor of Modern European Philosophy, Middlesex University, UK
57. Daniel Hellinger, Professor Political Science, Webster University
58. Ramona Hernandez, Director, CUNY Dominican Studies Institute & Professor of Sociology, The City College of New York
59. Derrick Hindery, Assistant Professor of International Studies and Geography, University of Oregon
60. Forrest Hylton, Ph.D. Candidate, History, NYU
61. Robin D. G. Kelley, Professor of History and American Studies
62. Misha Kokotovic, Associate Professor Department of Literature, UC San Diego
63. Maria Lagos, Associate Professor Emerita, Dept. of Anthropology, Lehman College, CUNY.
64. Sidney Lemelle, Professor of History, Pomona College
65. Deborah Levenson, Professor of History, Boston College
66. Nayar López Castellanos, Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de Mexico
67. Gilberto López y Rivas, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Centro Regional Morelos
68. Florencia E. Mallon, Julieta Kirkwood Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI
69. Luis Martin-Cabrera, Assistant Professor, UCSD
70. Jorge Mariscal, Professor, Literature, University of California, San Diego
71. Peter McLaren, Professor, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles
72. Frida Modak, Chilean Journalist
73. Daniel Molina, Comitè ´68 Pro Libertades Democràticas en Mèxico
74. José Mollet, Profesor Asistente y escritor, Director del Centro de Investigaciones Socioculturales, Instituto de Cultura del Estado Falcón, Venezuela
75. Carlos Montemayor, Writer
76. Maricarmen Montes, Nuestra América
77. Josefina Morales, Investigadora UNAM, México
78. Luis Hernández Navarro, Journalist
79. Fabio Gabriel Nigra, Assistant Professor of History, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
80. Enrique Ochoa, Professor, Latin American Studies, California State University, Los Angeles
81. Elizabeth Oglesby, Department of Geography, University of Arizona
82. Jocelyn Olcott, Department of History, Duke University Press
83. Mercedes Olivera, Centro de Estudios Superiores de México y Centroamérica, Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas.
84. Mark Overmyer –Velazquez, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut
85. José Herrera Peña Centro de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo.
86. Rebeca Peralta, Nuestra América
87. Salvador E. Morales Pérez, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo
88. Hector Perla, Assistant Professor Latin American and Latino Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz
89. John Pilger, journalist and documentary film maker
90. Deborah Poole, Professor, Anthropology, Johns Hopkins
91. Carlos Walter Porto Gonçalves Professor do Programa de Pós-graduação em Geografia da
Universidade Federal Fluminense
92. Pablo A. Pozzi, Professor of History, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
93. Vijay Prashad, Professor, International Studies, Trinity College
94. Gerardo Renique, City College, City University of New York
95. William Robinson, Professor Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
96. Victor Rodriguez, Professor, Chicano Latino Studies, California State University, Long Beach
97. René Patricio Cardoso Ruiz, Director en Estudios Latinoamericanos, Investigador Nacional I del SIN, Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México
98. Jan Rus, Latin American Perspectives
99. Emir Sader, Secretario Ejecutivo de CLACSO, Sociólogo, Argentina
100. Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of History, Pomona College
101. Rosaura Sanchez, Professor, Literature, University of California, San Diego
102. John Saxe-Fernández, Essayist, México
103. Alejandro M. Schneider, Assistant Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina
104. Enrique Semo, Professor of Economics, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
105. T.M. Scruggs, Associate Professor, Ethnomusicology
106. Jose Steinsleger, Mexican Writer and Journalist
107. Beatriz Stolowicz, Universidad Autónoma Xochimilco
108. Oliver Stone, Filmmaker
109. Sinclair Thomson, Professor History, New York University
110. Steven Topik, Professor, History, University of California, Irvine
111. Jorge Turner, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
112. Carolina Verduzco, Comitè ´68 Pro Libertades Democràticas en Mèxico
113. William H. Watkins, Professor, College of Education, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
114. Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
115. Dr Stephen Wilkinson Assistant Director International Institute for the Study of Cuba London Metropolitan University
116. Gregory Wilpert, Ph.D, Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Brooklyn College
117. John Womack, Professor, History, Harvard
118. Nahirana Zambrano, Professor of American Studies, University of the Andes, Venezuela

http://links.org.au/node/656

[Judi Lynn]

2. O.M.G. Thank you for the great links n/t

[ocpagu]

6. Thank you.

Very useful information.

[naaman fletcher]

3. This makes no sense

More precisely, Human Rights Watch repeatedly focuses on political and civil rights while ignoring social and economic rights. As a result, it routinely judges nations throughout the world in a manner that furthers capitalist values and discredits governments seeking socialist alternatives.

If you want to say that Human Rights Watch ignores "social and economic rights" then fine. However, how does focusing on political and civil rights discredit socialist alternatives? Is the author saying that socialist alternatives by their very nature infringe on political and civil rights?

If not, then his article makes no sense.

[joshcryer]

4. That's what is being said.

Neo-Stalinist rhetoric. It's OK if you can't have free speech if you got free "health care."

[ThinkJustice]

7. It makes perfect sense

What the article is saying is that to focus "only" on political and civil rights and to completely "ignore" social and economic rights is to promote capitalist values that believe it is the responsibility of the individual rather than the state to guarantee food, housing, healthcare and education to an entire population. This is exactly what Human Rights Watch does in its reports, which constitutes a selective approach to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. This by definition undermines any socialist alternative because socialism is based on ensuring the social and economic rights of all citizens. And while the promotion of social and economic rights might indeed infringe on some political and civil rights, so does the promotion of political and civil rights also infringe on some social and economic rights. Venezuela is not taking a Stalinist approach by prioritizing social and economic rights over political and civil rights, it is trying to ensure that all of these rights guaranteed to the degree that is possible. As the article notes, there is a participatory democracy in Venezuela that guarantees significant political and civil rights for the population, but Human Rights Watch chooses to ignore this reality.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Welcome to D.U., and the Latin America forum, ThinkJustice.

[naaman fletcher]

10. umm,

And while the promotion of social and economic rights might indeed infringe on some political and civil rights

How does the promotion of social and economic rights infringe on political and civil rights?

[ThinkJustice]

11. The might

I said "might" infringe on political and civil rights. For instance, one of the fundamental civil rights in capitalist society is the right to own property, which translates into "private property" in the form of "private ownership of the means of production." A socialist system that prohibits private ownership of the means of production and instead, as has occurred with some large enterprises in Venezuela, implements state ownership of a business but with it being cooperatively managed by the workers, this would constitute a violation of civil rights of individuals who want to privately own a business. For its part, the state-owned but worker-managed business would constitute economic democracy, something that cannot occur under private ownership by an individual who hires wage laborers.

[ocpagu]

5. Yes, they are biased.

They used to have a better record in the region (comparing to Freedom House and, of course, USAID) but one can see they are becoming more and more another representative of US interests, molding perceptions about reality in the continent. They've been clearly downplaying the situation of Haiti after the coup, probably an attempt to legitimize it, and they show what they really want when we compare their treatment to Honduras and to Venezuela.

[polly7]

9. I've had my own bias against HRW since being completely disgusted by the dirty tricks and

lies towards Libya. nt.