Human Rights Watch’s Big Lie
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.


Human Rights Watch’s Big Lie


WASHINGTON – March 18, 2019

Most countries remain under the scrutiny of the United States when it comes to human rights violations.

This is evidenced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's remarks on the release of the 2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, published by the US State Department in accordance with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"Consistent with our strong rights tradition, today it is my honor as Secretary of State to announce the release of the 2019 Human Rights Report. Now, every year since 1977, the State Department has through this report put the world on notice that we’ll expose violation of human rights wherever they occur. We have told those who disgrace the concept of human dignity they will pay a price, that their abuses will be meticulously documented and then publicized," Pompeo said.

The United States believes they managed to achieve success in the hundreds of countries where violations of human rights were repeated. And since tens and hundreds more continue to remain silent, the US as a main symbol of democracy is convinced of its importance for interfering in the political course of any country where it is possible.

"This year’s report evaluates the practices of roughly 200 countries and territories," the report says.

Note that this is not a clear intervention with malicious intent.

"Take Iran. Last year, the regime killed over 20 people and arrested thousands without due process just for protesting for their rights. The government banned media outlets from covering the demonstrations. This continues the pattern of cruelty that the regime has inflicted upon the Iranian people for the last four decades," Pompeo stated.

Other examples include South Sudan, where the armed forces commit acts of violence against civilians based on political beliefs or ethnicity, or Nicaragua, where sniper fire was unleashed on citizens peacefully protesting against social security benefits.

"Critics of the government have faced a policy of exile, jail, or death," the report notes.

China, against which the US is waging a trade war, has taken one of the privileged positions when it comes to human rights violations.

"In just 2018, China intensified its campaign of detaining Muslim minority groups at record levels. Today, more than 1 million Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and other Muslims are interned in reeducation camps designed to erase their religious and ethnic identities. The government also is increasing its persecution against Christians, Tibetans, and anyone who espouses different views from those or advocates those of government -- or advocates change in government," Pompeo said.

And so on—200 such reports were published.

"We document those reports with equal force. Our aim is always to identify human rights challenges and use American influence and power to move every nation towards better, more consistent human rights practices," Pompeo added.

What does the documentation of these violations mean according to Pompeo? Is it just about documentation? Or did Pompeo missed in his speech the main thing, which is the US’s gradual meddling in the life of other countries and the complete destruction of the current system in their favor?

First of all, recall three high-profile examples when Human Rights or its Amnesty International colleagues and the United States government unscrupulously destroyed Libya through open intervention or information companies, turning it into a world center for human trafficking, when, under Muammar Gaddafi, the oil-producing country became one of the richest countries in the world.

Libyans used to have free medical care, education and other social benefits. "It is very difficult not to notice the instability that followed Gaddafi's death, which literally tore Libya to pieces," the Washington Post's Cairo bureau chief Sudarsan Raghavan said.

The whole world remembers those horrific events that caused thousands of deaths among civilians. Even when it became clear that the revolution had led to disaster, Washington officials led by President Obama continued to insist NATO's intervention was not only successful but also correct, despite that even Obama described the American meddling in Libya as a "shit show."

The danger of the situation is that the United States, refusing to learn from the Libyan events (as well as the events in Kosovo, Iraq and Syria), is likely to continue to support forces that seek to turn the Middle East into a fundamentalist Sunni arena, with Sharia law, which is as far as possible from the principles of democracy that the United States tries to impose on the world.

As for Ukraine and the US’s clear support of those events and in particular Ukrainian nationalists and the events of May 2, 2014, in Odessa, there is no need to go far. You remember the funny story when the HRW Twitter published a photo with a woman standing next to law enforcement officers dressed in special equipment to disperse street demonstrations. “Militia” was written on the men in Ukrainian, and it was later found out that he photo itself was first published on May 4, 2014, taken just after the May 2 tragedy where pro-Maidan nationalists burned tens of people in the Odessa Trade Unions building (arranged with the help of the new authorities established in February 2014 as a result of the coup).

Despite the obvious Ukrainian origin of the photo, Human Rights Watch representatives signed it: "Take action and take a stand against Putin's repressive policies." It was eventually revealed to be extremely inappropriate and faked and wasa removed, though it was preserved in the archives.

The United States is confident to this day in its rightness, especially in Venezuela where the clear meddling of the self-proclaimed Juan G. Guido in the country’s political course is gradually destroying it in the usual scenario in which the United States always act.

In cahoots with its corporate donors and Washington, HRW is part of an anti-Bolivarian propaganda campaign supporting regime change — a litany-based bald-faced Big Lie.

As it is known, the organization has issued a report on the situation in Venezuela. It is noted that "last May, President Nicolas Maduro won presidential elections against an opposition badly weakened by years of government repression, and amid widespread allegations that the polls had not met international standards of freedom and fairness."

Venezuelan repression is something that contradicts the principles of the United States democracy. We see examples in other Latin American countries where the US has managed to achieve its influence and control over markets. That is why Venezuela is ostensibly a country without "independent government institutions … to act as a check on executive power."

