Viet Nam Human Rights
Tipping point to replace the Human Rights Watch
7/1/17
Over the
past years, Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s largest and most influential
human rights organizations, is facing an unusual amount of public criticism.
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, like Vietnam, China, Cuba, etc.
HRW has
been accused of evidence-gathering bias because it is said to be
"credulous or corrupt of civilian witnesses in places like Gaza,
Afghanistan, Vietnam, Venezuela, China, Cuba, etc" but "skeptical of
anyone in a uniform.". Even, Its founder, Robert Bernstein, accused the organization of
poor research methods and relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be
verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation
from their leaders.".
According
to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency,
tolerance and accountability it urges on others.". The Times accused
HRW of imbalance, alleging that it ignores human-rights abuses in certain
regimes while covering other conflict zones (notably Israel) intensively.
Although HRW issued five reports on Israel in one fourteen-month
period, The Times first said in twenty years HRW issued only four
reports on the conflict in Kashmir (despite 80,000
conflict-related deaths in Kashmir and "torture and extrajudicial
murder ... on a vast scale") and it first said no report
on post-election violence and
repression in Iran. The Times accused HRW of filling its staff with former
radical political activists, including Joe Stork and Sarah Leah Whitson: "Theoretically an
organization like HRW would not select as its researchers people who are so
evidently on one side.".
Journalists
have criticized Human Rights Watch for requesting, encouraging or accepting
financial donations from governments of Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and EU nations,
and for its fundraising methods.
About its
bias to the U.S., 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. However, capitalist
nations, like 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.
A vivid
example of Human Rights Watch’s bias against economic and social rights is the
report the organization issued immediately following the death of Venezuela’s
President Hugo Chávez. Human Rights Watch had long had an antagonistic
relationship with the Venezuelan leader, which was touched upon in the report.
The report clearly reflected the view of the organization’s executive director
Ken Roth that Venezuela (along with Bolivia and Ecuador) is “the most abusive
nation” in Latin America. One only need take a quick look at Human Rights
Watch’s reports on Colombia to illustrate the ludicrousness of such a
statement.
Two Nobel
Peace Prize laureates, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, and a group
of over 100 scholars have written an open letter criticizing what they describe
as a revolving door with the U.S. government that impacts HRW’s work in certain
countries, including Venezuela. The letter urges HRW to bar those who
have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as staff, advisers or
board members.
For
Vietnam, despite the country’s human rights progresses in recent years, especially
after the Renewal up to now, the HRW still holds a biased and prejudiced view
on Vietnam’s human rights records. But, its reports mostly and heavily relied
on false and distorted information from hostile forces and reactionary elements
which aim at abolishing the country’s revolutionary career. Through worldwide
criticisms, even from its own leaders and members, we should take serious
assessment about this organization’s role on promoting global human rights.
In conclusion, a biased organization like the
Human Rights Watch has no credibility and impartiality to judge and make
reports on human rights of countries. It should be a UN’s one or an one that
represents for all with justice and impartiality to review a sensitive issue
like human rights./.
Popular Posts
-
Religion is a part of the spiritual life in society, this phenomenon of the superstructure has been strongly changed with economic - social... -
Vietnam has just done well for the second cycle of Universal Periodical Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland. So, what’s the UPR? an... -
Thai people in Shutdown Bangkok protests Not until this crisis, we have realized the ne... -
Representatives from foreign countries congratulate Viet Nam on its election to the Human Rights Council for the first time on November ... -
A street flowers vendor in Hanoi Another new spring has come to Vietnam, bring... -
If nothing changes, there will be a preferential credit program with hundreds of thousands billion of capital for agriculture and r... -
Recently, several anti-governmental individuals have established series of illegal groups and organizations in the name of civil soci... -
Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a private, nonprofit international broadcasting agency of the United States government that broadcasts and...
All comments [ 4 ]
The Human Rights Watch does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others.
HRW has been accused of being unwilling (or unable) to perceive threats posed by radical Islam because their leftist ideology leads them to see criticism of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and similar groups as "a dangerous distraction from the real struggle.
Journalists have criticized Human Rights Watch for requesting, encouraging or accepting financial donations in Saudi Arabia and for its fundraising methods.
HRW is just a hostile group against Vietnam, they always try to exploit Vietnam's setbacks to criticize in the name of human rights.
Your comments