HRW’s Waffles on Durban Review Conference
In contrast to many NGOs that have signed the joint statement declaring their moral opposition to a repetition of the antisemitic hatred that dominated the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban conference, Human Rights Watch has waffled. HRW’s “Position Paper on the Durban Preparatory Committee” (April 21, 2008) admits that “the NGO forum at the Durban Conference undermined the wider process when the forum’s concluding statement singled out one country, Israel, as the target of exaggerated and unsupportable allegations and when certain forum participants made anti-Semitic statements and expressed anti-Semitic sentiments that targeted, among others, individuals participating in the conference.” But unlike HRW’s very strident habit of “naming and shaming” alleged perpetrators, this vague statement is a tacit acknowledgement of their own contributions, including Reed Brody’s damaging role, as documented by the participants.
But Ken Roth’s group also reminds us that their criticism should not be taken too far, and that Israel is still high on the target list. Thus, the caveat: “In issuing this caution, Human Rights Watch does not seek to exempt Israel from criticism of its human rights record. Human Rights Watch reports regularly on human rights violations by Israel and has used strong language to condemn those violations and seek their end.”
Anticipating NGO Monitor’s analysis of HRW’s 2007 activities, which show continued use of double standards to single out Israel, the statement adopts a defensive position. The authors assert (without any pretense of criteria) that their obsessive condemnations of Israel are in reality, “very different from making hyperbolic accusations that cannot be factually supported or singling out one government to the exclusion of other comparable offenders.” HRW adds a large portion of self-congratulation, claiming that they also address “violations of human rights and humanitarian law by Palestinian authorities [sic - a reference to Hamas?] and armed groups, reflecting our commitment to address serious abuses by all sides … and avoid one-sided or partial accounts. The point is not to equate, excuse or balance abuses but to demonstrate that reporting is based on human rights principles rather than partisan considerations.” The sentiments are good, but, as NGO Monitor has demonstrated, the record shows that HRW continues to apply these principles in a clearly biased manner.
The rest of the statement is straightforward, listing the main issues that HRW and much of the human rights community recognize should be addressed in a serious discussion of racism and discrimination, as if this were possible under the UN. The authors even take some cautious steps away from political correctness: “…concerns about the complex relationship between racial and religious intolerance and hatred should not be the pretext for undermining key freedoms, including freedom of speech. Attention to this issue should focus on protecting the rights of individuals, including members of religious minorities, rather than on the protection of religions themselves. Along similar lines, the Conference must be careful not to privilege the protection of particular religions and instead maintain a consistent approach to all religions.” On this issue as well, HRW is not brave enough to directly challenge Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and the others who take refuge behind the false claims of “Islamophobia” to protect their systematic human rights violations from condemnation.
Overall, HRW’s restatement of the universality of human rights is important, and contrasts strongly with its practice of singling out Israel far beyond any reasonable definition of principled reporting, as systematically documented by NGO Monitor. Mr. Roth and other HRW officials also need apply more of their resources towards practicing what they preach.
Gerald M. Steinberg
Executive Director, NGO Monitor
April 29, 2008