"A series of measures by the Maduro and Chavez governments stacked the courts with judges who make no pretense of independence," the report said.

For reference, Jorge Arreaza, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, reminded that a country with a beautiful socialist dream had been subjected to economic sanctions by the United States 45 years ago. He was referring to Chile – not Venezuela – where a fascist coup d’état organized by the Central Intelligence Agency had led to 17 years of dictatorship, suffering and torture. Nowadays, the United States continued to impede the dreams of Latin Americans.  This generation grew up under the fear that they would run the same risk as Chile had 45 years ago. Arreaza condemned the attack and siege of Venezuela, as well as the unilateral coercive measures against it. Those measures made it difficult for Venezuela to procure fundamental food stuffs and medicine for its people. Thousands of millions of dollars were needed to ensure that all Venezuelans were vaccinated. Venezuelans had lost some 100 million dollars in banks in Switzerland. In addition, recently, there had been an assassination attempt against President Nicolas Maduro and some military officials. The plot had been planned in Miami in the United States.

The economic crisis had led to forced migration, which had in turn been used to tarnish the image of Venezuela. The Government had in place a program called “Return to the Homeland” to achieve the return of its citizens. Arreaza rejected the reports of the outgoing High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, which had always been biased against Venezuela. He expressed hope that the new High Commissioner would uphold her independence and mandate. The Human Rights Council could count on the full cooperation of Venezuela and President Maduro.  The Council had to reject unilateral coercive measures against any country. Venezuela had a complete and full social protection system. Healthcare was free of charge for all despite the difficulty of having trained medical doctors.  Education was free of charge for everyone, and the Government had built thousands of housing units. Unemployment was below 6 percent, and despite the crisis food had been provided to some six million homes.  Lastly, President Maduro, in spite of the sanctions and pressures, had undertaken economic recovery efforts. Venezuela would not allow a repeat of what had happened 45 years ago in Chile.

For some reason, the United States does not take into account that "the Venezuelan judicial system is equally important for land law, supports international, constitutional and country’s statutory laws, acting independently from other branches of government under the nation’s Supreme Court.”

The Bolivarian spirit is stated straightaway in the Constitution’s Preamble, saying:

The law of the land "establish(ed) a democratic, participatory and self-reliant, multiethnic and multicultural society in a just, federal and decentralized State that embodies the values of freedom, independence, peace, solidarity, the common good, the nation’s territorial integrity, comity and the rule of law for this and future generations."

It "guarantees the right to life, work, learning, education, social justice and equality, without discrimination or subordination of any kind; promotes peaceful cooperation among nations and further strengthens Latin American integration in accordance with the principle of nonintervention and national self-determination of the people, the universal and indivisible guarantee of human rights, the democratization of imitational society, nuclear disarmament, ecological balance and environmental resources as the common and inalienable heritage of humanity…"

The above language is unimaginable in the US Constitution or statute laws – a self-serving government largely of men, not laws, a democracy in name only. Venezuelans have the real thing.

Another pressure on the people of Venezuela is the blatant lie that the country remains without food, medicine and support from the local authorities. The US created a PR campaign with a humanitarian convoy, which Maduro supporters allegedly publicly burned in front of the people, as reported by the New York Times along with other media that lie about global events.

By the way, there was no mass migration and flight from Venezuela. Moreover, many of those who had left had returned home because of unbearable conditions in Colombia, Brazil and other countries.

HRW: "Other persistent concerns include poor prison conditions, impunity for human rights violations, and harassment by government officials of human rights defenders and independent media outlets" — more bald-faced Big Lies.

Like Western establishment media, HRW ignored the ongoing attempt by Trump regime hardliners to crush Bolivarian social democracy — waging war by other means, harming the country economically and financially, bearing most responsibility for hardships affecting millions of Venezuelans, exacerbated by low oil prices.

What's most important to explain, the HRW suppressed, operating as an imperial agent, supporting what demands denunciation — the US’s attempt to illegally topple a sitting government.

No "persecution of political opponents" exists. HRW lied claiming otherwise—no political prisoners, no arbitrary arrests and crackdowns, no "extrajudicial killings."

There are no "serious abuses against detainees that in some cases amount to torture, including severe beatings, electric shocks, asphyxiation, and sexual abuse" — what goes on in US torture prisons worldwide, not in Venezuela.

A separate article discussed humanitarian conditions in the country, far short of what international law considers a humanitarian disaster — as what’s going on in all US war theaters, HRW failed to explain.

Maduro’s government and the courts strictly abide by international and Venezuelan laws. HRW lied claiming otherwise — including no suppression of speech, media and academic freedoms, no civil and human rights abuses.

Actions are taken against lawbreakers, elements involved in violence, chaos, and vandalism — in cahoots with US efforts to replace democratically-elected Maduro with puppet rule controlled by Washington and corporate predators.

HRW is an imperial tool, opposing principles it falsely claims to support.

Immoral Moralists, or Great Pretenders

For reference again, this is something that should have been said in the first place but we put it at the end so that the reader can read the examples from the Human Rights Watch work.

To make it perfectly clear, the organization was created in 1978 by human rights activists from Moscow, Prague and Warsaw. Later, the United States became its main patrons. The organization's original stated goal, according to Wikipedia, is to respect so-called human rights, including the elimination of the death penalty and the protection of LGBT rights. For a normal person, it seems like a real horror.

Advocating for the abolition of the death penalty for particularly notorious villains in the world creates a tolerant attitude towards crime and provokes people to commit more crimes.

Let's just say some scumbag rapes a dozen kids. What will he face in France where laws are regulated by Human Rights Watch efforts? Maybe 20 years in prison. Do you think then the convict will spend these years behind bars? Of course not. He’ll spend his time reading, studying, writing a thesis, and writing to HRW to complain about the violation of his rights in prison, so some judge will soften his sentence and release him from prison. So he’ll be living carefree, only with the limitation of an electronic bracelet for the rest of his sentence. That’s all.

And what about the fate of the raped children, you ask? HRW does not care about that at all. And the convict will probably act out again. That is how a tolerant attitude towards crime breeds more crime.

The struggle for human rights is a tool for global policy. If the United States wants to be friends with Saudi Arabia then there will no violations there and there will not be any HRW reports. But if they withstand the US, then HRW will come out with its usual reports.

Human Rights Watch is largely responsible for the collapse of Yugoslavia, the USSR, Libya, Iraq and other countries, as aforementioned. HRW is responsible for opening the Overton window to introducing tolerance for sexual perverts into the world. Wherever banks or big bosses change power or seize some property, HRW starts to act, creating pretexts for economic, political, or military invasions.

It’s also important to note a few names of people and organizations directly related to the activities of HRW:

HRW Director Karen Herskovitz Ackman, whose wife is the head of the Jewish center.

Director of HRW Kimberly Marteau Emerson is a responsible employee of the Clinton administration; she was responsible for the American propaganda in the USSR through the USIA Agency.

Kimberly's husband John Emerson is a former president of the Capital Group Companies, Inc., a group that manages at least a trillion-dollar asset. By the way, it has a stake in Rambler — an interesting combination of names of the three top leaders of trillion-dollar foundations: Rothenberg, Fisher and... Wagner. Experts will appreciate.

Director of HRW Michael Fish, who comes from Goldman Sachs.

HRW Director Bruce Rabbi. At the same time, co-chair of LGBT Advisory Committee, Committee for the promotion of LGBT.

There is no point in continuing: The reader has been given a comprehensive idea of who runs the Human Rights organization and what is the level of morality of this "non-governmental" organization, and this without mentioning the names of such HRW Directors as Steinberg, Soros, Warburg, etc.

Go on. Human Rights Watch serves, among other things, the interests of the American Council on Foreign Relations, whose task is to establish the dominance of the United States’ interests, as well as those of large businesses around the world.

Although not necessarily, if you realize that America and corporations are ruled by only a few hundred families. And clan nepotism is clearly visible if we examine the biographies of both members of the US government and corporations. And these two categories are served by think tanks that includes the offspring of the same families. All this is financed from hundreds of different funds, again created by the mentioned families.

Finally, the conduct of American policy on the planet in addition to the official state structures are engaged in either all the same funds or specially created human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, where we also see the familiar names.

Here we will only indicate the former high-ranking officials of the US government, who are now part of the management organization structures.

The above mentioned HRW Director Emerson and her former place of work, that is the USIA Agency, are described on Wikipedia:

The United States Information Agency (USIA), which existed from 1953 to 1999, was a United States agency devoted to "public diplomacy". In 1999, USIA's broadcasting functions were moved to the newly created Broadcasting Board of Governors, and its exchange and non-broadcasting information functions were given to the newly created Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. The agency was previously known overseas as the United States Information Service (USIS).

In short, direct subordination to the State Department. Recall, Emerson's husband is a former official advisor to President Clinton.

HRW Director Robin Zanders is a former US Ambassador to the Congo.

The former Director of HRW Vartan Gregorian was a participant of the official program running even with Lyndon Johnson in 1964, with the goal of the "White House Fellows" program being to attract private capital to govern the country.

HRW Director Susan Manilov is the wife of the Chairman of the American Committee on Public Diplomacy. The Committee’s activities are regulated by four legislative texts issued by the U.S. State Department.

The above-mentioned Director of HRW Rabbi is the son of the former US Ambassador to Italy. In addition, his father held the post of administration chief in the Cabinet of Dwight Eisenhower.

In addition, a good half of all HRW Directors, not counting their spouses or cohabitants themselves are members of the most powerful American organization called the Council on Foreign Relations. There is a direct link there between the vast majority of White House employees and State Department members with the entire American elite of the private sector. Bar none.

Therefore, to say that Human Rights Watch is a non-governmental organization is hypocrisy and lies. Technically, yes, non-governmental. But it is necessary to judge its affairs only on the basis of examples which are given in, for example, this article. Those who understand its essence are unlikely to ever want to believe in the truth of its words and actions.

Author: USA Really